Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Communications, be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in SR-253, for a hearing on Universal Service.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 556, a bill to Reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in Executive Session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 2, 2003. The following agenda will be considered: S. Genetics Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2003; S. Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003; S. The Improved Vaccine Affordability and Availability Act; S. Caring for Children Act of 2003; S. 231, the ADAM Act. Any nominees that have been cleared for action.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. to consider the nominations of the Clay Johnson, III to be Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget and Albert Casey and James C. Miller, III to be Governors for the United States Postal Service.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 2 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing to examine issues relating to military encroachment. The meeting will be held in SD-406.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., in SR-253, for a hearing on human space flight.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I want to recognize Oklahoma's first loss in the fight for our country's security and our country's freedom and future. LCpl Thomas ``Tommy'' Alan Blair from Broken Arrow, OK, was killed in the line of duty on or about March 23. Lance Corporal Blair was described as a born leader, an enthusiastic student, and a confident young man who loved Oklahoma and his country. I remember him well when I went out and talked to him and some of the others before their deployment. All of them were enthusiastic, all of them were courageous, but all of them knew they were risking their lives. He was killed when an enemy rocket-propelled grenade hit and destroyed his amphibious assault vehicle as it was traveling near Nasiriyah, Iraq. This battle was described as the sharpest battle in the war to date, and Lance Corporal Blair paid the ultimate price--his life. Let me say again, he gave his life. Why would a person pay this price? Why would a person risk facing this fear and die in combat? Lance Corporal Blair fought and died because he was an American, he was a marine, and he knew what freedom really means--the freedom most Iraqis have never known, and a freedom most Americans take for granted. He fought for Americans who have already forgotten our freedoms were attacked on 9/11. He fought for the pundits who think this war is about oil. He fought for the protesters who have always had the freedom to express their opinions but never considered what it requires to protect and secure these freedoms for the future. Expressing your opinion in Iraq may cost your tongue being cut out of your mouth, it may cost your wife being raped in front of your children, or your family may just disappear. If you are lucky, it may only cost a bullet in your head without the suffering. How could such a place void of these fundamental freedoms exist on God's green Earth? This place does exist. It is Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein. Does the average American consider life without these freedoms? Does the average American consider the life of an Iraqi? Does the average American know the bravery Lance Corporal Blair felt in the last seconds of his life? I would say not. Lance Corporal Blair considered these freedoms and he considered them important enough to join the Marine Corps, serve his country, and eventually sacrifice his life. He gave his life for the continued freedom and security of the American people. He gave his life for the new freedom the Iraqi people will enjoy. I do remember talking to his group. Many of the people at that time were saying: Why are we so concerned about Iraq? Why not go after Osama bin Laden or some of the other areas? They forget what we are going through now is not a war, it is a battle in Iraq. The war was declared by the President of the United States at 8:30 in the evening on September 11, that fateful day. This is the No. 1 terrorist out there, by any measure. How many people has he tortured? How many people has he murdered? He is the premier terrorist of our time and has to be eradicated. I ask us and all Americans to think about the freedoms we take for granted, to think about the fear the Iraqi people feel every day, and think about the sacrifice LCpl Thomas Blair and his fellow countrymen have made to ensure we will always enjoy these fundamental freedoms. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family as they deal with the tragic loss of their son, LCpl Thomas Alan Blair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been listening to the tributes to a great man. I probably have a different feeling about Patrick Moynihan than most people do. Many people are not aware Patrick Moynihan came from Tulsa, OK, my hometown. Most people think of him as being a New Yorker, but really he is not. We hit it off many years ago before he was even in the Senate. I considered him one of the really sincere and lovable liberals of our time. People would ask, why are the two of you such close friends? I would explain to them that we have many things in common, even though ideologically we have nothing in common. In fact, during the years we served together in the Senate, his office was next to mine. When the bell would ring to come over and vote, I would walk to the door and wait for him so I could have those moments with him. I don't think there is anyone who has had a more colorful career than Patrick Moynihan. It is one we will remember for a long time. But he had courage also. I used to say this about Paul Wellstone. There are few people who are really sincere in their philosophy, and yet they want to do the right thing. I remember standing right here when Patrick Moynihan, just a few seats over, stood up during one of our debates on partial-birth abortion, and he made this statement in a long and passionate speech, going into all kinds of detail as to what this barbaric procedure is. This is a quote. He said: I am pro-choice, but partial-birth abortion is not abortion. It is infanticide. It took an awful lot of courage for him to say that. I can tell you from when we knew each other back before our Senate days, following his colorful career has been a wonderful experience. I am hoping we will have others like him. We will be truly blessed if that is the case. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this is something we are all familiar with, except perhaps new Members. Back in the fifties, we had a program to replace some of the money that was taken away when land was taken off the tax rolls. It is called impact aid. Over the years, people started taking money out of this program. It is an easy place to grab money. It has gotten down to 40 percent funding. We are now up to 70 percent. The current legislation would leave it at 70 percent. This amendment will increase it by $112 billion, bringing it up to $1.3 billion, 76 percent. That keeps us on track to have it fully funded 5 more years.

Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate that. I ask for the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. That is what I said.

Mr. INHOFE. We are used to using the B's around here. It is $112 million.

Mr. INHOFE. That is right.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, our brownfield legislation was very successful. Nothing is adequately funded, but this comes very close to being adequately funded. We put out an amendment to include the petroleum sites which doubles the scope of the brownfields program. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I do not believe it is necessary to have this additional amount of money. I ask you to defeat the amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, of all the amendments we have been talking about, this probably is the broadest tax increase of any of them. This is a tax increase on every business regardless of what business they are in, if their income tax shows $2 million or more. It has nothing to do with polluters. It also has a tax increase of 9.7 percent per barrel in excise oil and somewhere between 50 cents and $10 a ton in feedstocks. Right now we are getting the highest amount of cleanups and yet we have the lowest amount in the fund. It is really not needed now. This is not polluters pay. This is not a tax on polluters. This is a tax on people who do not pollute. The responsible parties are being held liable today. We had a hearing on it in our Environment and Public Works Committee. They are all being held responsible. They are cleaning up the pollution. I urge a ``no'' vote on this tax increase proposal of Senator Lautenberg.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, March 23 marks the 20th anniversary of President Reagan's historic address to the Nation in which he launched the program known as the Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI, designed to help protect America and our allies from ballistic missile attack. I would like to commemorate this occasion by placing a copy of President Reagan's remarks into the Record at this time. With each passing year, we see more clearly the wisdom of President Reagan's vision. The spread of technology relating to ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction has grown enormously in 20 years. Since September 11, 2001--and now as we are engaged in military operations to disarm IRAQ--more people have become aware of the growing threats we face from missile attack. When President Reagan spoke in 1983, he said it might take ``decades'' before reliable missile defense was a reality. And he was right. As he well knew, it was not only the technical and engineering hurdles that stood in the way, but also the formidable political obstacles. During the Clinton years, the outdated ABM Treaty was enshrined as the ``cornerstone of strategic stability,'' SDI was essentially scrapped, and, in 1996, the Congress's determination to build a missile defense system by 2003 was vetoed. But George W. Bush dramatically changed the political climate and has taken a different course--a course in keeping with President Reagan's commitment. In 2001, he wisely announced U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and in 2002, he announced that we would move to deploy the first elements, sea-based and land based for a real missile defense system capable of protecting U.S. cities from long-range missile attacks. I applaud President Bush for his steadfast commitment to America's national security and to fulfilling President Reagan's vision. The bold actions he is taking are moving us forward to the actual deployment of a missile defense capability that will serve our country for many years to come. I ask unanimous consent to have President Reagan's speech printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, for a moment let me build on something the distinguished Senator from Michigan said talking about our troops. Having been on the Senate Armed Services Committee and having been chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness for a number of years, I have had a chance to talk to troops all over the world in all kinds of circumstances. Never have I seen such a commitment as is out there right now by these young troops. I remember not long ago I was at a hospital where they were sending injured from Afghanistan. Without exception, each one of the injured troops--some sailors, some marines, some airmen, some Army--all said they were anxious to get back to their units. One young lady, whose name was Stennis--I remember her name because she was on the USS Stennis--a young sailor, she who got tangled up in a refueling line. It pulled her off to a free fall all the way down into the ocean, crushing both of her lungs. She was a very small person. She made it. She lived. She was in the hospital. Her words were these: I want to get well to get back to my units, and I want to make a career out of the U.S. Navy. When I look at our distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Warner, who was Secretary of the Navy, I can assure you we have never had sailors more committed than we have today. That is what is happening right now. I am pleased we are beyond the point of talking about objections. There are three major objections that various individuals are trying to voice. One was: We cannot do anything without allies. We are glad to realize we have allies. We have some 45 nations supporting us in this effort to get rid of this terrorist, Saddam Hussein. But even if we weren't, we remember Grenada, Panama, we remember 1986 when Ronald Reagan was President and when Qadhafi had blown up a building, killing some of our soldiers. We did not have overflight permission, and President Reagan sent in F-111s and pounded Libya, and we have not heard from Qadhafi since. The smoking gun argument, we all understand that what we are faced with, with Saddam Hussein--not Iraq, but Saddam Hussein--is an ability to do things that would not maybe kill 100 or 200 people but maybe a million people. Rich Butler, probably the most revered of the former weapons inspectors, said one warhead like they have in Iraq filled with 140 liters of VX gas could kill a million people. We have to reprogram ourselves and think in those terms. If you did need a smoking gun--which we did not have to have--if you did, last night we learned there are smoking guns. He had denied he had the very missiles he sent over and used last night. The last argument was there had to be a link with Osama bin Laden. We have to again reprogram ourselves because what we are dealing with now is a terrorist. This is not a war on Iraq, it is a liberation of the Iraqi people who have been oppressed and tortured for decades. There is a war involved. It is not a war on Iraq, it is a war against terrorism. This war was declared by our President at 8:30 in the evening on the fateful September 11. He said this is a war on terrorism. You go after the biggest terrorists. A lot of people do not think of Saddam Hussein as a terrorist, but if you measure the severity of terrorism by the number of people someone has tortured or murdered, certainly no one can hold a candle to Saddam Hussein. In 1983, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International documented that he executed 8,000 of his own Kurdish citizens aged 13 and older. In 1985, it is reported they executed 315 children between the ages of 8 and 17. In 1988--we all remember this very well because that is when he set a record. We believe it is an all-time record that holds to this day. He murdered, in one day, 5,000 of his own citizens using a chemical that produces the most torturous kind of death, where your eyeballs are fried and your lungs are actually fried. There was mustard gas and other chemicals. That was in 1988. Then they talked about the 60 villages--Human Rights Watch--attacked with mustard gas. Women, children, it did not make any difference. In 1990, Amnesty International listed 38 new methods of torture used by Saddam Hussein including mock execution, piercing of the hands with electric drills, electric shocks, sexual abuse, lowering the victims into baths of acid. Then in 1999, at a peaceful demonstration, security forces fired into a crowd of protesters, killing hundreds of civilians, including women and children. In the year 2000, they were looking for a new way to punish those who might be suspected of saying something about Saddam Hussein. They had been sending them into prison, but the prisons were full, so the new method was to pull the tongue out and tear the tongue off. In 1991, with a person I think very highly of, we made the first trip into Kuwait. It was so close after the war was over that they did not know the war was over and the fires were still going in the oil fields. The guns were still being fired. Alexander Haig, I, and a guy named Sauda Saba who was the Ambassador from Kuwait to the United States of America, we went in there to see what it was like. Sauda Saba had his 7-year-old daughter with him. He was of royalty. We went to their house where we found out that Saddam Hussein had used his house as one of the headquarters. We went through the house and found that the young 7- year-old girl's bedroom had been used as a torture chamber. We found body parts and hair stuck to the walls. I don't believe there is a terrorist anywhere who could be more dangerous than Saddam Hussein. That is what this is all about. This is not a war on Iraq, it is the liberation of the people of Iraq. I honestly believe the dancing in the streets after Afghanistan will not hold a candle to the dancing in the streets we will see not just in Baghdad, but in all the oppressed surrounding nations. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to ask my colleagues to support the Bond-Reid amendment to S. Con. Res. 23 which increases funding for highways to $255 billion and increases funding for transit to $56.5 billion. The amendment does not assume a tax increase. Nor do I take lightly that I am asking my colleagues to increase spending. Let me be very clear on this next point. This amendment does not have to mean deficit spending. There are choices we as a body can make to offset the increased spending. I share the same reservations that many of my colleagues do about deficit spending. Normally, I would be down here urging you to vote against any such amendment. I would like you to consider the following before you make up your mind on this amendment. The primary purposes of federal spending are to support a strong national defense and to invest in and maintain a strong national infrastructure. Unfortunately, we are coming out of an extended period in which we neglected defense spending and we are now having to play catch up. During the Clinton Administration, 1993-2001, defense spending was $407 billion under the rate of inflation. Yet during that same period, government spending increased. This increased spending went to domestic programs. I personally believe that, given this wartime environment, those domestic programs should now shoulder an across the board cut. I am not here to make that argument today, but rather to discuss the importance of increased transportation spending. Projected highway trust fund receipts do not support the level of spending in the amendment. However, we need to be honest in our analysis and recognize that the lag in trust fund receipts is temporary because of a slow economy and a sharp increase in the cost of fuel. Once the economy recovers and gas prices stabilize, receipt will increase above the current projections. Additionally, we need to get the revenue currently lost to the trust fund from users of the system who do not pay their fair share. As much as it pains me to say this, this budget resolution fails to provide sufficient funding to maintain our nation's infrastructure, much less improve it. The Federal Highway Administration's, FHWA, recent 2002 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance report states the following: . . . maintaining the overall conditions and performance of highways and bridges at current levels would require significantly more investment by all levels of government. . . . the average annual investment [needs] to be . . . 17.5 percent larger. The resolution before us sets spending at $30.5 billion in FY04, increases it to $35.1 billion in FY05 and then flat lines it at that level through FY09, for an average investment of $34.3 billion per year. This represents a significant shortfall of over $80 billion from 2004 to 2009 to simply maintain the existing system. Again, quoting from the Conditions and Performance report: Despite the historic investments in highway infrastructure and improving conditions on many roads and bridges, operational performance--the use of that infrastructure--has steadily deteriorated over the past decade. In 1987, for example, a trip that would take 20 minutes during non- congested periods required, on average, 25.8 minutes under congested conditions. By 2000, the same trip under congested conditions required 30.2 minutes, or an additional 4.4 minutes. Colleagues, this resolution simply does not adequately address the needs. The Bond-Reid amendment sets a reasonable spending level of $39.2 billion in FY04 and moves us in a direction that at least maintains existing infrastructure. My colleagues on the Budget Committee will argue that this amendment breaks the link between user fees and highway spending because it does not assume an increase in gas taxes. That is not correct. We can pay for this increased spending as I will outline. In the final analysis, the relevant Committees and this body will determine the best ways to pay for this amendment if we choose to do so. I will now talk about how we can increase spending on transportation and pay for it without increasing the deficit. First, the trust fund needs to be reimbursed the $8 billion in highway user fees that were transferred to the general fund during the drafting of TEA21. Those were dollars paid by highway users and should be used on highway infrastructure. This is a moral issue. When the motorist pays the gas tax at the pump, they rightly expect that the dollars they pay in taxes will be used for transportation infrastructure. We broke faith with them when we allowed the $8 billion transfer to the general fund. Furthermore, we as a nation have made some policy choices to encourage the use of certain fuels that cost the highway trust money. Most of us understand that the 5.2 cent tax incentive for ethanol use comes directly from the highway trust fund because ethanol users do not pay the full 18.4 cents per gallon. I believe most would agree that the highway trust fund should be compensated for this amount which is estimated to be over $9 billion. A vehicle that uses an alternative fuel creates the same wear and tear on the system as a gasoline powered vehicle. Additionally, there is a national policy to encourage the purchase of hybrid and electric vehicles. While these vehicles address an important policy goal of promoting clean burning transportation, they also cost the highway trust fund money. They either pay a limited amount of fuel taxes because their vehicles are hybrids, or in the case of electric vehicles they do not sue gasoline at all and thus do not pay anything into the highway trust fund. Yet the highway trust fund is expected to pay for the infrastructure for their use. Currently there are 640,000 hybrid vehicles on the road. It is estimated that by 2009 there will be 5 million. This is going to be a real problem in the future in terms of how we fund transportation infrastructure. It is irresponsible to not address this before it becomes a crisis. We need to work now on coming up with a fair mechanism whereby the highway trust fund is compensated for these vehicles using the highway system. I believe that could result in up to $10 billion of new revenue into the trust fund. Indexing the current gas tax to inflation would result in about a one-half cent increase per year and yield $17 billion from 2004-2009. Additional options include: Interest on the trust fund cash balance--$3 billion plus; Fuel Tax Evasion Measures--$6 billion; Lost interest on the $8.1 billion transfer--$2 billion; Retroactive Interest on TEA-21 cash balance, 1991-2003, $4.5 billion; Bonding--$30 billion, American Association of State Highway Officials; Clinton Gas Tax Increase Paid into General Fund--over $40 billion. On this last option, I realize it is not feasible, but that doe not take away the fact that this money belongs to the highway trust fund. Added together, these ideas generate more than enough to offset the increased spending proposed by this amendment. Again, I oppose deficit spending and will not ask my colleagues to do so. If I did not believe that there was a way to get this spending without increasing the deficit, I would not be down here today asking you to vote for it. Personally, I support across the board cuts to pay for the amendment, but again, I recognize others do not share my feelings on this and so I have given several very viable options from which to choose. Finally, I realize that in times of economic downturn and the war, Senators are hesitant to further increase spending. I don't think my reputation around here is that of someone who goes out of his way to increase government spending. I would hope that most recognize that I am a strong advocate of slowing down the rate of government spending and in most cases I favor cutting spending. In this instance, I believe it is the right thing to increase spending because we cannot strengthen our economy unless we have an efficient transportation system. In order to improve our transportation system we need to invest significantly more than is assumed by this budget resolution. Today's vote is the first step in drafting a bill that will govern how and where our transportation dollars are spent. If we short change ourselves today we won't get a bill that improves transportation or adds to the national economy. I ask you give the Environment and Public Works Committee the head room we need to write a bill. Support the Bond-Reid amendment and know that it can be done without increasing the deficit by using some of the above mentioned options.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss America's national security and the need for American independence from Middle Eastern oil. America's chronic dependence on foreign oil is a critical national security issue. It not only affects citizens and businesses nationwide, but also has a direct impact on our Nation's ability to fight and win wars. As we prepare to engage in military operations in Iraq, it is important to understand that our forces are highly dependent on foreign oil, much of which comes directly from Iraq. In other words, we are dependent on oil from Iraq to fight a war against Iraq. During the 1970s energy crisis, America was 36 percent dependent on foreign oil. Today we are 56 percent dependent, and by 2010, we are headed for well more than 60 percent. For the military, it now takes eight times as much oil to meet the needs of each U.S. soldier as it did during World War II. The Department of Defense today accounts for nearly 80 percent of all U.S. government energy use. During the 1991 Persian Gulf war, our 582,000 soldiers consumed 450,000 barrels of petroleum products--four times the daily amount used by the 2 million Allied soldiers that liberated Europe from the Nazis in World War II. Since World War I, the outcome of every war has been influenced by the control of the energy. We are talking about a serious national security issue. As a result of military operations in Iraq, we must prepare ourselves for the possibility of disruptions in the flow of oil from the Middle East. Iraq has been the fastest growing source for United States oil imports. Shockingly, in the year 2000, $5 billion of American money went to Iraq to buy oil. After September 11, when asked how U.S. dependency on foreign oil relates to our national security, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said that U.S. dependency on foreign oil ``is a serious strategic issue. . . . My sense is that [our] dependency is projected to grow, not to decline. . . . it's not only that we would, in a sense, be dependent on Iraqi oil, but the oil as a weapon. The possibility of taking that oil off the market and doing enormous economic damage with it is a serious problem.'' It is critical that we develop our own resources and establish our energy independence. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has reviewed our national energy policy. He has warned that unless we act now, we will threaten our national security, damage our economic prosperity, and harm our quality of life. Likewise, in both 1995 and 1999, the Secretary of Commerce acknowledged, pursuant to a law directing his assessment, that our oil deficit poses a threat to national security. This threat has been acknowledged by both sides of the aisle. According to Secretary Abraham, consumption of energy has risen sharply yet production continues to decline. In a report released by the Energy Information Administration, the Department of Energy estimates that oil and gas reserves totaling 1,166 trillion cubic feet are recoverable in the lower 48 states and Alaska. The oil we could recover from three square miles of Alaska alone would allow our Nation to replace the oil we buy from Saudi Arabia for 30 years. The time to act is now--not for some immediate quick fix, but for the long-term security of America in the years and decades ahead. Our lack of an adequate long-term national energy policy is not a partisan matter. It is a supreme national challenge that cannot be continually ignored without posing an increasing danger to our security and our way of life. Sadly, our Nation has failed for three decades to address this issue properly. The tired refrain that ANWR ``will destroy the environment'' is so out of date and out of touch with reality when we have the technology and the know-how to affirmatively protect the environment while meeting an important long-term national security challenge. Additionally, I wish it were required for everyone who is going to be voting on ANWR to take a trip up to the North Slope of Alaska to see what we are really talking about. It is not a pristine wilderness. We are only talking about a very small, a minuscule part of that area up there, and we are talking about an environment where the Eskimos, the local people, are begging us to come in and open it up. They have estimated that between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil will be found in ANWR's Coastal Plain--up to 16 billion. That equates to over $300 billion worth of American oil. The American people want our country to comprehensively rebuild our military, our defenses and our future security on all fronts. This was true before September 11. It is only more true today. It is time for the Senate to vote, for the Congress to act, and for America to move forward towards true and lasting energy independence.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, earlier today I submitted a request to the Senate to be considered with respect to the referral of the nomination of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works for the 108th Congress. The order reads as follows: Ordered that, when the nomination for the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is received by the Senate, it be referred to the Committee on Armed Services, provided that when the Committee on Armed Services reports the nomination, it be referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works for a period of 20 days of session, provided further that if the Committee on Environment and Public Works does not report the nomination within those 20 days, the Committee be discharged from further consideration of the nomination and the nomination be placed on the calendar. This order has been closely coordinated with both the chairmen and ranking members of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. As chairman of the EPW Committee and a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, I thank Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for working with Senator Jeffords and myself.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I hereby introduce, by request, the Clear Skies Initiative to reduce harmful air pollutants. I am pleased that Senator Voinovich and I and our counterparts in the House have the opportunity to work with the President on one of his top legislative priorities. Clear Skies demonstrates the President's serious commitment to providing strong environmental protections for the American people. It is the most aggressive presidential initiative in history to reduce power plant emissions. Clear Skies will build upon the remarkable environmental progress we've made over the last 30 years. Since passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970 the nation's gross domestic product has increased 160 percent, energy consumption has increased 45 percent, and population has increased 38 percent. At the same time we've reduced emissions by 29 percent. President Bush understands that achieving positive environmental results and promoting economic growth are not incompatible goals. Moving beyond the confusing, command-and-control mandates of the past, Clear Skies cap-and-trade system harnesses the power of technology and innovation to bring about significant reductions in harmful pollutants. I look forward to working with the Administration on crafting a sound bill. I believe Clear Skies represents a good starting point for moving forward with the legislative process. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I can relate to the remarks of the Senator from Ohio. He and I had the honor of sharing the same position of mayor of a major city. It happens I started--maybe you did--the first Hispanic commissioner in the city of Tulsa. We had a sister city in Mexico, Ciudad de San Luis Potosi. They would come up there once a year for this big exchange program. I can remember standing there in front of all of our citizens, our Hispanic citizens of Tulsa, saying: Como Acalde de la ciudad de Tulsa, yo quiero decir Bien venidos, bien venidos a la ciudad. Creemos la Ciudad de San Luis Potosi es la ciudad mas hermosa de todas las ciudades del mundo. Their faces shined and they realized we were participating in their culture and they in ours. They asked me the question last week, and I asked the distinguished Senator from Utah, What do we say to them when we go back and talk to them? Why won't they give us a chance, give one Hispanic a chance at a high office? They asked me that question and I did not have a very good answer for them. But they said, You know, there are a lot of us out here who really do care. They said, Why don't you kind of visit with us a little bit. Muchos Hispanos estan eschuchando ahora. . . Y Yo Quiero Decir. Por desgracia, hay personas en el senado que no quieren escuchar a ni una palabra de la verdad. Yo invito a la comunidad hispana para llamar a sus senadores para insistir en los derechos de Miguel Estrada y en la confirmacion de Miguel Estrada como juez. Llame los senadores, todos los senadores, especialmente los senadores, de los estados de CA, FL, NY, LA, AR y NM. Llame ahora y preguntalos, <> Es su mision. Llame ahora! Los Estados Unidos necesitan un hispano . . . y eso hispano es Miguel Estrada. Vaya, vaya a llamar imediamente. Los hispanos quien estan escuchando ahora pueden hacer la diferencia. Gracias Mis Amigos. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. One last question. You have answered it already, and this is not whether or not we want to vote for or against Miguel Estrada, but does he deserve a vote, a public vote, on the floor of the Senate?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been listening to these brilliant legal minds asking questions.