Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, today I pay special tribute to GEN T. Michael Moseley, 18th Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, who, completed 37 years of distinguished service to our Nation today. He is an exemplary patriot, extraordinary leader, and a close friend. General Moseley began his accomplished career at Texas A&M and Webb AFB, where he earned his pilot's wings in 1973. He proceeded to a series of demanding assignments as flight instructor, test pilot and mission commander. His peerless operational skills were honed by the most prestigious positions, to include command at every level--most notably the Air Force Fighter Weapons School, the 9th Air Force, and the U.S. Central Command Air Forces. General Moseley led Airmen in peace, crisis and war--from Operation Southern Watch, through the harrowing days in the wake of 9/11, to victory over the Taliban in Operation Enduring Freedom and the destruction of Saddam Hussein's war machine in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The breadth and depth of General Moseley's assignments and the professionalism with which he has carried them out, reflect a keen intellect, and an unrivaled grasp of national security policies and air power's role in implementing them. General Moseley tirelessly worked to reinvigorate the innovation, flexibility, creativity, and strategic thinking that have been hallmarks of America's Airmen since the dawn of aviation. In this context, General Moseley redefined the Air Force for the 21st Century, ensuring that America's guardians will continue to fly, fight and win in both today's and tomorrow's conflicts. General Moseley has frequently testified before Congress on a wide variety of issues critical not only to the Air Force but to this Nation and its ability to meet uncertain challenges in the future. However controversial the topic or pointed the questioning, he has always provided the Members with his honest evaluation, balancing current crises with future requirements. I have been impressed by his unwavering focus on this Nation's security and ensuring that the U.S. Air Force remains the preeminent Air Force in the world, preserving America's asymmetric advantage in the air. It was General Moseley's exceptional grasp of warfighters' needs, born of his own combatant experience, that enabled the Air Force to provide unprecedented Global Reach, Global Vigilance and Global Power for both traditional and nontraditional missions. Under his leadership, the Air Force spread its wings over America's cities, delivered relief to victims of tsunamis and hurricanes, expanded international ties to reassure allies and deter enemies--all while flying and fighting as an indispensable part of the Joint force in Iraq, Afghanistan and other theaters of the global war on terror. His commitment to his Airmen has been peerless. In a constrained fiscal environment--and with lives in the balance--General Moseley's uncommon courage, expertise and foresight forged a set of initiatives transforming the Air Force while simultaneously recapitalizing an aging air fleet, worn down by 18 years of continuous combat. He sought to provide his Airmen with the quality of life they deserve, while seeing to their training, education and leadership. He has refocused the Service on a single core mission: bolstering warrior ethos and fostering joint and combined synergies. While many distinguished awards and decorations adorn his uniform-- from his own grateful Nation as well as from such staunch allies as Britain, France, Korea, Brazil, Singapore, and the UAE--what stands out most and what we honor him for today is his unflinching commitment to the cause of freedom and justice. As the 18th Chief of Staff and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from September 2005 to August 2008, General Moseley has been a trusted advisor on all aspects of airpower and its key role in promoting and defending America's interests at home and abroad. He remains to this day a staunch and consistent advocate of inter-Service and international cooperation as the most effective way of assuring allies, dissuading and deterring adversaries, and defeating implacable foes. General T. Michael ``Buzz'' Moseley's 37 years of distinguished service epitomizes bold leadership, strategic vision, intellectual flexibility, innovation, honor, integrity, dignity and selfless devotion. He has earned the deepest respect from all whom he has served during his illustrious career--most notably this Congress and a grateful Nation. I offer my sincere thanks and appreciation to GEN Buzz Moseley for his leadership, compassion, and service to the men and women of the Air Force and our country. I am honored to call you friend and pray that the Lord guard and guide you and your family as you begin the next chapter of your life.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, so that we can lock in a couple of things, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business, and then I would be followed by the junior Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I thank the junior Senator from Pennsylvania for allowing me to go ahead of him on something I think is very significant and something with which I am sure he agrees. Today, I want to call attention to a place that has been lost in the sea of many other conflicts and crises plaguing our world--Zimbabwe, a country slightly bigger than the State of Montana which sits in the southeastern portion of Africa. It has faced and continues to face difficult challenges and untold sufferings caused by an authoritarian and corrupt leader, Robert Mugabe. After fighting a long battle and civil war, Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980 from the white Rhodesians. Independence came with an envisioned sense of hope. Everyone thought good things were going to happen, and the President that was elected was a man named Robert Mugabe. But the honeymoon quickly ended with the realization that newly elected President Mugabe had fought the war to gain personal power and control rather than to provide freedom and democracy for its people. In the 1990s, the country continued to weaken under the self-centered leadership of Mugabe. As the Book of Proverbs--Solomon--tells us: ``Where there is no vision, the people perish.'' That is what is happening in Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe failed to provide a vision for his country, focusing solely upon himself and his ability to remain in power. The people of Zimbabwe have suffered dramatically as a consequence. In a country that once showed evidence of steady economic growth--a country, I recall, that was considered one of the wealthiest countries in Africa; that was considered to be the bread basket of Africa--it has now been named the world's fastest shrinking economy. In 2007, inflation rose above 8,000 percent. Unemployment is estimated at 80 percent, and 80 percent of the population lives on less than $2 a day. Mugabe's leadership has been such a disgrace. Throughout almost 30 years of his leadership, nearly 28 years, he has worked to tighten his rein over the nation by intimidation, violence, and oppression. In 2002, the Government initiated a farmland redistribution program which resulted in 400,000 farmers losing their homes and livelihood. The program resulted in scandal and embarrassment to Mugabe when investigations revealed that more than 300 farms were intended for his senior officials and ministers rather than for resettlement. In other words, these were payoffs to his political friends. In 2005, Mugabe initiated one of the most inexcusable incidents of his Presidency. Operation Murambatsvina--or translated, Operation Clean Out the Filth--was a demolition project the Government claimed was designed to reduce crime in the major city. It resulted in an estimated 700,000 Zimbabweans losing their homes. Twenty percent of the population has been reported as affected by the demolitions. Many people thought this was a political move aimed at squashing any potential protests or uprisings against the regime and displacing the opposition party base. Not only has Mugabe's actions displayed his blatant disregard for the well-being of his people, but he has also expressed this in his own words. In August of 2006, after a violent crackdown on a peaceful protest by the Zimbabwean union, Mugabe said he had warned, prior to the incident, that security forces ``will pull the trigger'' against the protesters. Mugabe said this: Some people are now crying foul that they were assaulted. Yes, you get a beating. When the police say move, move, if you don't move, you invite the police to use force. Many believe that the farmland redistribution and Operation Clean Out the Filth contributed drastically to the poverty affecting the Zimbabweans. The Government has accused food aid agencies of using food to turn Zimbabwe away from Mugabe's ruling party, and, in turn, continues to maintain tight control of food distributions. The totalitarian regime has, not surprisingly, placed a very significant emphasis on their military and security forces. In 2006, the Government reportedly spent more than $20 million--that is 20 million U.S. dollars--to purchase new cars for police, military, and intelligence officers. In a dying economy, it is stunning that Zimbabwe is able to buy high-priced military articles, to include their recent purchase of fighter jets from China costing more than $240 million. As you know, Madam President, China has an increasing influence on the continent of Africa, but their relationship and long support of Mugabe's ZANU-PF Party is concerning. China is currently Zimbabwe's largest investor and second largest trading partner. As most Western countries, including the United States, enforce an arms embargo against the country, China continues to sell defense articles to the regime. Most recently, South Africa refused to let a Chinese cargo ship unload because it was carrying more than 70 tons of small arms destined for Zimbabwe. China has also played a significant role in diplomacy in Zimbabwe. China was Mugabe's key supporter through the international outrage in response to Operation Clean Out the Filth. China worked to quiet the U.N. condemnation of the incident and is now expected to veto any proposed action by the Security Council to punish Mugabe's administration--which, of course, they can do under the rules of the United Nations. China's persistent support and supply to Mugabe's regime demonstrates their indifference to the violence, oppression, and potential civil war looming in the country. On March 29, 2008, Zimbabwe held Presidential elections along with parliamentary and local elections. I am very familiar with this, Madam President, because I was there when it happened. I was actually in Tanzania, and we were watching very carefully, with all the countries, all hoping that they would have an honest election. Sure enough, Mugabe lost. The incumbent President Mugabe ran for the ZANU-PF Party, and a man named Morgan Tsvangirai for the Movement for Democratic Change Party. The election process was tainted with intimidation of voters and violence against the opposition party and supporters of the opposition. Political rallies were banned. The opposition party's secretary general was jailed, denied bail, tried for treason, and may face the death penalty. There are also reports that the regime is restricting access to food in opposition areas, threatening already hungry people to either vote for Mugabe or to starve. The results of the race, finally released in May, indicated that the MDC opposition leader won the election but didn't quite reach the 50 percent, so there was a runoff that was scheduled for Friday--that is this Friday, the 27th. Sadly, this week, the opposition leader, because of threats on his life, pulled out of the race and refused to take part in what he calls ``a sham of an election process.'' He said he cannot ask Zimbabweans to vote ``when that vote could cost them their lives.'' He has taken refuge now in the Embassy of the Netherlands. Mugabe has clearly stolen the election, and the outlook for true reform for democracy for the people of Zimbabwe looks very bleak at this time. As I have traveled across the continent--and I have traveled across Africa more than any other Member probably in the history of America--I have seen wonderful things happening on the continent. Whether it is Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda, Ghana, Benin, or Cote d'Ivoire, in these countries wonderful things are happening. They are making great strides everywhere except Zimbabwe. While Mugabe leads Zimbabwe away from reaching its full potential, there are other leaders on the continent who have chosen a vision of democracy, freedom, and progress in their countries. And while not perfect, each is making improvements and taking strides to improve democratic practices and exercising the free political will. Mugabe will never allow his people to decide the next phase and direction of their country. I think we should call on the African leaders, which I have done personally in Africa--many of whom are my friends and brothers--and leaders all over the world to do what we can to help the people of Zimbabwe. I have to say, Madam President, and I speak firsthand because I was there when this happened, that Zimbabwe was once the bread basket of sub-Sahara Africa, and I have seen Zimbabwe now, the most devastated of all the 52 countries of the continent of Africa. With that, I yield the floor, and again I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for allowing me to go before his presentation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as in morning business to be followed by the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, and he would be followed by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg.

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, it is my intention--which I will not do right now because I know what would happen--to introduce an amendment to the housing bill that makes eminent sense. But I know and I have been told it would be objected to, so I will not do it, but I will explain it in hopes that at a later time we will be able to get this in. The amendment I have is simply a one-page amendment. What it does, it would prohibit individuals who annually make more than $75,000 and couples making more than $150,000 from receiving taxpayer-backed bailouts of troubled mortgages. The main provision of the housing bailout bill is a program to allow troubled mortgage holders to refinance their mortgage into a Government-insured loan through the FHA. The bill allows the FHA to take on up to $300 billion in troubled mortgages, into the taxpayer-backed program. In this bill, as currently written, the value of an eligible loan under the FHA is $550,000. The nationwide average value of a home is roughly $200,000. The average value of a home in Oklahoma is just under $150,000. I believe it is bad policy to put taxpayers on the hook for borrowers who took on more than they could afford and lenders who made bad loans to begin with. It is entirely unacceptable to have the Government put taxpayers on the hook for someone who qualified for a loan more than two or three times what the average American can afford. When Congress passed the economic stimulus package, Democrats vehemently argued certain people make too much money to benefit from a handout from the U.S. Government; specifically, eligibility for the full-time stimulus was capped at $75,000 for an individual and $150,000 for couples. So this amendment says that if you are too rich to get a full stimulus check, you are too rich to get a bailout. Another provision of the housing bill provides an interest-free loan of $8,000 for first-time home buyers and applies income limits of $75,000--there it is again--for individuals and $150,000 for couples. It is perfectly reasonable to apply those same income standards for individuals who are getting a taxpayer-backed bailout on their mortgages. Someone with a $550,000 mortgage pays approximately $3,300 a month on housing alone--that is assuming a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at a 6.3- percent interest rate. That comes to $39,600 a year in mortgage payments alone. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, average per capita income in the United States, in 2007, was $38,600; therefore, someone with a $550,000 mortgage will be spending around $1,000 more on their home alone than the average American makes in an entire year. The Congressional Budget Office came out and warned that 35 percent of the loans refinanced through the program will eventually default anyway. CBO also highlighted the perverse incentives in this bill, noting that banks will use the program to offload their highest risk loans to taxpayers. CBO said: . . . the cumulative [default rate] for the program would be about 35 percent and that recoveries on defaulted mortgages would be about 60 percent of the outstanding loan amount. Those rates reflect CBO's view that mortgage holders would have an incentive to direct their highest risk loans to the program. Washington should not be holding folks who have been responsible for their mortgage liability responsible for the irresponsible decisions of others. We should not be putting taxpayers on the hook for bad loans made by irresponsible lenders and borrowers. We most certainly should not be putting taxpayers on the hook for individuals who can afford two or three times what the average taxpayer can afford. This is especially true when there is no guarantee the program would not have to be bailed out after the additional taxpayer dollars. There is a very good chance, in fact, that this program will require additional tax dollars; that this is just the beginning. On June 10, the New York Times reported that the FHA--the agency we are mandating in this bill to take on the worst loans made during the subprime housing crisis--currently faces $4.6 billion in losses, four times the amount of losses than the previous year and over 20 percent of its capital reserves. The day before the New York Times story, Reuters reported that the head of FHA, Brian Montgomery, has serious concerns about the housing legislation we are now considering: Some in Congress are advancing legislation . . . that could be problematic for the economy and the country. He further said: FHA is designed to help stabilize the economy . . . it is not designed to be a lender of last resort, a mega-agency to subsidize bad loans. Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported the FHA is having serious trouble with the bad mortgages that are already on the books and will likely require an appropriation of over 1 billion in Federal tax dollars as soon as next year. This would be the first instance of a government subsidy for the FHA since it was created in 1934. The Journal reported: The FHA, which essentially is filling the void left by the collapse of the subprime market, will request a Government subsidy for the first time in its 74-year history. The agency says it will need $1.4 billion next year. The American taxpayer, the taxpayers in my State of Oklahoma, should not be put in a position where they are ultimately responsible for the irresponsible decisions of others, and they certainly should not be on the hook for relatively well-off individuals, not to mention large lending companies that made poor financial decisions. Lastly, let me say we are using the same standard, this $75,000 per individual or $150,000 for a joint return, that would be the same level we are using in the rest of this bill and other programs, including the economic stimulus program. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. And the Senator from Wisconsin be after Senator Gregg.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a very special person, one of our fallen heroes, MAJ Scott Hagerty. I feel a very personal relationship with this man. As we all do when we hear of a tragic loss, we research and see what he was doing, where he was. It is almost impossible to conceive of the idea that maybe I didn't even meet him personally because, in looking at where he was in Afghanistan and when he was there, where he was in Iraq and when he was there--I was there at the same time. Ironically, even in northern Uganda. Not many people even know where Uganda is, but in a minute I will share a few things that are going on there and what Scott Hagerty was doing. Scott died on June 3, 2008. He gave his last full measure when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle while he was on patrol in Zormat, Afghanistan. Scott was a member of the Army Reserve and was assigned to the 451st Civil Affairs Battalion, Pasadena, TX. Born and raised in Oklahoma, Scott graduated from Stillwater High School in 1984. As a senior in high school, he joined the U.S. Army at the rank of a specialist. He earned a bachelor's degree in political science, pre-law, and international relations from Oklahoma State University--OSU--in 1993. He received his commission through the ROTC program and then completed the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course at Fort Sill. After serving on active duty, he continued his service in the Army Reserve. He spent 11 years with the 291st Regiment in Oklahoma before transferring to the U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, Airborne, in 2004. Scott married his wife, Daphne, 12 years ago. They have two sons, Jonathan 10 years old and Samuel 21 months. Scott loved his family and enjoyed being a father. He spent his life helping others gain the same freedoms and experience the same joys that he had. Scott was deployed for a 12 month tour in South Korea and then served in Iraq from October 2004 to August 2005. As a civil affairs officer, he worked with Iraqis and Iraqi civilian authorities in helping them rebuild their government and country. Prior to his tour in Afghanistan, Scott spent a tour in Djibouti, Africa, to help promote stability and prevent conflict in the region. His mission included repairing wells in northern Uganda, where he and fellow soldiers restored more than 60 wells and provided 250,000 local residents with clean water. In Africa, he was also involved in providing suitable facilities for basic medical care for children. This is the part I find very interesting and coincidental. Scott was involved in northern Uganda. In northern Uganda, there are some things that are going on that not many are aware of. There is the LRA, the Lord's Resistance Army. One individual--his name is Joseph Coney. Joseph Coney, for 30 years, has mutilated and tortured little kids, recruited them to be in the army as his boy soldiers--12, 13, 14 years old. If they refuse to do it, they make this individual go back and murder his own family, back in the villages. I have been there. I have been in the same villages, the same places where Scott was. Scott didn't have to do this. This is something that was beyond the call of duty. It is heavy lifting. I saw a picture of him in an orphanage in northern Uganda. I have been to that same orphanage. There are not many of our troops who have done what Scott Hagerty has done. He wrote about his experience there saying: I have always dreamed of being a soldier, even as a little boy, so I know I am doing the job that was destined for me. He deployed to Afghanistan shortly after being assigned to the 451st Civil Affairs Battalion in February. His family said, ``Scott was very proud of his career in the Army, and we know he died doing what he loved . . . serving his country.'' Scott received numerous military honors, including two Meritorious Service Medals, six Army Achievement Medals, two National Defense Service Medals, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary and Service Medals and a Korean Defense Service Medal. I am saddened by the loss of my fellow Oklahoman. I am proud of his service, integrity, and commitment to our country. I read through some of the comments written in Scott's on-line Guest Book from people who knew him at different points in his life and I would like to share a couple with you: I had the honor of serving with Maj Hagerty in Gardez, Afghanistan. He was a father figure to me. I have great respect for him. He is truly my hero and will be missed more then he knows. I know he is looking down and watching over us as we continue our mission. We love you Maj Hagerty and will never forget you. The Highland Park family are mourning the loss of a wonderful parent at our school. Scott was not only a devoted soldier, but a devoted husband and father . . . Scott's presence will be missed at home and abroad. Thank you Scott! We are very proud of you! Highland Park Elementary School. Another one: Growing up with Scott, I was impressed by his quiet strength. I always knew there would be great things in his future as we stumbled toward adulthood . . . Thank you for the sacrifice you have made for my family. And lastly a comment left by his team that he worked with in Africa: Sincere condolences to the family of Maj Scott Hagerty from the present and third Civil Affairs team in northern Uganda. We only had e-mail contact with him, giving updates on how things were going here, as he was still interested--he was the first team leader here and broke a lot of ground. I am sure he stands guard over us all now. Today I pay tribute to Scott, a man who exemplified integrity and courage and gave his life as a sacrifice for his family and our Nation. I have to say this in the case of Scott: This is not goodbye, Scott. It is job well done. We love you, and we will see you later.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. The fact that it would increase by 53 cents a gallon I think is conservative because that is assuming we would have 268 new nuclear plants. Now, the very people who are promoting this bill and want to stop us from drilling, from exploring for oil and for gas, are the same ones who are opposed to nuclear energy. So they say in that period of time, by 2030, the most nuclear plants we could have would be 64. I think everyone agrees with that, so instead of 268 new plants, there will be 64. So you could say that--if you use the same percentages--it would raise the price of gas by $2, not just 53 cents. Well, we defeated the largest tax increase ever this last Friday. As I saw the majority leader coming through, he was smiling, and I hope that means he is going to bring it up so we can debate it more. I just get very excited about the fact that there has been a wake-up call in America. After all of those lonely years over the last 7 years, now people realize this is something that is not good for America. It took $4-a-gallon gas to make that wake-up call become a reality. So I am very thankful it happened. I congratulate the Senate on its wisdom. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. All right. I would like to continue my statements, then.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding that we are in a period of morning business; is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I came down to the floor for a totally different purpose. But my junior Senator was talking, and I am so impressed with some of the things he has shared with us today. He is being too kind in one area, though. Sooner or later we have to say who is at fault in terms of the increase. While he is right, it is us, I have and I would invite anyone to go to my Web site or go to the Environment and Public Works Committee Web site--it is epw.senate.gov--in there I have listed all the bills, I say to my good junior Senator from Oklahoma, that have come up since 1995 where we have tried to expand the supply of oil and gas in America, even the bills when we were a majority, when the Republicans were a majority. In October of 1995, we voted to implement a competitive leasing program for oil and gas exploration. That was within the coastal plain of ANWR, as well as offshore. It passed 52 to 47. Of that vote, 52 were Republicans, 46 were Democrats--right down party lines. Then, the very next month, on November 17--I remember that because that was my birthday--the Senate voted on a motion to adopt a conference report on the same thing--for a competitive leasing program for oil and gas exploration--and again it passed by almost the same margin. All the Republicans voted for it. All the Democrats voted against it. Now, those two bills were up there. And, of course, what happened? The President at that time, Bill Clinton, vetoed those bills. I could go from there all the way up to the present day. In March of 2005, the Senate voted on an amendment to allow us to vote on ANWR--right down party lines: every Democrat opposed it; every Republican supported it. On November 3, 2005, the same thing happened. In June of 2007, the same thing happened. That was a better one, actually. That was the Gas Price Act. The Gas Price Act I am particularly fond of because that was mine. We could have all the oil and gas production in the world that we need to bring down the price of gas, but if we cannot refine it, we are not going to be able to use it. So as to refineries, right down party lines, the Democrats opposed any new refineries in America. This one was more difficult to oppose because I think most people who are understanding of what happens during a BRAC process--that means Base Realignment and Closing Commission--when that happens, the communities close by a major military installation that is closed suffer economically, greatly. What this would do is take those closed, BRACed out, military bases and turn them into refineries. That saves millions of dollars of Government money because otherwise they have to be cleaned up to playground standards. You do not have to do that if there is going to be a refinery on it. So it is something everybody wanted. We arranged for EDA grants for communities to apply for to attract refineries. We could have had a refinery in every area of America where we closed military bases. But it was killed. On June 13, 2007, it was killed--right down party lines. It was 43 to 52. Of that, 43 Republicans voted for it; 48 Democrats voted against it. In 2008, we had a similar vote on ANWR. The same thing happened; then again on May 15 of this year. I am saying this only to correct that one thing my junior Senator said, in that he was right, it is our fault, but this is strictly partisan. I think people are going to have to realize that. Until people realize that, the same thing is going to happen. Until people write in, and the imagination is captured of the American people, and they understand what is causing the high price at the pumps--it is a very simple concept. As many have said, you should learn this concept in econ 101; that is, supply and demand--if you decrease the supply, the price does not go down; it goes up. What they are trying to do with the Energy bill to decrease the supply would cause the same thing. That is not why I came to the floor. I am glad to join with my junior Senator and talk a few minutes about what he said about the science behind this thing. This whole thing started back when they were trying to pass Kyoto. Like a lot of the cruddy things that happen in this country, it started with the United Nations. The IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences--these people are policymakers, not scientists--came out and said the science is here, the science is settled, the science is settled, the science is settled; and they kept saying it louder and louder, and they were backed up by a very liberal media. So the people actually believed the science was settled. But the fact is, the science was not settled. My junior Senator, Mr. Coburn, is right because time and time again, we talked about the medieval warm period. We talked about the cooling periods. Let's keep in mind that the climate has always changed in this country. God is still up there, and we are going to have these changes. They have taken place. The interesting thing right now is, as scientists will tell you, it has been cooling ever since 2001. Also, another interesting thing is, they talk about global warming, when, in fact, all during the 1990s, supposedly it was getting warmer, the southern hemisphere was getting cooler. The Antarctic was getting cooler. The last time I checked, the southern hemisphere was part of the globe. So we did not have global warming. Now all these people who were saying that was true--and I think probably the best example I used to use--it has been a while since I have used it--is when Al Gore was the Vice President of the United States and he decided to try to build a case whereby we would be ratifying the Kyoto treaty. So he hired a guy named Tom Wigley, a top scientist in America, to put together a study. This is the charge he gave him. He said: Let's assume that every developed nation--not developing; not China, not Mexico, not India--every developed nation signed on to and ratified the Kyoto treaty and lived by its emission standards, which they would not. Look at western Europe; 15 countries signed on to it, and only 2 of the 15 have met the emission requirements. But let's assume that is true, that they all do. How much, then, I say to you, Dr. Wigley, would this reduce the temperature after 50 years? His result was this: If all developed nations joined in and ratified the Kyoto Treaty and lived by the emission requirements, it would lower the temperatures by seven one-hundredths of 1 degree-- not even measurable. So we go through all this economic pain. I have never been as proud, I don't believe, of the Senate as I was last week because when I compare what happened in 2005 when they had the McCain-Lieberman bill, a very similar bill--not nearly as bad as this bill but a similar bill; it was cap and trade, the concept was the same--I was down here on this floor standing at this podium for 5 consecutive days. I was the only one willing to voice the opposition. We had a total of two Senators to come down in 5 days to give me support. However, last week, in only 3 days, 25 Senators came down. It shows that this huge financial power base that is over there in the far left environmentalist community--I am talking about the George Soreses and the Michael Moores and the various other groups that are out there in California; I call them the Hollywood elitists--those individuals have all the money that they dump into all of these campaigns. We were willing to take them on, and we won. The most votes Senator Boxer had with this change that took place in 2006--it is supposed to be a much more liberal Senate, and it is--she could only get 44 votes, not a majority of 51, certainly not the 60 votes that were necessary but only 44. I was just really pleased at that, in the fact that people are waking up. People recognize science is mixed. Some people say the science is real, some say it is not, but one thing that is not confused is the amount of money it would cost. We talked about this bill that we defeated--hopefully we didn't defeat it. I hope it comes up so we can debate it longer. Let me make this message right now to the Senate majority leader, Senator Reid: I want you to bring this back to the floor so that we can talk about it more and more and more and talk about the fact that this is a $6.7 trillion tax increase. Senator Boxer would argue that, no, this has a built-in system whereby poor people are getting some money back. When you analyze the bill, that amount comes to $800 billion. In other words, if we raise the taxes on the American people, for every $8 we raise the taxes, we are going to give them back $1. That is not a very good deal, but that is in this bill; to make us less competitive and less able to be reliant upon our own reserves--huge reserves that we have out there, that we could become energy independent overnight, that we were going exactly the wrong way. I saw a couple of editorials such as the Wall Street Journal which said that with gasoline selling at $4 a gallon, the Democrats picked the worst possible time to bring up cap and trade. The issue is starting to feel like the Hillary health care plan. Anyway, I would even argue with some of the people who put in an analysis as to how much that bill we defeated last week would have increased the price of gas at the pump. They say 53 cents a gallon. However, that 53 cents a gallon is predicated--

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority reserve the remainder of their time and that I be recognized out of order for 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. I believe what we need to do is understand that supply and demand still works. We have to increase the supply domestically, and we can do it by passing the Consumer-First Energy Act that has been proposed by Senator Domenici, myself, and others. The price at the pump would directly respond on notice of that type of legislation passing. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wanted to come and talk about the Democratic bill called the Consumer-First Energy Act. We go through the same things over and over. We have an energy bill that has no energy in it. I said this on the floor last December. We keep talking about energy, and every time we try to expand energy, try to expand the supply, it dies right down party lines. The Consumer-First Energy Act does nothing to increase access to America's extensive oil and gas reserves. It does nothing to promote nuclear energy. It does nothing to increase our refining capacity, something I have been trying to do for a long period of time. It does nothing for electricity generation or transmission and does nothing for the utilization of clean coal technology. Instead this act increases taxes on America's oil and gas producers, which means we are going to be paying more at the pump--we know that-- and increases Government bureaucracy. A cornerstone of the bill establishes criminal penalties of up to $5 million and 5 years in prison if a fuel supplier sells his product at an ``unconscionably excessive price.'' But the agency responsible for its enforcement, the Federal Trade Commission, says this legislation is unnecessary and even counterproductive. FTC Commissioner William Kovacic told Congress recently: My intuition is that it would create hesitation in the response to shortages and that that might tend to exacerbate rather than mitigate shortages. In addition to the FTC's opposition, price-gouging investigations are nothing new. They have been occurring for decades, with each reaching the same conclusion. The Investors Business Daily last month had an editorial: Senators also want to impose steep penalties on ``price gouging''--despite the fact that some 17 separate studies have found it doesn't exist. The plan amounts to little more than an attempt to impose price controls--a socialist tool dressed up in a populist garb. Democrats hailed their new measure as an attack on ``the root causes of high gas prices.'' That's one of the more laughable comments to emerge from the Senate in some time. Recently, in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the FTC issued another report after an extensive investigation into price gouging. Once again, it is the same conclusion. The FTC found: No evidence to suggest that refiners manipulated prices through any means . . . No evidence to suggest that oil companies reduced inventory to increase or manipulate prices or exacerbate the effects of a price . . . Additionally, Bill Richardson, former Secretary of Energy for the Clinton administration, when asked last year in a Democratic Presidential debate if oil companies are price gouging the American consumer, bluntly answered: No, they're not. Price-gouging legislation is a solution in search of a problem. Also, it is more of class warfare. If they want to blame somebody, they want to blame oil companies, the people who are actually plowing back more than 100 percent of profits into exploration at the present time. Federal law already bars companies from colluding to fix prices, and the Federal Government currently has all the legal tools necessary to address price gouging. According to the Congressional Research Service, ``at least 30 states . . . have laws that prohibit gouging, excessive price increases, or unconscionable pricing. Other states may also exercise authority under general deceptive trade practice laws depending on the nature of the state law and the specific circumstances in which price increases occur.'' So knowing what we do about price gouging, this provision is repetitive, unnecessary, and potentially counterproductive. This could have the effect of increasing the price at the pump. The other major component of the Democrats' Energy bill reinstates the windfall profits tax. Democrats want to impose a windfall profits tax despite the fact that we had this same tax almost 30 years ago and the results were predictable and harmful. Again, it is more class warfare. In 1980, under President Jimmy Carter, Congress imposed an excise levy on domestic oil production called a crude oil windfall profits tax. According to a 1990 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the results of the Carter windfall profits tax were very counterproductive. Quoting from that report: The windfall profits tax reduced domestic oil production between 3 and 6 percent, and increased oil imports from between 8 and 16 percent . . . This made the United States more dependent upon imported oil. This is what happened last time. We are supposed to learn from our experiences. Looking back to 1980, we now know what a windfall profits tax will do. It will decrease domestic production and increase America's oil imports--the exact opposite of what we need to do. Additionally, a 1984 General Accounting Office report called the windfall profits tax ``perhaps the largest and most complex tax ever levied on a U.S. industry.'' In May, Investors Business Daily editorialized in response to this new tax proposal: As any student who has taken Econ 101 at the local junior college can tell you, higher taxes don't encourage production; they discourage it. But Senate Democrats apparently played hooky the day the taxes were discussed. American oil and gas companies reinvest their profits into exploration, production, and other energy. This is how we can get on the road to expanding our production in America. America's major oil companies already pay the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. An additional $17 billion in tax increases will only further harm the international competitiveness of U.S.-based oil companies. Using the Energy Information Administration's numbers, oil and gas industry profits can be calculated to roughly account for about 8 percent of the price of a gallon of gas. So for a $4 gallon of gasoline, oil and gas companies profit approximately 32 cents. It is then arguable that if oil company profits were slashed in half, as has been proposed, it would only reduce the cost of a gallon of gas by 16 cents. And people are led to believe it will be $2 or $3. It is not true. It is arguable that if oil company profits were slashed in half, that would be approximately 16 cents a gallon. Mr. President, $17 billion in tax hikes will also ship American oil and gas jobs overseas. If indirect and other employment resulting from the direct activities and the earnings of these direct oil and gas employees is included, the total U.S. employment resulting from oil and gas activity is almost 8 million. For American jobs, for the international competitiveness of American companies, and for the consumers at the pump, Congress has to reject these Democratic attempts to increase taxes and implement backdoor price controls. What should we be doing? Oil and gas exploration and production is currently prohibited in 85 percent of America's offshore waters. We talked about the huge reserves, but it is prohibited. We are willing to do it, but it is prohibited in 85 percent of the waters. Other nations don't do this. Canada allows offshore drilling in the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the Great Lakes. Additionally, Cuba is looking to expand drilling which could occur 45 miles from the shores of Florida, and that is with technology that is much less environmentally sound. So we would have the effect of increasing any adverse effect that would come from that type of activity. Exploration and production activities are currently prohibited in the Pacific and Atlantic regions of the Outer Continental Shelf which hold an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of gas. This is equivalent to more than 25 years worth of imports from Saudi Arabia. Looking to Alaska, ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil, about 15 years worth of imports from Saudi Arabia. If President Clinton had not vetoed the bill back in 1995, we passed a bill that was in concert with what they want in Alaska and that is to be able to explore that very small area up there--if that had not happened, we would be in a position today, we would have 1 million additional barrels a day coming from ANWR. We know what that would do to reduce the price of gas at the pump. The Heritage Foundation describes ANWR's 19 million acres as the same size as South Carolina: Of that area, President Bush proposes opening about 1.5 million acres to exploration (roughly 6 percent of ANWR). Of those 1.5 million acres, only 2,000--an area the size of Washington's Dulles International Airport--would be devoted to drilling.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. As this Nation continues to fight in the global war on terror, the Army has been key to providing the capabilities it needs to persist in its struggle for liberty and democracy. Through the efforts of the U.S. Armys the world has been made a more secure, prosperous, and better place for all of mankind. The courage and dedication of these soldiers are an inspiration to us all, and may the rest of us endeavor to be ``Army strong'' in our own lives.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the commitment and duty of the Army soldiers who have risked their lives to preserve our freedom have left an indelible mark on this Nation. During the Army's 233-year history, tens of thousands of these brave men and women have sacrificed their lives on distant battlefields to keep our Nation safe. I salute them for their service to this country.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding we have the floor until 4:36, if I am correct, which means I would not have time to make a presentation I wish to make on the bill that was pending, the one that we, fortunately, voted against cloture on earlier today. But let me make a couple comments, since I would not have time to do that. First of all, I believe strongly that something wonderful happened last Friday. We have been fighting this battle for so long. People have been saying manmade gases--anthropogenic gases, CO2, and methane--were the major causes of climate change. I have to say, I believed that back 7 years ago, when I became chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. At that time we found out how much it would cost if we were to ratify the Kyoto treaty and live by its requirements. Fortunately, that amount we did not ratify. As time went by, I noticed in 2005 we had the McCain-Lieberman bill, also a cap-and-trade bill, which also tried to pin the problem on manmade gases--CO2. I remember standing down here on the floor and some of the proponents of the bill were down here. In 5 days, only two Republicans from the Senate came down and joined me in this fight. It was lonely for 5 days. We explained to people, No. 1, the science wasn't there; and, No. 2, the cost to the average American would be comparable to a $330 billion tax increase. Then I went back and looked at the tax increase of 1993. It was called the Clinton-Gore tax increase that was, at that time, the largest tax increase in the last 20 years. That was only $32 billion, so this would have been 10 times greater than that tax increase. Then of course we came up with the bill in 2005. After 5 days we defeated it, but only two Republicans came down and joined me. I am so gratified that last week when we defeated the Lieberman-Warner bill, 25 Members came down and showed that they were not afraid to stand and tell the truth about the causes of global warming--the accusation of global warming, because global warming has not been taking place now since 2001. It never took place in the southern hemisphere. Last time I checked, that was part of the globe. The problem was that no one would come down, but last week they came down, 25, and we defeated it. That would not have been comparable to an annual tax increase or cost to the public of $330 billion, as the Kyoto treaty would have, it would have been some $471 billion--a huge tax increase. But we did in our wisdom reject that. I feel very good about that. There is something that has not been said that I think is necessary to talk about and that is we knew this was coming. The Senator from Nevada, Senator Ensign, talked about President Clinton's veto of the ANWR opening, the bill that was in December of 1995. What he didn't say was that we had voted in both October and November of 1995. The Senate voted to implement a competitive leasing program for oil and gas exploration and the development and production within the coastal plain of ANWR. That was actually passed. It was passed again on November 17, 1995. I will always remember that date because that is my birthday. It was voted on. Then of course a month later the President vetoed it. Right down on party lines, in both November and in October of 1995, the Democrats voted against it, the Republicans all voted for it. Republicans want to increase the supply of energy in America. Those were three votes that show it. Again, in 2005--fast forward 10 more years: on March 16, 2005, the Senate voted on an amendment to the budget to strike expanding exploration on ANWR. The amendment to strike failed, 49 to 51. All the Republicans voted for the exploration, all Democrats voted against it. Again, on November 3, 2005, 7 or 8 months later, the Senate voted on an amendment to prohibit oil and gas leasing on the coastal plain. The amendment failed 48 to 51; 48 Republicans voted against it and 40 Democrats voted for it. June 2007--2 years later--the Senate voted on the Gas Price Act as an amendment. That was mine. You could have all the exploration you want, all the oil and gas you want, but if you cannot refine it, you are not going to be able to use it, so the Gas Price Act, I thought, was pretty ingenious. What we did was take those ailing communities that were adjacent to military communities, military bases that had been shut down by the BRAC process, the Base Realignment and Closing process, and would allow them to change that vacated area into refineries. It would save a lot of money because the Federal Government wouldn't have to clean them up to the standards of playgrounds; they could just be to the standards of refineries. It also provided that the Economic Development Administration would provide grants so people would be able to start up refineries. It was killed right down party lines. Again that was 2007. Then in 2008, May 13 of 2008, the Senate voted on an amendment to expand exploration in ANWR and to authorize drilling in offshore coastal waters. Again, it failed down party lines. I could go on. The next one I had was 2 days after that the Senate voted on a motion to instruct the budget conferees concerning increased exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf. What I am saying is this: The first thing we learn when we go to school is that at least American symbols are very strong. They help us to understand that supply and demand is still alive and well in this country. It still means something. If we do not expand the supply of energy in America, then the price is not going to go down, it is going to go up. That is exactly what the Democrats have done by refusing to let us explore for oil and gas as well as nuclear, clean coal technology, and the other forms we need to use. When it gets down to it, we know the cause of it. We know also we do not want to use the Energy bill. I am very glad the Democrats' energy bill--which didn't have any energy in it, zero, none--went down. Now we want an opportunity to introduce an amendment we have that does allow us to increase the availability and the amount of energy in America-- either oil and gas, nuclear, or clean coal technology, and all the rest, wind, and all the renewables also. We need to do that. It is a simple thing. We need to quit blaming each other. We know how we got to this position. Now we need to change our behavioral pattern. Americans right now realize--gas is $4 a gallon. I can assure you--I am not sure how it is in California and other States--in Oklahoma that is the No. 1 issue. In Oklahoma they understand supply and demand. We need to understand it in this Chamber too. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there have been several companies, organizations, unions, and environmental groups that have come out against this bill by sending letters urging Senators to vote no on the legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters signed by the following groups: Duke Energy, National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, United Auto Workers, Farm Bureau, and the United Mine Workers of America.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have to object. I am going to object, as I said earlier, to any of our speakers going over because they would be doing that at the expense of those who have not had a chance to speak. So let me renew that unanimous consent request, that the times for the next speakers will be Senator Vitter for 10 minutes, Senator Corker for 10 minutes, Senator Sessions for 5 minutes, Senator Domenici for 15 minutes, Senator Inhofe for 10 minutes, then Senator Boxer for 5 minutes, and Senator Inhofe for 5 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Very good. Then, Madam President, one thing further: The Senator from Kentucky did not mention the times. I want to make sure all of our speakers on our side know we are going to hold them to the times because we have more speakers than we have time. Thank you.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I don't object. For clarification purposes, the 1 hour we have is between what hours?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me just speak as a conservative as we address the farm bill. First of all, I have been ranked as the most conservative Member, so I don't think I should have to prove my credentials. Here is one of the things that people should understand: They should understand that the vote today on the farm bill was not a vote on this farm bill or another farm bill; it was a vote on this farm bill or reauthorizing the 2002 farm bill. A couple of things that are in here that people should know in a conservative way are, No. 1, under the previous farm bill that would have been reauthorized, a farmer could be making up to $2.5 million and still get subsidies. This takes it down to a half million. Secondly, the three-entity rule is out in this farm bill. Previously, someone could be claiming these benefits under three different farms; now they can't do that. So there are many reasons to vote for this bill other than those things that people have been talking about during the debate. I believe that is a conservative vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think it is very clear. Our speakers-- myself included--all we are asking for is to debate our amendments and get votes on our amendments. I now yield to Senator Corker from Tennessee 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding that I have 10 minutes and then the distinguished junior Senator from California will have 5 minutes and then I will have 5 minutes in rebuttal.