Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Twenty-five minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. I assume the Senator has an opening statement to make, and I do, too, on this legislation we are going to be going to. If you have an opening statement, Senator Specter would like to follow you and I would follow him. Is that an order that would be acceptable to the Senator?

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the junior Senator from California is going to want to yield back the morning business time, I suppose, and get on with the bill; is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. No.

Mr. INHOFE. That will be fine on the time on the other side.

Mr. INHOFE. I suggest to my friend from Missouri that I am sure Missouri is not that different from Oklahoma and it is the major concern people have. That is all, when I go around the State, people are talking about now. Many different economic studies show gasoline prices rising significantly under this bill. Madam President, $1.50 is just an estimated range. One of the Government EPA studies shows gasoline prices going up by $1.40. Another independent agency study, the independent Energy Information Administration, predicts it will go up by 41 cents a gallon to $1 a gallon by 2030. As gasoline prices continue to rise and set new record highs every day, this bill would only keep prices rising. The Energy Information Administration study predicts that gasoline prices will increase anywhere from 41 cents per gallon to $1 per gallon by 2030. We are waiting for a Senator. How much more time on the opposing side do we have at this point?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am going to have an opening statement. Let me say that my good friend Senator Boxer and I, the last time we had a major bill on the floor, were in agreement with each other having to do with the Water Resources Development Act and, prior to that, transportation reauthorization. On this, we very much disagree. She has every right to be wrong. I wish to also mention, since she commented about the possibility that the cloture vote might be tough, I don't think it will be because there are a lot of people who very much oppose this legislation who are going to vote for cloture, including some of the leadership on our side that is opposed to this bill. Although the vast majority of the scientists do not believe that manmade anthropogenic gases, CO2, methane, are a major contributor to climate change, that is not a part of the debate of the Lieberman- Warner bill. If it were, it would take a lot more time than we will be able to devote. So we are not going to discuss that. That is for another day. As we begin the debate today, the climate legislation, I want to make a few points. First, I wish to discuss what we as Republicans stand for, then talk briefly about the process of how we got to the debate and how we got the debate on the floor today, then, finally, discuss how we wish to see the floor debate progress over the coming days or perhaps the coming weeks, as some believe it might be. First and foremost, we, as Republicans, believe any legislation that attempts to address climate change must protect American families and must protect U.S. workers. It has to maintain global fairness and, finally, offer clean energy solutions. Unfortunately, this bill, the Climate Security Act of 2008, which, it is my understanding, is what it is called now since this has been an amendment or a substitute that we are considering, fails on all of these counts. We believe any climate legislation must offer clean energy solutions. Substantial investment must be made in new clean energy technologies which would generate more energy efficiently by producing less carbon without the Government picking winners and losers. It makes good business sense to produce energy more efficiently, and American companies are at the forefront of developing these new technologies. We support investments in solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and other innovative technologies, but we must be careful not to interfere in the free market system or we might stifle new innovations. Any approach that addresses climate change must incorporate more emission-free nuclear power. We are on the verge of a nuclear renaissance in this country, and it is key to our long-term domestic energy independence. We have to address the remaining issues that hinder the construction of new nuclear plants such as loan guarantees, waste, and regulatory certainty. Senator Domenici, the greatest champion the nuclear industry has ever had, is retiring at the end of this year. I can think of no greater honor to him than to make his renaissance a reality, the renaissance of nuclear energy. Coal is our most abundant energy source. It must be a part of any solution. We must invest in clean coal technologies in order to increase our energy security. While we are continuing to explore carbon capture and storage, we cannot hold the future use of coal hostage to this one technological feat. Senator Byrd has been a tireless advocate for greater use of coal, and I know Senator Voinovich and Senator Barrasso on the committee have been championing its use. We need to promote natural gas. Increasing supplies of natural gas are needed in order to compensate for fuel switching which could harm America's industrial base and export jobs. We know that fuel switching is taking place right now. We have an almost limitless supply of natural gas available, and we have proven we can develop this important resource in an environmentally friendly way. I wish to see us build upon Senator Warner's past work and open up more of the offshore resources which would be absolutely necessary for us to capture this natural gas. We must seriously consider how climate legislation will impact economic competitiveness. Emissions are a global issue which should be addressed globally, not unilaterally. All major emitting countries, including developing nations, must participate in order for any U.S. program to produce meaningful reductions in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Today China emits more carbon dioxide than we do. That divide is only going to grow because 2 years ago we produced more than they did. China is increasing their number of coal-fired generating plants by two each week. The Kyoto treaty expires next year, and any future treaties should include developing nations. Any action has to provide real protections for the American economy and jobs. American jobs should not go overseas where environmental laws are less strict and emissions increase. If the United States were to act unilaterally, manufacturing facilities will go overseas, because they have to go where the energy is. We know that. That is where the energy regulations or emission regulations are more lax. This will result in more emissions at the industrial source and more emissions in transporting products back to the United States. Let me repeat that. In the event we acted unilaterally and we had a cap-and-trade system that ended up reducing emissions of CO2, then companies that would be the losers in this program would merely move to China or India or down to Mexico. There they don't have any emission requirements. So it would actually have the effect of increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Any action has to provide real protections for the American economy and jobs. We must protect American families. Any action should not raise the cost of gasoline or energy to American families, particularly for the low income and elderly who are most susceptible to energy costs. Those who make $20,000 a year spend one-third or more of their income on energy. We can't turn our back on less fortunate people. We have to carefully consider the policy tools used to enact any climate legislation. Any solution must not include slush funds controlled by Federal bureaucracies used to reward political friends. The climate solution should not require an overhaul of our economy, and those decisions should not be made by nameless bureaucrats rewarding friends or pet projects. Senator Corker has examined this legislation carefully and has outlined over 45 new programs created by this bill. As the Wall Street Journal said last week: This bill would impose the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s. We can't afford any tax increases either directly or indirectly. We must recognize that true innovation comes from the private sector. This bill will raise over $6.7 trillion from carbon sales and auctions primarily coming from consumers. In other words, consumers are going to be paying the $6.7 trillion. But it does direct $2.45 trillion back to consumers. So if all the transition assistance funding goes directly to consumers without the businesses or States keeping any of the funds to run their transition programs, which they are allowed to do, this means that over $4.2 trillion will be used to fund new government programs. The Senator from California referred twice in her opening remarks to Senator Gregg, complimenting him, saying he believes the only difference between the two of them is he wishes to send this back to the taxpayers rather than to have $4.2 trillion of new bureaucracies in this country. I agree with that. Any solution has to be national in scope without States or regions imposing duplicative or additional requirements on top of a Federal system. It will be impossible for American industry to remain competitive if different regions or States have additional climate programs on top of a Federal program. Finally, any national program must contain a transparent, effective cost-control mechanism to avoid harm to the economy and job losses. There are many ideas out there which might work, including ideas from Senators Bingaman and Specter. Senator Specter just spoke. Simply borrowing credits from future years will only create a larger problem later on. How we got here: Unfortunately, the bill we are discussing today violates all of these principles. It ignores the needs of American families. It jeopardizes the jobs of American workers. It does not offer a global solution and, in fact, will increase global emissions. It does not promote good, clean energy solutions and, in fact, will make us even more dependent upon foreign sources of energy. One of the chief problems with this legislation is that it was hastily considered by the Environment and Public Works Committee without the benefit of the appropriate legislative process, and a new version is now being considered on the Senate floor that we have had no hearings on whatsoever. The chairman of the Environment Committee has stated--and you are going to hear again and again today and in the next few days and maybe the next few weeks--that the committee held over 20 hearings last year before proceeding to a substitute and a full committee markup. However, you must take a look at the type of hearings we held. Most of the hearings examined the potential impact of climate change 50 years in the future. My favorite example is a hearing held on May 24 last year: ``The Issue of the Potential Impacts of Global Warming on Recreation and the Recreation Industry.'' That was the name of the hearing. The apparent point of this hearing was to show that if there is no snow in 50 years, the skiing industry might suffer. Well, I think that is probably a reasonable statement, and I think it would. But the thing is, that did not really address a cap-and-trade system that we needed to study before coming to the floor. Unfortunately, the list of issues unaddressed by this committee is longer than the actual list of hearings the chairman did hold. These topics, which were never explored by the committee prior to crafting the legislation, include how to draft a cap-and-trade system--how do you do it--how to allocate credits; how to design an auction system; how many credits to assign each industrial sector; how to structure the Carbon Market Efficiency Board; how to create a domestic offset program; what to do with international offsets; what the impacts would be on fuel switching; whether carbon capture and storage technologies will be available by 2030; whether the number of nuclear powerplants can be built in time to provide the necessary electricity; how the impact on the natural gas supply will affect other industries; how many jobs will be sent overseas; how much worldwide emissions will increase when U.S. jobs will be sent overseas; what the international provisions' impacts will be on trade and particularly exports; how to effectively contain costs through a transparent mechanism. The list goes on and on and on. Contrast this committee process with the process currently underway in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Chairman Dingell's committee, which has jurisdiction over climate change and environmental issues in the House, is pursuing the issue under a much more methodical and deliberative process, as any legislation of this magnitude demands. Acknowledging the complexity of the issues surrounding any mandatory greenhouse gas reduction policy, the committee has held a series of hearings and has released several white papers. The topics have included the fundamental aspects of greenhouse gas cap-and-trade policy, including the point of regulation and the benefits of auction versus allocation schemes; the interaction of climate change policy with other environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act; State and Federal preemption issues; international competitiveness and how to engage the developing world; and technology barriers. These are only threshold issues, as each one lends itself to further examination. Now, that is what has been done over in the House of Representatives in Chairman Dingell's committee, and he has made a lot of progress over there, and there are some things we should pay attention to. In fact, we plan to be using some of that on the floor here. While the subcommittee did hold one legislative hearing prior to the markup and the full committee held three such hearings over a 2-week period before the full committee markup, all these hearings were held without the benefit of any economic or environmental analysis. The committee members had no idea what the impacts of this legislation would be when we considered the bill in December. We offered a number of amendments to protect workers, families, and to try to keep a check on energy prices. Almost all of them were defeated. But we were promised that our issues would be addressed before the bill reached the Senate floor. Well, that was last December. On May 20, less than 2 weeks ago, the committee bill and report were finally filed after a more than 5-month delay. For a bill of this magnitude--and I remind my colleagues how the Wall Street Journal characterized it--I will repeat again--``this bill would impose the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s''--only allowing Senators to review the report for less than 2 weeks is highly troubling. Even more troubling is that the same week, we all saw for the first time two more versions of the same bill. Later on May 20 a new version of the bill with a never before seen amendment was filed and held at the desk as a new bill, S. 3036, which is actually the version we will be voting on this evening. Then finally, on Friday, May 23, a managers' substitute which completely rewrote the legislation was circulated to Members. I can only assume that once cloture is invoked--and it will be invoked--and we begin debating this bill, the substitute will be offered, which, of course, is something that has never been the subject of hearings, economic analysis, or an environmental benefits test. Since the markup last December, we have had numerous economic modeling and analysis conducted by the EPA, the Energy Information Agency, and multiple private sector analyses. Unfortunately, the committee of jurisdiction, the Environment and Public Works Committee, never bothered to hold a single hearing on any of these economic reports. I would like to point out that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held an economic hearing on our bill 2 weeks ago, and I applaud Chairman Bingaman for holding that important hearing. I will be quoting from that hearing from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee several times during the course of this debate. So where are we today? We spent months holding impact hearings and then rushed through a few quickly scheduled legislative hearings and held a markup without any analysis of the bill. We then waited over 5 months before receiving yet two more drafts of the bill--the last version a mere 10 days ago. The Senate is now being asked to vote for cloture on a motion to proceed to a bill that was released 2 weeks ago. Although I believe we really need to debate these issues on the Senate floor--and many of the Members who oppose the Lieberman-Warner bill are voting to proceed to it--I find it most difficult to vote to proceed to the largest tax increase in the history of America. The mechanics of this bill, the impacts, and the costs have never been fully debated, and they deserve to be. Proponents of this legislation have talked about how important this bill is and why we need to act. I believe this warrants a full debate. In 1990, the Senate spent over 5 weeks debating the Clean Air Act amendments. I was serving in the House at that time. It went on and on and on. This bill goes much further than the Clean Air Act amendments in its impact on the American economy and jobs and our international competitiveness. It will do more to direct our energy policy for the next 50 years than either the Energy bill of 2007 or the Energy bill of 2005 combined. I hope the majority intends to provide enough time to fully debate this legislation and does not plan to rush it on and off the floor in an attempt to check a box. Over the next few days, you will see a number of Republican amendments, which I believe will get bipartisan support, which will attempt to protect our workers, our families, our international competitiveness, and will promote clean energy solutions. There have been many comments in the press, particularly from the chairman of the committee, that this bill will be pulled if any so- called weakening amendments are adopted. I hope we will have a constructive and open debate on this bill. There will be many amendments offered and, I hope, debated and voted upon. This bill is the largest bill we will consider this Congress. In fact, it is probably the largest bill ever considered by the Senate in its impact on the economy and our entire way of life, and I hope the majority will give it the time it deserves. But 2 weeks from now or whenever that vote does take place--keep in mind, tonight's vote at 5:30 is only a cloture vote on a motion to proceed. It is a procedural vote. It allows us to limit debate on the motion to proceed to the bill. But whenever the real vote comes or however long it takes to reach the final vote, it will be both interesting and informative to see how many Members of the Senate vote for the largest tax increase in the history of America. Now, we will be talking about a number of things during the course of this debate. Some of this will be tonight, some of it will be over the next few days. We are anxious to do that. For our purposes today, we will be allocating time, and I would like to announce that after the time that is already under a unanimous consent agreement to go to Senators Lieberman and Warner, we will start going back and forth. I will be controlling the time for those who oppose the bill, and Senator Boxer or Senator Lieberman will be handling the time for those who support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Missouri also to comment on the predictions as to what it would cost to the average household. In my presentation--and the Senator was in our caucus when we had a meeting--I had one chart that showed the United States. It showed how much it would cost an average household. My State, Oklahoma, and Texas were the largest hit. The increase for each family would be $3,300. Missouri was in the next tier down, which I think was around $2,800. That is something I think is very significant.

Mr. INHOFE. One hundred forty percent.

Mr. INHOFE. Has all time expired?

Mr. INHOFE. I have to do this pretty fast. Let me respond to some of the things the majority stated. First of all, when they make the statement that this, talking about the price of gas, all this happened during the Republican administration, let me assure you this happened because of the Democrats in the Senate voting against any increase in supply. Now, if anyone has any doubt about that, go to our Web site www.epw-- that stands for Environment and Public Works--epw.senate.gov/minority. Look that up. You will see that I have documented the votes all the way back to the middle 1990s, when we have tried to increase our supply of energy or our refining capacity. Secondly, the statements that this is not a tax bill, I would only read to you the total revenue generated through carbon sales auctions for consumers of power, heating, cooling, and gasoline: $6.7 trillion. That is their figure, not my figure. The maximum potentially rebated to consumers would be $2.5 trillion. That leaves $4.2 trillion. If that is not a $4.2 trillion tax increase, I don't know what it is. Thirdly, the fact that all labor seems to be for this. I suggest that Senators talk to the United Mine Workers, who are very much opposed to it, the United Auto Workers, who are opposed to it. As far as the various communities on the chart shown by the junior Senator from California, there are many of evangelical associations. We had a press conference. They all showed up. They are all very much opposed to this, and all these are Scripturally based.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, Senator Domenici is on his way, and I want to yield some time to him. He has been a real hero in our pursuing one of the forms we are going to have to have if we are ever going to run this great machine called America, and that is nuclear energy. I was glad to hear the comments made by the Senator from Virginia who had complimentary things to say about nuclear energy and what is necessary if we are going to be able to continue to do this. Before the Senator from Missouri leaves, he was referring to a chart that showed the increase in the price of gasoline. I don't know whether he still has that chart or if he has it in his notes. The Senator from Missouri went over it so fast. To me that is the focal point, at least in my State of Oklahoma.

Mr. INHOFE. I have 1 minute 50 seconds remaining?

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think it is the wish of the majority to have us use our time so Senator Boxer will have the remaining time, which is fine. I invite any Members who are around--I know several will want to speak tomorrow, but we do have time right now if they want to come down. As I said in my opening remarks, this is not a discussion about science. That is something for another day. We have been talking about that now, the lack of science, for a number of years. I have to go back to then-Vice President Gore, who had a study done by a very prominent scientist--his name was Tom Wiggly. In this study, back when he was Vice President, he said: If we were to have all of the developed nations--not developing, not China, not Mexico, not India, but the developed nations--to sign on to, to ratify the Kyoto treaty and live by its emission requirements--of course they wouldn't do that anyway because the emission requirements are not complied with in some 15 Western European countries; only 2 are living within their emission requirements, but he said assuming all developed nations did sign on to Kyoto and live with the requirements, how much would it reduce the temperature in 50 years? Do you know what his answer was after he did this massive study? Tom Wiggly, the scientist for Al Gore, said it would reduce the temperature by 7/100th of 1 degree Celsius. This is after all the economic pain. I think what I might do is use a little of the time, if no other Members come down, to talk about how other people are looking at this. The Las Vegas Review Journal--I am hoping the leader of the Senate would be reading the Las Vegas Review Journal--said: Consumers are already struggling with gasoline approaching $5 a gallon and other utility costs that have been moving steadily higher for the past few years. New mandates placed on producers in the name of ``global warming'' will only make matters worse. That was an editorial in the Las Vegas Review Journal a few days ago. From the State of Ohio, The Plain Dealer--I know we are going to have Senator Voinovich taking a very active part in this debate. He is another one of the leaders bringing us into a renaissance for nuclear energy in America, which is desperately needed. I have to say, as we approach hopefully the solution--not having anything to do with this bill, but the energy crisis in America--I agree we need all sources. Oklahoma is very busy right now and very effective in their research on biomass--cellulosic biomass. Both the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University, the Noble Foundation, are very active. We want that. It is not here now. That is better, to me, than the ethanol mandates that merely use up the market for corn to the extent that my livestock people in Oklahoma are paying a lot more now for feedstock than they did. You won't have to do it with feedstock in the future because you will be able to do it with biomass and other forms. When it gets down to what the solution is to the energy crisis, we do need to have all these in the future: Wind, solar, and all that, when the technology is here. But right now we are 53 percent dependent on coal for our ability to run this machine called America. As the Senator from Virginia stated, we will have to have coal as well as nuclear energy. Clean coal technology is out there. We have to keep that going. A lot of people fear this bill is going to put an end to coal. The one ingredient we have to have, of course, is natural gas. That performs well. A lot comes from my State of Oklahoma. But one thing that will be necessary to pursue in the future is nuclear energy. Right now some countries such as France are 80 percent dependent upon nuclear energy. We are down around 20 percent. That is an area where we can do something. Up in Ohio, The Plain Dealer newspaper, in their editorial, said: The bill, as conceived, will just bore new holes into an already battered economy. In Pittsburgh, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: If there indeed is a second Great Depression to come, this will be the government measure that guarantees it arrives with a devastating gut punch. That was an editorial called ``The Climate Security Act? Reject The Ignorami'' in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. San Francisco Chronicle--this is kind of interesting--from the State of California: The Senate debate on the climate bill probably will focus on its impact on energy prices and the economy, which in the short run could be considered significant. The Associated Press recently said: With gasoline at $4 a gallon and home heating and cooling costs soaring, it is getting harder to sell a bill that would transform the country's energy industries and--as critics will argue--cause energy prices to rise even more. The Wall Street Journal--there are a couple of them. I quoted already from the Wall Street Journal. This one was a few days ago. This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax. I think it is interesting when people realize what we are talking about here is redistributing the wealth from the people who are the poorest, very poorest people. A CBO report found recently, quoting from that report: Most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households. We are going to hear from the chairman of the committee stating, I am sure, in the future: We are taking care of that because we are redistributing some of the $6.7 trillion, redistributing $800 billion of that to some of the poorer families. Wait a minute, that is $1 out of $8. That is not a very good deal. I think there are so many reports that talk about how devastating this is going to be to all of America but particularly those individuals, the elderly and poor people, because these are the ones who are spending a large portion of their spendable income on energy. It is very appropriate I think to say this is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax. The New York Post: The only thing that will cool is the United States economy. Talking about this bill. In effect, the bill would impose an average of more than $80 billion in new energy taxes every year. That is the New York Post, entitled ``Cap-&-Trade: Why It's Tax & Spend,'' of June 2. Robert Samuelson: . . . let's call it by its proper name: cap and tax. George Will: Speaking of endless troubles, ``cap-and-trade'' comes cloaked in reassuring rhetoric about the government merely creating a market, but the government would actually create a scarcity so government could sell what it had made scarce. This is a rather interesting thing. I recommend this. It was published in the Washington Post under ``Carbon's Power Brokers.'' Charles Krauthammer had several good editorials. He said: There is no greater social power than the power to ration. And other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society. That was Charles Krauthammer, ``Carbon Chastity,'' an editorial in the Washington Post on May 30. There was a very good one, another from the Wall Street Journal that I have already quoted here. This is a different one than I quoted a minute ago. The Boxer climate tax bill: . . . would impose the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s. Investors Business Daily--this is something in an op-ed piece, an editorial piece they had on May 29: The bill essentially limits the amount of gasoline and other fossil fuels Americans can use, as Klaus puts it-- referring to the President of the Czech Republic-- in the name of the planet. A study by Charles River Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household spending per year) of Senate bill 2191-- which is the Senate bill passed out of the committee --at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1500 to $2,500 by 2050. Electricity prices could jump by 36 percent to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 percent to 125 percent by 2050. This was an editorial in Investors Business Daily. It is interesting, I was noticing when Senator Bond from Missouri was making his very well-stated remarks, the study he had showed it would be closer to $6,000 a household. I do know in my State of Oklahoma and in the State of Texas, of all the States that will have the highest increase in taxes, it will amount to a minimum of $3,300 per family. As I go around my State of Oklahoma--and I am back there every weekend; I am never here in Washington on weekends--I talk to people. They stop and think about what they do with $3,300 a year--it is not just a lot of them want to have another pickup truck or a bass boat or other things, but most of them are having real problems right now meeting expenses. This will be something they wouldn't want to have to try to endure. We have had quite a few of the editorial writers around the country talking about it. Several have talked about the raising of gas prices and the effect that would have. I think we are all aware of that. I think probably the biggest issue should be the job-killer issue. The Independent Energy Information Administration says the bill would result in a 9.5-percent drop in manufacturing output, and even higher energy costs. The fact that it would grow Government--stop and think about it. This is interesting. The figure the other side uses, the promoters of the bill, is $6.7 trillion. Then they say some of this is going to be going back into the economy. It comes down to about $4.2 trillion--$4.2 trillion, and one of the basic disagreements Senator Boxer had with the Senator from New Hampshire was that he wanted to return that to the taxpayers as opposed to having Government programs. It appears there will be, hopefully, not a majority--in fact I don't think there will be a majority of people in this body who are going to put themselves in a position where they say we want to have a $4.2 trillion increase in the bureaucracy. If there is anything that does not need to be increased, it is the bureaucracy in America. It frightened me to think about what types of governmental agencies there are, what, 45 new entities and agencies that would be provided by this bill? Tomorrow we are going to parade before you some charts to show the various increases in the size of the bureaucracy. It is going to be something that will be frightening to most people. However, there is a mentality of many people in the Senate--I respect every Member of the Senate--that somehow you must increase the size and the magnitude and the authority and the power of Government to make things happen. That is not the way our forefathers thought it would be. I would suggest to you that we want to look at this increase in Government, $4.2 trillion over this period of time, as something that would be devastating to this country and its economy. I see that my time has expired, and the remainder of the time will be used by my chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the junior Senator from California.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me ask how much time is remaining on the opposing side?

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from New Mexico whatever time he consumes. Before I do that, I say to my good friend from New Mexico that I commented earlier on his being a real champion for nuclear energy, and the recognition that we can't resolve the process we have without a very bold nuclear program. And I would say this: We have over 30 applications now in the process, of people saying what they want to do. So I look at this, as I characterized it a few minutes ago, as a nuclear renaissance that is taking place, largely due to the efforts of the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. INHOFE. I am talking about by 2020 and some of the figures used are by 2030. An article in The Hill, just the other day--of course, that was before we had our recess--said that the Senate debate after Memorial Day could add up to 50 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline, according to the study. They didn't say the timeframe. That was one of the more objective groups. Here is another one that talks about that. Investors Business Daily says the bill essentially limits how much gasoline and other fossil fuels Americans use.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that T. J. Kim, a fellow with my committee office, be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of debate.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Mr. Stephen Terry on his retirement from the Oklahoma City Veterans Administration Medical Center. Mr. Terry retired as of June 2, 2008, after serving the Veterans Administration for 42 years. He has been the main individual within the Veterans Administration that my office has contacted over the past 14 years I have served in the U.S. Senate. Mr. Terry has consistently helped me better serve Oklahoma veterans and their families. Mr. Terry has recently been awarded the Unsung Heroes Award by the Veterans Administration which is only awarded to those demonstrating outstanding public service which is characteristic of the time and attention Mr. Terry has provided to my constituents. Not only has Mr. Terry given so many years to the Veterans Administration, he has also served his country in the U.S. Navy from March 1967 though December 1970 as a Corpsman HM3 for the Marines. Mr. Stephen Terry has ably served his country throughout his entire career both in the military and in his public service. I appreciate that service and congratulate him on his well deserved retirement.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I wish to address a little-known secret, a secret to the media and therefore a secret to the American people; that is, we are winning the war in Iraq. Yesterday, I read an article--I think it was maybe the day before yesterday--in the New York Post by Ralph Peters. It was called ``Success in Iraq: A Media Blackout.'' In it, he writes: As Iraqi and coalition forces pile up one success after another, Iraq has magically vanished from the headlines. Want a real ``inconvenient truth''? Progress in Iraq is powerful and accelerating. I think he hit the nail on the head. When this war got tough, the cut-and-run defeatist provisions started making their way into bills and amendments. Those provisions send a powerful message to our troops and to our enemies: America is not committed to this fight. But America has remained committed, and through that commitment we continue to attain success. I have been to Iraq, and I have watched the tide turn. I believe I have been there many more times than any other Member. I am on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I spend time there. I see, month after month, the changes in what has happened since the acceleration. My visit in June 2006 was in the wake of Zarqawi's death. Iraqis were operating under a 6-month-old parliament. Al-Qaida continued to challenge coalition forces throughout Iraq. In response, coalition forces launched 200 raids against al-Qaida, clearing out the strongholds. The newly appointed Defense Minister and I discussed the current situation in Iraq, the violence brought to that country by al- Qaida, and the transformation beginning in Iraq. I saw the emergence of a sense of what Iraq could be. Fast forward to May 2007. I returned to Iraq and visited Ramadi, Fallujah, Baghdad, and several other areas. Ramadi went from being controlled by al-Qaida and hailed as a capital under control of the Iraqi troops--by the way, this was at a time when Ramadi was being declared as the potential terrorist capital of the world. We saw neighborhood security watch groups identifying the IEDs with orange spray paint. We saw joint security stations. Things started accelerating and improving over there. Increased burden-sharing was taken on by the Iraqis. Fallujah came under the control of the Iraqi brigade. We had our marines there going door to door World War II style. At that time, I observed--in May 2007--that all of the sudden it was under their own security. Al Anbar changed from a center of violence to a success story. In Baghdad, sectarian murders decreased 30 percent, and joint security stations stood up, forming deep relationships between coalition and Iraqi forces and civilians-- ``brotherhood of the close fight,'' as General Petraeus put it. You have to be there to see it and witness personally the excitement that is demonstrated by the Iraqis and the pride they have that they are now in a position to do things for themselves that they were depending on us for before. On July 30, 2007, 2 months after I returned from Iraq, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times. It was interesting because we had never seen anything positive about our troops or about the war effort in the New York Times. This one talked about troop morale, that it was high, with confidence in General Petraeus's strategy; civilian fatality rates were down roughly a third since the surge began; the streets in Baghdad were coming back to life with stores and shoppers. I can remember that. When I am over there, I will go into a shopping area and go up to someone carrying a baby and talk to them through an interpreter. That is where you get to people who are excited because there could be a new life in the young person. They noted that American troop levels in Tal Afar and Mosul numbered only in the hundreds because the Iraqis stepped up to the plate. More Iraqi units were well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. Local Iraqi leaders and businessmen were cooperating with embedded provincial reconstruction teams to revive the local economy and build new political structures. I returned to Iraq on August 30, and the surge continued its success. I traveled to the contingency operating base in Tikrit, Patrol Base Murray, south of Baghdad, and visited with Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus, who gave his wonderful testimony this morning to the Senate Armed Services Committee. I saw again on July 30 a significantly changed Iraq. Less than half of the al-Qaida leaders who were in Baghdad when the surge began were still in the city. They either fled, have been killed, or have been captured. The U.S. troop surge in Iraq threw al-Qaida off balance and produced dramatic results. There was a 75-percent reduction in religious/ethnic killings in the capital. They doubled the seizures of insurgents' weapons caches. There was a rise in the number of al-Qaida kills and captures. There was the destruction of six media cells-- degrading al-Qaida's ability to spread propaganda. Anbar incidents and attacks dropped from 40 per day to less than 10 a day. This is between the two times I had been there. The economy grew and markets were open, crowded, stocked, selling fresh fruit, and running as you would expect them to. A large hospital project in the Sunni Triangle was back on track The Iraqi Army performance was significantly improving. Iraqi citizens formed a grassroots movement called Concerned Citizens League. Most of the cities in America, including my cities in Oklahoma, have neighborhood watch programs, where the neighborhoods and people who live there are watching to prevent crimes. That is what is happening in Baghdad and throughout Iraq. You now see Baghdad returning to normalcy. You see kiddie pools, lawns cared for, amusement parks, and markets. The surge provided security, and security allowed local populations and governments to stand up. Basic economics took root, and Iraqis began spending money on Iraqi projects. In September, a month later, Katie Couric was there. If there is one who has been a critic of anything in this administration, our troops, or anything happening in Iraq, it is Katie Couric. She said: Well, I was surprised, you know, after I went to eastern Baghdad. I was taken to the Allawi market, which is near Haifa Street, which was the scene of that very bloody gun battle back in January, and, you know, this market seemed to be thriving, and there were a lot of people out and about. A lot of family-owned businesses and vegetable stalls, and so you do see signs of life that seem to be normal . . . the situation is improving. Madam President, that is not Senator Inhofe talking, it is Katie Couric, who has been probably the worst critic of things over there. So people are realizing that good things are happening. Despite these successes, the truth about what our troops and the coalition have accomplished in Iraq, it is hidden by the mainstream media. In a recent report of the Media Research Center, it shows that as the improvements took place--this is the timeframe I was talking about, in late 2007. There were this many stories in 2007, and as things improved, it went from 178 in the month of September, down to 108 in October, down to 68 in November, and it shows the media bias that is out there. As Ralph Peters put it in the article I quoted a minute ago: The basic mission of the American media between now and November is to convince you, the voter, that Iraq's still a hopeless mess. I returned to Iraq on March 30 of this year, just about the same time Prime Minister Maliki kicked off his Basra campaign. I was at Camp Bucca, right next to Basra, when they took the initiative. I was there working with Major General Stone and saw what his task force is doing now for detainees. Before I talk about detainees, let me say how proud their troops were that, for the first time in a major surge, they came into Basra to take care of their own province. We were there. I have been disturbed about the representation as to how our detainees have been treated. I stopped down at Camp Bucca, the largest detainee camp anywhere in all of Iraq. They separated the extremists and were arming the moderates with education and job skills. We found out that most of them--the vast majority of those who were detainees were actually working before they became detainees, and they were fighting because there is total unemployment there. The only place they could get a job was with the military. What General Stone has done such a great job of is retraining these people--training them to be carpenters and masons. It is very successful, truly turning bombers and criminals into productive Iraqi citizens and sending them back into the population. Out of 6,000 released, only 13 were rearrested. That kind of tells us the success story. These people are integrating in and working on our side, working in neighborhood groups. We are now seeing the lowest violence indicators since April 2004. The Iraqi people are turning away from violence. The Government of Iraq is asserting more control, searching out militia and insurgent strongholds. Operations in Basra and, more recently, in Sadr City have shown the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces and the will of Iraqi leadership. I wish you could have been at the hearing this morning. You could have seen and listened to the progress being made in Sadr City. The Iraqi people are just taking back their streets. As Ralph Peters said in his article, instead of the media even mentioning the positive role the Iraqis are taking in fighting this war, they focus on a small fraction of Iraqi soldiers choosing not to fight. Mr. Peters, I agree with you that ``our troops deserve better, the Iraqis deserve better, and you, the American people, deserve better. The forces of freedom are winning.'' That is what he said, and I agree. Iraq is at a decisive turning point in its journey toward democracy. The surge created opportunities that the Iraqi people have not taken for granted. The ``awakening'' is spreading from Al Anbar to Diyala Province. ``Concerned Citizens Leagues,'' through coalition support, are now taking back Iraqi streets from the insurgents. The once turbulent and violent Al Anbar Province has returned to Iraqi control. They are actually doing these things themselves. The surge enabled the Government of Iraq to meet 12 out of the original 18 benchmarks set for it, including 4 out of the 6 legislative benchmarks. That means their Government is starting to put it together. Iraq has also conducted a surge, adding well over 100,000 additional soldiers--these are Iraqi security forces--and police to the ranks of its security forces in 2007 and is slowly increasing its capability to deploy and employ these forces. It is anticipated that Iraq will spend over $8 billion on security this year and $11 billion next year. Iraq's 2008 budget has allocated $13 billion for reconstruction, and a $5 billion supplemental budget this summer will further invest export revenues in building the infrastructure. What I am saying is that the reconstruction in that country is now being paid for by the Iraqis. One of the chief criticisms we have had by people whom I call the cut-and-run folks was that they are not paying their own part. One of the best programs we have is the Commander Emergency Relief Program, which allows our commanders to make determinations as to what needs to be done immediately. It is spending a small amount of money and will go a long way by doing it. How many people know that the Iraqi Government recently allocated $300 million for our forces to manage the Iraqi CERP? They are taking over their own responsibility. The Iraqi Government has also committed $163 million to gradually assume Sons of Iraq contracts, $510 million for small business loans, and $196 million for a joint training and reintegration program. Oil reserves are being shared with the provinces. Al-Qaida is a spent force in Iraq. Syria has ceased supporting foreign fighters in Iraq. The Saudis are cracking down on supporters of Islamic terrorists in their own country. Iran is becoming isolated. We have to remain focused and realize that these successes will not continue until we, the people, become so informed that we recognize the successes. The first thing I hear from the Iraqi forces on the many trips I have made there is that: The people of America don't appreciate what we are doing. Now they know more than before how much we do appreciate it, how critical it is that we stay with it. I think--and I will wind up with this--Ahmadinejad made a statement, and inadvertently he was a great help to us because when all the surrender resolutions were entered in this body, the President of Iran assumed one was going to pass and America was going to leave Iraq--he made the statement that when America leaves Iraq, it is going to create a vacuum, and we are going to fill that vacuum. Anyone who knows history in the Middle East knows there are no two groups who dislike each other more than the Iranians and Iraqis. That got the attention of the Iraqis. That is one of the many reasons, with the supernatural powers in intelligence and war capabilities of General Petraeus and General Odierno and some of the rest who are involved, that caused this whole thing to turn around. The success story is well told in the article to which I referred. I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, let me thank the Senator from Alaska. This is a frustration I have felt for so long: that it is not just that right down party lines we are not able to produce in ANWR, but also it goes offshore. We have tried, on the Republican side, to do something about increasing the supply--by drilling in Alaska, by going at the tar sands, and I am sure the Senator from Colorado will talk a little bit about shale out in the western part of his State and in my State of Oklahoma, trying to give tax incentives for the production at marginal wells, which are wells that produce under 15 barrels of oil a day. I can give a statistic that I do not have to back up because it has never been refuted. If we had all the marginal wells flowing today that have been shut down in the last 10 years, it would amount to more than we are currently importing from Saudi Arabia. So I think it is very arrogant, when you have two hard-working Senators and one Member of the House from Alaska who want very much to do what 100 percent of the people want to do in Alaska; that is, to improve their economy by producing cheap oil for us domestically so we can bring down the price of gas, when they will not allow us to do it. Let me make one comment. I am going to be joined by the Senator from Colorado. I want to touch upon one other area. If we had been and would be successful in being able to drill more oil domestically so we can bring down the price of gas, no matter how much we produced, it can't go into the gas tank until it has been refined. So refining capacity is something that is very critical in this country. Again, right down party lines, they have prevented us from having that refinery capacity. Three different times I had on the floor a bill called the Gas Price Act. All it was was a bill to start building refineries in America. It has been 30 years; 1976 was the last refinery we had in America. What we need to do is start building refineries. Well, with the BRAC process--and for those of you who come from States that don't have any military operations, you may not know what this is, but the BRAC process is the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. That is where you go through an independent entity to determine which of the military installations should be shut down. Of course, when you shut down a military installation, it is economically devastating to the adjoining communities. With the Gas Price Act, what we have done is provide that if you have been shut down as a military installation, we could provide assistance through the Economic Development Administration for cities--if they are so inclined--to make applications so that they can turn these closed bases into refineries. I thought when we developed this thing that it wouldn't be a problem at all because no one should be against it. Everyone knows we have to increase our refining capacity. We offered amendments on this bill to streamline the process. Also, if people changed their minds in communities, they would be able to stop this from taking place. States have a significant, if not dominant, role in permitting existing or new refineries. Yet States face particularly technical and financial constraints when faced with these extremely complex facilities. So my Gas Price Act requires the administrator to coordinate and concurrently review all permits with the relevant State agencies to permit refineries. This program does not waive or modify any environmental law and consequently should not have had anyone in opposition to it. Now, we brought it twice to the floor--three times to the floor and twice we had votes--and right down party lines, every Democrat voted against the Gas Price Act. All we wanted to do, along with the local governments and local communities, was to build refineries so that we could refine what will hopefully be someday an increase in capacity so we will not be reliant upon foreign countries for our ability to run this machine called America, but we would be able to produce our own energy. I think it is important that every time we talk about increasing production, which we just have to do, we also have to talk about the refining capacity. We are all ready to go, I say to my good friend from Colorado, with the Gas Price Act if we are able to move in that direction. I believe that over the Memorial Day recess, when everybody is out there driving and people are much more sensitive to the price of gas, they are going to look back and say: You know, maybe the Republicans were right all of those years; maybe we should be increasing our supply, as the Senator from Alaska put it, of gasoline and oil produced in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, I agree wholeheartedly with the comments and the legislative ideas my friend from Colorado has. Again, it is a great frustration that we have tried so hard for so many years to expand our supply here in this country. Hopefully, now, one of the benefits we will get from the high price of fuel is the recognition that we have to start producing our own energy in this country. That is what we should be doing. Hopefully, after this holiday, when we get back, enough people will have spent enough money driving around and there will be enough political pressure that we can get people to agree to start drilling in ANWR, drilling offshore, drilling in the shale area, and experimenting in some of these areas where we could become totally self-sufficient in America.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I say to the Senator, I do not want to disrupt your line of thinking because I agree so much with you. But every time I hear people talking about ANWR, and I hear people talking about stopping any drilling or exploration in ANWR, it occurs to me, here you are, the senior Senator from Alaska. You have been here for a long time, and I have gone with you up to the area in which you are talking about drilling. I have heard people compare that to a postage stamp in a football field or something like that. It is a tiny area up there. The question I have is twofold. First of all, why is it that as near as I can determine, people who live there all want to explore and resolve this problem we have in this country by drilling and exploring in ANWR? Who are we down here to tell them up in Alaska what is best for them? That would be the No. 1 question. Then, the second thing is, what I have observed, I say to the senior Senator from Alaska, who has been here longer than I have, is that every time this has come up--I came from the House to the Senate back in 1995--now, on October 27, 1995, we voted 52 to 47, right down party lines, to go ahead and start exploring in ANWR. All the Republicans supported it. All the Democrats opposed it. Then, again, on November 17, 1995, the same thing happened: We voted to explore, the Democrats voted against it. Then, after all that work was done, the President--then-President Clinton--on December 6, 1995, vetoed the bills that had this authority we had given them to drill. Then the same thing--I could go on and on-- but in 2005, the same thing happened. The Senate voted on an amendment to the budget resolution to strike the expansion of exploration in ANWR. It failed by a vote of 49 to 51, right down party lines. I guess the second question I would ask the Senator is, why is making us self-sufficient a partisan issue? Why do the Democrats oppose it and the Republicans support it?