Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. As I recall, the other bill we had 2 years ago was that emissions caps would start at the 2004 level by 2012, and there was no intermediate step at that time. So it went down to one-third below the baseline by 2050. That is my understanding. I think that is accurate. So there is not that much difference. If anything, it is lower because this is one-third below the baseline, and this one is 65 percent below. It would be even more of a cut by 2050. The reason I bring up this point is because these issues don't happen in a vacuum. These are issues that are very costly. The term ``tipping point'' was used recently. I agree there is a tipping point, and I am going to be reserving more than 2 hours in the next few days on the floor, and I don't want my good friends to endure the whole 2 hours but at least give consideration to what is happening right now, and it is unbelievable. I have never seen such a change in science as we have witnessed in the last 5 months. The entire speech I am going to give is talking about what has happened in the last 5 months. Let me give an example. In August alone, the University of Washington claims to be ``the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle.'' They came out and said it is due to natural causes. They were on the other side of this issue before. A Belgium weather institute, August 27--all of this is in August of this year, 2 months ago--natural causes. A peer-reviewed study published in ``Geophysical Research Letters'' finds natural causes. Here is a significant one now because over and over, I say to my good friend from California, we have heard that 1998 was the hottest year. Now NASA has come along and said, no, it was 1934. Interestingly enough, 1934 precipitated the largest increase in CO2 going into the atmosphere. After 1940, there was an 80-percent increase going into the atmosphere. But here is the one, if my colleagues are not listening to anything else, and I have a feeling they are not, I say to my friend from California.

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, Mr. President, I had to come down here. Quite frankly, I didn't find out until last night--actually, until this morning, really--any of the parameters of this bill. My good friend from Connecticut just said they have been working on it for months and months, and yet nobody knows what it is. So only this morning I received some information. I see it is very similar to the McCain-Lieberman bill that passed. I remember we stood here and debated that bill for 5 days, I guess it was, a couple of years ago. I hope--and with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee here--that we are going to have hearings on this legislation and spend some time, get into it because we do not get into something this big without hearing very significant issues. I will give a couple examples. First, let me ask a question. How much time do I have, I ask my friend from Virginia?

Mr. INHOFE. I will go ahead. That is fine. I will initially mention a couple of points that are of concern to me. First, this has been something my colleagues have worked on for a long period of time. I understand that is true because I have heard my friend from Virginia tell that to me and others on the committee. But we really didn't find out what it is. I am reading something that came out of the Congressional Quarterly this morning. One sentence: Emissions caps would start at the 2005 level in 2012 and decrease annually, reaching the 1990 levels in 2020 and 65 percent below 1990 levels in 2050. I assume that is an accurate description.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I will go ahead. That is fine. I will initially mention a couple of points that are of concern to me. First, this has been something my colleagues have worked on for a long period of time. I understand that is true because I have heard my friend from Virginia tell that to me and others on the committee. But we really didn't find out what it is. I am reading something that came out of the Congressional Quarterly this morning. One sentence: Emissions caps would start at the 2005 level in 2012 and decrease annually, reaching the 1990 levels in 2020 and 65 percent below 1990 levels in 2050. I assume that is an accurate description.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the House of Representatives has recently passed the Ethiopian Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007, H.R. 2003. Although this legislation states that its purpose is to encourage and facilitate the consolidation of democracy and security in Ethiopia-- words right out of the resolution--in reality it focuses on the shortcomings, on the problems that they face, and not on the successes the country has made. Ethiopia takes great pride in being the oldest independent country in Africa. It continues to be a close friend of the United States, a strong ally in the war on terrorism in the Horn of Africa. I have to say that this is significant because if you kind of use your mental map of northeastern Africa and you think about the terrorist activity that has taken place in the Middle East and how it is now coming down through the Horn of Africa, through Djibouti and that area into the Uganda-Ethiopia area, it is a very significant area right now. Now, as many of you know, I have had quite an extensive background in Africa. I think I am safe to say that I have been to Africa more than any Senator in the history of America. I have been really tied to that continent and recognize the significance in the future of our country as well as their country. It is an area of strategic importance globally to this Nation. I have traveled to the country on several occasions, both on my own and as a Member of the Senate and the House. A short while ago, I was there with Congressman Boozman from Arkansas. Throughout my travels in the region, I have met and developed friendships with many political and religious leaders. In Addis 6 years ago, we found a little baby. The little baby was 3 days old. The baby was almost dead. It was not unusual. In some countries in Africa, they throw away mostly young baby girls. Then after about 3 days, when they die, the dogs get them. We were there before the dogs got there. I have 20 kids and grandkids of whom I am very proud. My daughter Molly had nothing but boys. She always wanted a girl. So we were able to take this little girl from Ethiopia and nurse her back to health. She had several very close calls. She is healthy and has now been here in the United States and is my adopted granddaughter. Her name is Zegita Marie, which is a very common name in Ethiopia. I say that because I do want to impress upon this group that I know something about Ethiopia. I know something about its background. I know something about its significance to our safety. In Ethiopia, recently, I met with Prime Minister Meles, his wife. I met with members of the Parliament and with all the individuals there who are trying to do a good job. While there, I saw firsthand their democratic progress and commitment in fighting terrorism. Although I appreciate the increased attention being given to Africa, particularly Ethiopia, I believe the bill is misguided and takes the wrong approach by placing demands on a friend and ally that has made obvious advancements in democracy and human rights. While I continue to agree that the violence and intimidation that took place after the 2005 election was an unnecessary use of excessive force, the Government of Ethiopia has taken significant steps again to regain a democratic process that is fair and respectful of human rights. On July 20, 2007, following convictions and sentencing, 38 opposition leaders were granted full pardons. All remaining members of the opposition were pardoned and released on August 18, 2007. Since these events, reforms have been made in the election process. So often we use America as a standard by which to measure democracy in other countries. It is the same problem we have in the Middle East. People say they are not reaching the goals we want them to reach, having a democracy in Iraq. Why would they? It took this country several years to come up with a democracy. Why should they be able to do it? The same thing is true in Africa. There are some 52 countries in Africa. Just recently have they come into democratization. It has been incredibly successful in many of those areas. The United States has recognized the ongoing efforts by the Government of Ethiopia and continues to play an important role for human rights in Ethiopia. The State Department recently hosted a group of opposition political leaders and members of Parliament in DC, providing an opportunity for dialog and reconciliation. By providing training in public relations, human rights and logistics planning and coordination for military procedures, the United States is developing the Ethiopian National Defense Force into a professional and apolitical machine. We need to understand the significance of what is going on right now. We made a decision about 6 years ago to help the Africans establish five African brigades. They are located in the north, south, east, west, and central. It happens that Ethiopia is the headquarters for the East African Brigade. This is not something we are imposing upon them, but we are saying to them: If you want to do these, we are here to help you. Our idea is, as I mentioned, there is a squeeze in the Middle East. As terrorism starts going down through Djibouti and the Horn of Africa into northeastern Africa, this is an area where if they are prepared to take care of themselves, we would not be sending our troops there. It is a well-conceived idea. There is no one area in Africa that is as significant as northeastern Africa. Let me digress a little bit. Go to their next-door neighbor, Uganda, northern Uganda. We hear so much about problems in the Sudan and other areas. But we don't hear anything about Uganda. In northern Uganda there is a butcher by the name of Joseph Knoy who, for 30 years, has been mutilating little kids. You have heard about the children soldiers. Those soldiers are taken over by these people and trained to fight at ages 10, 11, and 12. Then once they learn to be soldiers, they have to go back to their villages and murder their parents and family. If they don't do that, they dismember them. I have been up there to Gulu and other areas, and I have seen that taking place. This is right next door. This is what is happening in that region. Ethiopia has been our strong ally in the war on terror and stands on the frontlines of the conflict in Africa. The growing instability in Somalia and the Ogaden region, combined with the unresolved border disputes between Ethiopia and Eritrea, creates serious problems. Remember what happened the other day. A few weeks ago, we were sending our troops down to Mogadishu and the Ethiopians were fighting right there by our side. That was not an easy thing for them to do. That endangered them because there are many opposition groups who would then go into Ethiopia, and they paid dearly for supporting us. But they did so. They have remained committed to promoting regional stability and eliminating any staging area for al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations. In 2006, they sent roughly 100,000 troops with us into Somalia, into Mogadishu. We were successful in defeating the Islamic coalition. They did that for us. Despite these advancements, Somalia remains a continued concern for growing extremism and the violence continues to escalate. The Ogaden region which borders Somalia is also a growing place of hostility and Islamic terrorism. The ongoing insurgency in the region has taken a drastic toll on the civilian population, significantly affecting commercial trade and humanitarian aid. In April of 2007, due to escalating violence, the ENDF initiated a campaign against the insurgency in Ogaden. The ongoing border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea threatens the stability in the Horn of Africa. I have talked to Eritrea, trying to get the two parties together. It hasn't happened yet. But the Eritrean Government, along with extremist organizations in Somalia, is providing support and assistance to the Ogaden National Liberation Front. Our friend in this fight is clearly Ethiopia. The United States remains concerned about human rights violations and the lack of religious and political freedoms in Eritrea. The United States will continue to work with Ethiopia to bring stability to the region and foster respect of human rights and freedom from political or religious persecution. Ethiopia is so significant to the Horn of Africa. It remains an area of strategic importance in the war on terror. This area is critical to stability of the entire continent of Africa and is a national security interest of the United States. Ethiopia continues to be the central bulwark in the fight to deter the growth and disrupt the influence of Islamic extremism in the region. Our country's strong support of Ethiopia during this significant time is imperative. In spite of all these successes, in spite of what we have talked about and the significance of Ethiopia, I think we have to oppose H.R. 2003. I have talked to several people who didn't know any differently. They didn't object to this. I think it went through on a UC over there. But a lot of people couldn't find Ethiopia on a map. I don't think they realized the significance. This resolution's idea of encouraging and facilitating is to impose restrictions and ultimatums. These punitive actions could damage the bilateral relationship between the United States and the Government of Ethiopia, as well as derail progress Ethiopia has made in furtherance of democracy and supporting human rights. I fully support the State Department's assessment. Quite often I am criticized for coming down here and opposing the State Department. More often than not, that is the case. But in this case they are exactly right. They say: The bill risks damaging our ability to influence the Government of Ethiopia, advance reform, and to deliver effective development assistance. I will only say, then, this is a success story we have had. I can't think of anything worse for the surrounding states, and I would say all other 51 countries in Africa, than if we were to punish the very country that is being friendly to us, is helping us, fighting with us side by side, sending 100,000 troops with American troops down to Somalia and working on our side. I hope when it comes to this side, if it does come in this form, that we will be able to resoundingly defeat it. I look forward to being in Ethiopia in about 3 weeks. I will certainly hope that I don't have to go over there after having something like this pass the Senate. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I introduce the NOAA Scholarship Act of 2007 with my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran. This bill provides a scholarship program for promising students who seek to pursue an education in a relevant field of study and commit to work for a branch of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, including the National Weather Service, upon graduation. Few can contend with the fact that there is a shortage of American students devoting themselves to the study of science, math and engineering. However, the demand for trained individuals in these professions is rising. In order to achieve their missions, Federal organizations like NOAA require a cadre of young talent to enter the workforce with training in fields like meteorology, hydrology, and oceanography. In my great State of Oklahoma, we know the importance of NOAA, and particularly the study of meteorology. Two weeks ago, I met with a group of Fire Marshalls who informed me that there are more declared natural disasters per capita in Oklahoma than in any other State in the Union. In May of each year, we experience an average of twenty tornadoes. In fact, the fastest wind speed ever recorded was in one of the May tornadoes to hit Oklahoma in 1999. As Oklahomans, we know that having accurate and timely reporting of atmospheric changes can mean the difference between life and death. It is no surprise, then, that the University of Oklahoma, OU, has developed an exceptional program for the study of meteorology. The OU School of Meteorology is the largest meteorology program in the nation, with over 320 undergraduate students and 80 graduate students. It ranks first in the Nation in severe storms and mesoscale research and is among the top seven meteorology programs in the country. OU President David Boren, my predecessor in the Senate, targets the OU School of Meteorology to become the leading radar meteorology program in the world. The OU School of Meteorology is fortunate to have a state of the art facility in the recently constructed National Weather Center. In this 244,000 square foot structure, federal, state, and OU organizations partner together to better understand weather events occurring in the atmosphere. The research that occurs in this center is truly groundbreaking. The scientists who work at NWC, many of them working with NOAA, have expertise in severe weather, local and regional climate, numerical modeling, hydrology, and radar meteorology. Their work is both abstract and tangible, using theory and advanced scientific research to improve the lives of individuals in Oklahoma and around the world. The National Weather Center is the home of many notable achievements. NWC scientists were able to demonstrate that the Doppler weather radar can be useful in detecting tornadoes, hail, and other severe weather events. Using the Doppler radar, they have developed numerical forecasting models for government and industry applications. The scientists at NWC are also known for taking risks to discover new and improved ways of collecting data and making observations; for example, they can be credited with showing the effectiveness of rapidly deployable, truck-mounted radars that they drive into the middle of fierce storms. It is with the first-hand knowledge of the important work of the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration's research in marine research, atmospheric research, and satellite programs that I introduce this bill. The NOAA Scholarship Act of 2007 will establish a scholarship program for promising students who desire to pursue an education in a relevant field of study and then serve as full-time employees of NOAA at the completion of their degrees. The students will be required to work for NOAA for 24 months in return for each academic year that a scholarship is given. This program will provide an opportunity and an incentive for students to develop scientific expertise that will continue to enable NOAA, at facilities like the National Weather Center in Norman, Oklahoma and elsewhere, to attain its mission. On September 17, 2007, the House of Representatives passed identical legislation, H.R. 1657, by a vote of 360-16. I request that the Senate move quickly on this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I introduce the NOAA Scholarship Act of 2007 with my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran. This bill provides a scholarship program for promising students who seek to pursue an education in a relevant field of study and commit to work for a branch of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, including the National Weather Service, upon graduation. Few can contend with the fact that there is a shortage of American students devoting themselves to the study of science, math and engineering. However, the demand for trained individuals in these professions is rising. In order to achieve their missions, Federal organizations like NOAA require a cadre of young talent to enter the workforce with training in fields like meteorology, hydrology, and oceanography. In my great State of Oklahoma, we know the importance of NOAA, and particularly the study of meteorology. Two weeks ago, I met with a group of Fire Marshalls who informed me that there are more declared natural disasters per capita in Oklahoma than in any other State in the Union. In May of each year, we experience an average of twenty tornadoes. In fact, the fastest wind speed ever recorded was in one of the May tornadoes to hit Oklahoma in 1999. As Oklahomans, we know that having accurate and timely reporting of atmospheric changes can mean the difference between life and death. It is no surprise, then, that the University of Oklahoma, OU, has developed an exceptional program for the study of meteorology. The OU School of Meteorology is the largest meteorology program in the nation, with over 320 undergraduate students and 80 graduate students. It ranks first in the Nation in severe storms and mesoscale research and is among the top seven meteorology programs in the country. OU President David Boren, my predecessor in the Senate, targets the OU School of Meteorology to become the leading radar meteorology program in the world. The OU School of Meteorology is fortunate to have a state of the art facility in the recently constructed National Weather Center. In this 244,000 square foot structure, federal, state, and OU organizations partner together to better understand weather events occurring in the atmosphere. The research that occurs in this center is truly groundbreaking. The scientists who work at NWC, many of them working with NOAA, have expertise in severe weather, local and regional climate, numerical modeling, hydrology, and radar meteorology. Their work is both abstract and tangible, using theory and advanced scientific research to improve the lives of individuals in Oklahoma and around the world. The National Weather Center is the home of many notable achievements. NWC scientists were able to demonstrate that the Doppler weather radar can be useful in detecting tornadoes, hail, and other severe weather events. Using the Doppler radar, they have developed numerical forecasting models for government and industry applications. The scientists at NWC are also known for taking risks to discover new and improved ways of collecting data and making observations; for example, they can be credited with showing the effectiveness of rapidly deployable, truck-mounted radars that they drive into the middle of fierce storms. It is with the first-hand knowledge of the important work of the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration's research in marine research, atmospheric research, and satellite programs that I introduce this bill. The NOAA Scholarship Act of 2007 will establish a scholarship program for promising students who desire to pursue an education in a relevant field of study and then serve as full-time employees of NOAA at the completion of their degrees. The students will be required to work for NOAA for 24 months in return for each academic year that a scholarship is given. This program will provide an opportunity and an incentive for students to develop scientific expertise that will continue to enable NOAA, at facilities like the National Weather Center in Norman, Oklahoma and elsewhere, to attain its mission. On September 17, 2007, the House of Representatives passed identical legislation, H.R. 1657, by a vote of 360-16. I request that the Senate move quickly on this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Mikulski, for allowing me to speak for 2 or 3 minutes. Last Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the Law of the Sea Treaty, and we will hold another hearing. The committee may be holding another hearing today. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee when the Republicans were in the majority, I held several hearings in March of 2004. We also had hearings before another committee on which I serve, which is the Senate Armed Services Committee. Proponents of the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty will tell you that the treaty will be a great asset to the military by allowing our Navy the freedom of movement to and from any point on and under the ocean, unencumbered by the need to send requests to foreign governments for permission to enter territorial waters or to pass through straits. While this treaty does maintain that this is true, it is subject to several caveats that really do concern me. Under the terms of our treaty, our naval warships must pass by the coast and not engage in any type of exercise, ground all aircraft, and negate the use of any defensive devices. The issue of passage not only applies to ships but also to aircraft, both commercial and military. This is interesting because when we had our hearing, one of the Under Secretaries, I believe his name was Turner, appeared before the committee. He was promoting the ratification of this treaty. I said: As I read this, it is not just 70 percent of the Earth's surface, water, but also the air above it. He said that could very well be. He could not respond or deny that fact. Another issue of concern is the effect the Law of the Sea Treaty will have on the President's Proliferation Security Initiative, PSI, with which we are all familiar. It was designed to combat the transfer of weapons of mass destruction. Advocates of the treaty assure us that the treaty in no way damages the effectiveness of PSI because countries that want to participate in these open ocean inspections to assure nuclear weapons are not being traded illegally voluntarily sign on to the President's PSI agreement. However, under the treaty, boarding a vessel is allowed under four circumstances: One, if there is suspicion of piracy; second, engaging in slave trade; third, unauthorized broadcasting--I am not sure what that is, Mr. President--and fourth, whether it is unwilling to show its nationality. Taken literally, as most countries will, a U.S. warship would not be allowed to stop a vessel with a shipment of nuclear energy materials if it is flying a State flag on purportedly legitimate business. The Law of the Sea Treaty creates--and this is, I think, the worst part of it--this international seabed authority. There is a mentality around Washington that unless you have some great big international body, we shouldn't have any sovereignty, and that is exactly what this treaty does. It has an international seabed authority which actually would have jurisdiction over 70 percent of the area of this globe. They also have taxing authority. I think a lot of us--and I have to admit I have been critical of the United Nations, and they are the ones behind this issue. If they are able to have this taxing authority, then those of us--and most of the Members of this Senate have done this at one time or another--when it gets to the point where they are not doing a good job with something or the U.N. has something with which we disagree, we send a resolution that says: If you don't stop doing this, then we are going to withhold some of our dues. The way they overcome that is with global taxation so that the U.N. would not have to be accountable to anyone. With all these problems, this is a treaty on which we should be able to have hearings. I would like to have a hearing, as I did in 2004, and have some of the same people testify because nothing has happened since then. I am talking about in both the Environment and Public Works Committee and in the Senate Armed Services Committee because this is a national security issue. I am putting that request in, and, hopefully, we will be able to do it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding I do have more time left than I will take. A quick word. I had a communication from my wife that she thought I was getting a little emotional about this, so let me end on a very positive note and say, yes, I have a presentation I make to groups, to conservative groups, talking about the history of authorizations since 1816. I gave an abbreviated edition a few minutes ago. It is so frustrating to me to see people saying, if for some reason-- it isn't going to happen. This is going to pass by a huge margin. If the President vetoes, he knows it will be overridden. But if for some reason this didn't pass, we would be right back where we were in 2002, 2004, 2006, and we would be having appropriators out there without any kind of discipline or any kind of process to go through in making those determinations. I think it would be the wrong thing to do. Lastly--I didn't mention this--in Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas, we had quite a number of floods. If it had not been for what the Corps of Engineers had already done that was previously authorized and then later on was appropriated, it would have cost us, they now say, $5.4 billion more in damages than it did. I hope the good conservatives will look at this and realize we have to have authorization in the process. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Armed Services Committee is an authorization committee. Let me tell you why the process of authorizing is important. I could use almost any example I want to, but I will use missile defense. Right now, there are very few people around since 9/11 who don't know that there are monsters out there who will send a missile into the United States. We now have a missile defense system we are still developing. There are three phases: the boost phase, the midcourse phase, and the terminal phase. In the boost phase, quite frankly, we do not have anything that will knock down a missile. We are working on two systems: one, a kinetic energy booster, and the other is an airborne laser system. The airborne laser system is going to be great for us, but we are not there yet. Midcourse--we all have heard about the AEGIS system. I believe there are 16 AEGIS ships right now. They have the capability of knocking down a missile during the midcourse phase. We also have ground-based systems. We know we need this redundancy because we don't know from where these missiles are going to be fired. We all know the President has been trying to get a location in Eastern Europe and up around the old Soviet Union, and it has been very difficult. What we ultimately have to have is a way of knocking these missiles down from anyplace in midcourse. We have two systems. An appropriator might look at that and say: I know where we can save money. We don't need two midcourse systems; one is enough. But that is not right because the expertise in the authorizing committees says we have to have that coverage. Lastly, the terminal phase. We know about the THAAD system, the PAC- 3, the Patriot Capability-3 advanced system. One may say they are redundant, but they are not. Here is the point I am trying to make. The reason we know, in the Senate Armed Services Committee, it is important we have these systems is because we are staffed with a lot of really smart people. They are specialists in this area of national defense. I could have used the F- 22 versus the F-35 or any other system we have, but the point is that the Armed Services Committee is an authorizing committee which is staffed with experts. So is the Environment and Public Works Committee. We have people who are experts in certain areas. The committee authorizes projects for the future. If we take away the Senate Armed Services Committee and the committee is no longer able to authorize, then we are going to have appropriators sitting around waiting for somebody to come up with what they want. Maybe it is a contractor they know who has a system and they will go ahead and use that system, but they wouldn't have the expertise. I am not bashing appropriators. That is a very important part of the process. But they have to have some kind of a discipline in their spending. There is no discipline. Let me mention something else that would be very unpopular. I said this on the floor during the Transportation reauthorization bill, which, at the time the Republicans were in the majority, I chaired the committee Senator Boxer now chairs. At that time, a lot of people were trying to latch on to items that were wrong so they could use them to demagog. Remember the famous bridge to nowhere? Actually, it would have been more accurate to say it is a bridge to nobody because the bridge actually went someplace where they couldn't get except by barge traffic and they could never develop that area. One of the few things that works well in Government, in my estimation, is the way we do the Transportation reauthorization. Everyone pays at the pump, and then the money comes into the highway trust fund. Then we establish criteria. Senator Boxer will remember that we had some 30 criteria we used with the Transportation reauthorization bill. One of the criteria was, What do the people at home want? In the case of the bridge to nowhere, the 100 projects the State of Alaska said they wanted to do with their tax dollars, it was No. 5 from the top. We, in our infinite wisdom in Washington, say we are smarter than the dumb people out in the States. We said: Even though this is what you want or have to have, you can't have it because we have this infinite wisdom in Washington. I use these examples only because the authorizing system does work. We are supposed to pass this water resources development reauthorization every 2 years. If we had done that every 2 years, we would not be faced with what we are faced today. We would not be looking at $21 billion. It averages out about $3 billion, if my math serves me correctly. We tried to get a bill in 2002, and we were not able to do it. We tried in 2004, and we were not able to do it. We tried in 2006, and that didn't work, either. In fact, we did our job; we just ran out of time, as I recall. Now it is 2007. If we don't do it this time, it is going to be another year, and it is going to mean the appropriators are going to go ahead and do these projects without going through the right authorizing process. I have to say it, and I say it in all sincerity to my good conservative friends: This is not money we are spending; it is authorizing projects as to what meets certain criteria. If we look at some of the problems we are having right now--Hurricane Katrina, that was not foreseen and that was a wake-up call. It could happen anywhere. It was an infrastructure need. The collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis, that was a bridge on an interstate. In Oklahoma, on I-40, we have a bridge built with the same technology at the same time, and right now chunks of concrete are dropping off that bridge and falling down below. We have, in my State of Oklahoma, the worst bridge situation. I am not proud of this fact, but it is true. We have more deteriorating bridges than any other State. These are projects we need to be doing. I am ranked as the No. 1 most conservative politician, but I have always been a big spender in two areas: One, defend America--we need to defend America; no one else is going to do that for us--and No. 2, infrastructure. That is what we have talked about today. We went through the long, involved Transportation reauthorization. Mr. President, I am embarrassed to tell you, as sizable as that Transportation reauthorization bill was, if we were able to spend all the money that was authorized, it would not even maintain the current system we have today. Let me mention one other point. Where were my conservative friends in 2000 when we passed this huge, open-ended bill called the Everglades Restoration Act? It didn't have any Corps of Engineers report. It did not have a Chief's report. It was open-ended, and the vote was 99 to 1. Guess who the one was. It was me. Where were my conservative friends at that time? That was huge. In retrospect, I was right and the other 99 were wrong. They might argue with me on that point. But, nonetheless, in the current bill, there are now some reports in the Everglades, so we are doing it the right way with this bill. I reserve the remainder of my time in case somebody else wishes to speak, but I have to say, in case I run out of time, I have a letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works, Secretary Woodley, and the arguments they use as to why they would recommend the President veto this bill are not right. Frankly, I am really disappointed. If we are going to pass this bill--and it is going to be passed by a veto-proof margin--if the President vetoes it, he knows it is going to be overridden, and I have to question why he would veto it. Again, we are reauthorizing. We are not appropriating one nickel with this bill. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from Georgia. Working on these authorization committees is not easy. We have a lot of hearings and a lot of expertise, people looking, studying to see what is deserving to be authorized. I can tell you that the Senator from Georgia--I don't know of a member on the committee who has worked harder, or maybe even as hard as the Senator from Georgia. So I thank him for coming here today and making his statement. I know my good friend from South Carolina, Senator DeMint, would not intentionally misrepresent anything, but when he says once it is authorized, it is just like spending, that isn't true. I know he hasn't thought that through or he would not make that statement. We have a backlog, which has already been talked about several times here--a backlog of some $32 billion of Corps projects that have been authorized but haven't been done. That speaks for itself. They are out there. How can you say that--by the way, it is worthwhile saying or some people might say: Why are you authorizing more if they haven't even done those? Maybe some of them are no longer necessary. I will give you a couple examples. In Oklahoma, we have a channel that goes all the way to Muskogee, OK, or the Port of Katusa. A lot of people don't think of us as being navigable in Oklahoma, but we are. It is a short distance that is 9 feet, where the choke is. So we have had it authorized for a long period of time to make that a 12-foot channel. It would make a huge difference. It hasn't been authorized. The Passaic River in New Jersey has a flood control tunnel up there that was authorized at $1.2 billion back in 1990. That wasn't last year or the year before. So far, no money has come in there. Mr. President, I was disappointed in the way time was handled here. Let me make a few comments and then perhaps see if anybody else comes down who needs to be heard. Right now, let me first redeem myself. We have a lot of people talking about this. I know a lot of people are watching, saying we are going to find out who the conservatives are. There are a lot of ``born- again'' conservatives I have heard so far, who are not conservative but are opposing an authorization bill. I say that, redeeming myself, in that--every organization, including Human Events and the American Conservative Union, says I am not No. 2 or No. 3, Mr. President, I am No. 1. Did you know that I am the No. 1 most conservative Member of the Senate? I am here to tell you something that is very unpopular because nobody is going to understand it after I explain it to you. I will get right into it. I am going to tell you what authorization is. I hope some Members are listening, but I fear they are not. I think minds are made up. By the way, this bill will pass by an overwhelming majority. No question about that. In a way, we are wasting a lot of time right now. But I think it is important that at least somebody says something that has to be said: What is authorization all about? The background of authorization goes all the way back to 1816. In 1816, our permanent committees were put together. We didn't have committees prior to that. So the responsibilities of authorizing and appropriating were put into these 11 committees in accordance with jurisdiction. By 1867, 51 years later, the Senate created the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee had the idea that there was to be separate authorizing language with the appropriations. They were going to actually spend the money. Somebody else was going to do the authorization. In 1899, it was seen that they had kind of moved together, so the Appropriations Committee was actually legislating on appropriation bills. In 1922, a major change took place. In 1922, after the Accounting Act of 1921, the Senate changed the rules. They established not only that the Senators were going to be appropriating and not authorizing on the appropriations bills, but that is when the current rule XVI came into effect. It had been there for a different purpose. Rule XVI says if the appropriators appropriate something that is not authorized, it is going to take a 60-vote point of order. That is huge. That was very clear in 1922. They said we want to make it virtually impossible for the appropriators, without going through any authorization, to unilaterally say we ought to have all these projects; we don't care if they are worthwhile or not. That is what happened. Then, slowly, since that time it has been going back to the appropriators getting more and more power. They have been diminishing the power of the authorizers. Put up the military chart. I am on another committee. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me say to my good friend from Louisiana that I do agree with her. I hope the President doesn't veto this bill, but whether he does or doesn't, it won't make any difference. The outcome is going to be the same. We are going to have this bill. But let me give him the assurance that the place to start using his veto is when we start spending money in places we shouldn't spend money and not on this authorization. I am going to make sure everybody understands, even though I have made a number of statements here in support of this authorization bill, it doesn't mean I am going to support everything on it. There will be things, when it comes up to appropriations time, that I will be down here leading the opposition and asking the President to veto some of these things. But you have to have discipline in some way. There has to be some kind of a guideline, some kind of criteria used. Let me for a minute talk parochially about my State of Oklahoma. These are things that are in here for my State but things that should be in here. These are things the Government should be doing. Lake Arcadia is a good example. The city of Edmond is the fastest growing city in Oklahoma. Because of a set of circumstances, they were being billed and have been billed for years now for water they were not even using. All that is corrected in here. In the event this bill should not pass, those people of the city of Edmond, OK, are going to have to come up with money to pay for something they never got. Lake Texoma--the same situation. The Red River Chloride Control Project in this bill clarifies the operation and maintenance of Oklahoma chloride control projects at the Red River. This is critically important to our farmers in southern Oklahoma. We have Ottawa County's Tar Creek. The most devastating Superfund site in America that has been addressed now for 25, 26 years is Tar Creek in northern Oklahoma, which goes into southern Kansas, and nothing has been done. We have spent millions and millions of dollars, until 4\1/2\ years ago, when I became chairman of this committee, with the help of the Democrats, Senator Boxer included, we were able to actually get in there and do something. We have some of the projects that are necessary to ultimately take care of that devastating thing in northern Oklahoma. Now, I spent several years--three terms--being mayor of a major city in Oklahoma--Tulsa, OK. In Tulsa, OK, one of the biggest problems we had--and I daresay if you were to talk to any mayor in America they would say the same thing--the biggest problem in my city was not prostitution or crime in the streets; it was unfunded mandates. So we had the Federal Government coming along telling us what to do and mandating that certain things be done, and some of my poorer communities in Oklahoma were just not able to do it. Let me just give a couple of examples. All of these towns and cities in Oklahoma I have been in and I have seen different things the Federal Government has come in and told them to do and not funded them. They are projects in Ada, Norman, Wilburton, Weatherford, Bethany, Woodward, Langley, Durant, Midwest City--that project in Midwest City is a water infrastructure type of project-- Ardmore, Guymon, OK, out in the panhandle. I was out there during the last recess, and they were having a very serious problem with wastewater treatment. This would resolve that problem. Altus, OK; Chickasha, OK; Goodwell, OK; Bartlesville, Konawa, Mustang, and Alva. And when you stop and you think about all these things, these are things that--it should not be their responsibility. They do not have the capability of doing it. They are all things that came from the Federal government. Here I am, the No. 1 most conservative Member, saying Government does have a function. The major function I have always said is defending America and its infrastructure. Let me mention a couple of things, if I could, Madam President. I have a letter here from the Department of the Army, the Assistant Secretary of Civil Works, which is the Corps of Engineers, and they say the Corps already has an enormous backlog of ongoing projects that will require future appropriations of some $38 billion. Well, I use that in my argument as to why this is necessary. There is a reason for the backlog. At the time, they were authorized, but then circumstances changed. Some of these projects don't need to be done and will never be done. By the way, when you talk about the amount of money that is going to be authorized, you don't know, first of all, how much of that $21 billion or $23 billion--maybe half of it--will ultimately be spent. We don't know. Some may be spent next year, some 10 years from now. It is just authorizing, just saying that at this snapshot in time, these are things which need to be done in America, these are legitimate, these meet the criteria. So that argument is no good. He says that adding excessive new authorizations to this backlog is unaffordable and unnecessary. This sentence implies it is inadvisable to authorize new projects until all current authorized projects are completed, and nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly providing adequate hurricane protection in New Orleans is a higher priority than some of the already authorized projects, but we didn't know it at the time these were authorized. That is why this is important. It said in this letter that the bill will include numerous authorizations that are outside of and inappropriate for the mission of the Corps of Engineers, and so forth. Well, the conference report does not include authorization of surface transportation projects for the Corps of Engineers. That isn't something we do. So you look at the arguments they have, and it gets right back to the argument that the attack here, as I said, going all the way back to 1816, is on the authorization process. The only discipline we have in spending in this body is to have an authorization process. Again, I will repeat, there is going to be some of these that are authorized that I would feel in my heart should not be appropriated, and I will fight against their appropriation. That is where the battle should be fought, and I think it is going to be. I don't want to question anyone's sincerity in their opposition, but I think there are a lot of people who will go home and have a press release saying: I voted against spending some $23 billion. Nothing could be further from the truth. You oppose the authorization system and you oppose discipline in spending. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have 22 minutes remaining.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think we need to be real clear what we are talking about. What we are talking about is telling the enemy what we are going to do. If there is one thing they have said, our military has said we cannot do, is to leave precipitously and let them know when we are going to do it. But that is what we are talking about. You know, when General Petraeus came a couple of weeks ago, I knew exactly what he was going to say because I was over there--I have been over there actually 15 times in the AOR of Iraq, not always in Iraq, sometimes Afghanistan, Djibouti and all of that. But I have watched very carefully, from time to time when I have been there, what progress has been made. I was in shock the last two trips we took. The last two trips, it was so evident in that one area, starting with Anbar, where most of the problems were. And I was in Anbar Province, in Fallujah, during all the elections that took place, and it was chaos up there. We remember our marines going door to door World War II style and all the things that were going on there. It is now totally secure. It is not secure under us, it is secure under the Iraqi security forces. We remember only a year ago the terrorists said Ramadi was going to be the terrorist capital of world. It is now secure. All of the way through down there, south of Baghdad, the same thing is happening. What has happened with this surge are three different things: No. 1, the surge itself. That is more people. No. 2, we had General Petraeus going in. No. 3, they did get the message from some of these surrender and cut-and-run resolutions that there was the threat that we would pull out, and, consequently, the Iraqi security forces have done things they have never done before. I learned something when I was over there, and that was it is not the political leaders, it is the religious leaders who are calling the shots. Our intelligence goes to all the weekly mosque meetings. Prior to the surge, 85 percent of the mosque meetings were anti-American messages. Since the surge, since April, there hasn't been one. So this is the kind of progress that is being made. We now have volunteers going out there with spray cans, putting circles around the undetonated IEDs, doing this on their own, risking their own lives to help Americans. We have this imbedded program, where they actually go in joint security stations and live with the Iraqis. It is something that has been very successful in developing close relationships. So this is the kind of success we are having. I was up in Tikrit the other day. Remember, that is Saddam Hussein's hometown. Even up there, in that home territory up there, with the exception of Diyala, it all looks real good. That is the bottom line. We have success. If we pass something now that tells them, in a period of time you can expect us to leave, and this is what we are going to do, we are giving them our playbook. If you look and see what some of our top leaders have said about that, General Petraeus said: We cannot leave without jeopardying the gains we have started to achieve. Those are the gains I talked about. Secretary Gates said: If we were to withdraw, leaving Iraq in chaos, al-Qaida most certainly would use Anbar Province as another base from which to plan operations. This is the type of thing we would be doing. I cannot imagine anyone would vote for any type of amendment that would tell the enemy specifically what we were going to do and when we were going to do it. Ambassador Crocker says: I cannot guarantee success in Iraq. I do believe, as I have described, it is attainable. I am certain that abandoning or drastically curtailing our efforts will bring failure, and the consequences of such failure must be clearly understood by us all. What are those consequences? It would be a vacuum. We have heard loudly and clearly from such people as President Ahmadi-Nejad who said: I can tell you there will be a power vacuum in the region. [This is if we leave precipitously.] We are ready with other regional countries such as Saudi Arabia, and the people of Iraq to fill that vacuum. In other words, we leave, Iran comes in, al-Qaida comes in, all the advances, all the sacrifices, all the lives that have been lost will have been lost in vain. I cannot imagine anyone would vote for this amendment. I encourage my fellow Senators to oppose it. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? I ask the Senator from Texas, I was down here yesterday spending quite a bit of time on this particular issue. I was not aware the Senator from California was going to come in with her amendment. I assume the first vote we have is going to be on the Boxer amendment; is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. Well, let me just suggest to you, I think if the defining moment--if you really agreed with what MoveOn.org did and what they said and how they demeaned one of the finest officers in the history of this country--the guy has a Ph.D. from Princeton; he is not just a normal person. The guy was unanimously agreed to and supported by the group here to go and do this work and take over the war in Iraq. This is the right guy for the right time. Huge successes are taking place. I listened with some interest this morning to the House Foreign Relations subcommittee proceedings yesterday, and the very people who were complaining that General Petraeus consulted with the White House to come up with his information are now saying he should have consulted with White House and did not do it. You can't have it both ways. I would just say this: The vote we are about to take is not a vote on an amendment by Senator Boxer; it is a vote as to whether you agree with MoveOn.org coming in and saying the things they have articulated about one of our top military leaders. That is what the vote is all about. I urge everyone to oppose the Boxer amendment.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I thank the majority leader for his comments. It will be my intention, after I conclude my remarks concerning a fallen marine, that the floor be given to the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham, for a period of approximately 15 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to remember the life of one of America's heroes, Marine CPL Jeremy David Allbaugh. Corporal Allbaugh came from Luther, OK, and graduated from nearby Harrah High School. Before graduating, he was chosen to be a U.S. marine, becoming a member in the 1st Battalion, 4th Marines. Tragically, Jeremy died on July 5, while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province near the city of al-Qa'im, when his humvee was struck by an improvised explosive device. There are no words that can truly express the dedication and selflessness of this young marine. There are no words that can adequately convey our thoughts for their loss to his family, who are here with us today. They have given everything to our country, something many find it difficult to comprehend and a sacrifice fewer will ever face. But I will say these words so as to honor Jeremy's last request, a request which America will always oblige her heroes, which was: ``Remember me.'' Before deploying to Iraq with his Marine unit, Jeremy had a conversation with his brother, Army 2LT Jason Allbaugh, in which Jeremy made two simple requests. He said: If something happens to me, do me a favor. Jeremy said: Do two things for me. Take care of mom and dad, and remember me. Jeremy, today we do that. We remember your life of service and thank you for giving the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our Nation. Growing up, Jeremy seemed destined to become a marine. His brother Jason--and I visited with him--said as far back as he could remember, Jeremy wanted to be a marine. Most kids had the conventional costumes on Halloween but not Jeremy. He wore fatigues. Jeremy also wore a camouflage backpack to school. His dream became reality 3 years ago when, 2 months shy of his 18th birthday and prior to graduating from high school, Jeremy joined the Marine Corps. His father Jon and his mother Jenifer, seeing how much Jeremy loved his country and his desire to serve, supported his decision and gave their permission. That decision could not have been an easy one. All parents can understand their concern, especially parents of our servicemembers who face the possibility that their son or daughter could see combat in Iraq, Afghanistan or anyplace else in the world. Although their concern was great, I am sure it was surpassed only by the enormous pride they felt for their son Jeremy. Jeremy, driven by a sense of duty, was willing to leave the comfort of his family and friends and the life he knew and answer the call for his country. Jeremy arrived in Iraq this past April. Jenifer said in Jeremy's weekly phone calls he gave the family a much different picture of what was going on in Iraq compared to what was being reported in the media. There were a lot of good things being done there, Jeremy told his family. There were Neighborhood Watch programs, new schools, hospitals, clinics being built in the area where he was assigned. I know this is true because I was there when Jeremy was there, and I saw this for myself in some 15 trips to the area of operation in Iraq. When asked how the local Iraqi people treated the marines, Jeremy was upbeat. ``They appreciate what we do,'' he said. Jeremy believed in the positive changes he saw happening in Iraq, and he loved being a part of it. Jenifer wishes so desperately that the American people knew and understood the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. She hopes that more people will start to talk firsthand to our troops who are over there, not only to politicians in Washington. I, too, wish more people would talk to our troops who are over there and see their pride, their courage, their sense of honor and duty. Jeremy exemplified these qualities. Maybe that is why Jenifer wishes people would talk to the troops, because she knows they would be talking to men and women similar to her own son. Similar to so many of America's fallen heroes, Jeremy was young, only 21-years-old, when an IED took his life. Jeremy joined the Marine Corps after 9/11 and after the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He knew what it meant to serve. He knew what it meant to be a marine. He knew what chances he was taking. Jeremy's courage and selflessness are common for someone of his young age serving over there. Perhaps Jeremy's last wish, the wish that he be remembered, was his most selfless act. When we remember Jeremy, we remember that which is great about our country, and his death will force us to remember the sacrifices of those throughout our history who have given their lives in defense of the Nation. We remember; we will always remember. Rev. Jeff Koch, Pastor of the First Christian Church of Blackwell, OK, where Jeremy was honored before being laid to rest, said Jeremy ``paid the ultimate sacrifice so tonight we can sleep easy.'' I, too, believe this. Because of Jeremy's sacrifice, America can sleep easier. But I will rest easier knowing Jeremy lived and that, though they are rare, men and women similar to Jeremy are out there right now, protecting our lives and freedoms and our liberties. In this long war against terrorism and tyranny, America will continue to rely on men and women such as Jeremy, men and women who have been called to duty, men and women willing to put service before self. We remember the life of Jeremy David Allbaugh, a marine, a friend, a brother, a grandson, and a son. We remember and pray for his family, father Jon; mother Jenifer; brothers Jason and Bryan; sister Alicia; and his grandparents, John, Dorothy, and Peggy. Today, on the floor of this great deliberative body and in the annals of our Record, we mourn Jeremy's passing and forever honor and remember his life. Jeremy Allbaugh is a living memory to us, of what is great about America. So we say: Rest easy, Jeremy. Semper Fidelis.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. All right. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside for the purpose of considering my amendment No. 2271 and then to revert back to this pending amendment. It is my understanding that this amendment is one of 10 amendments that is going to be considered.