Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. All right. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I do not think adequate time has been given to the amendment you want to address, the Boxer amendment, and if you would want some of my time to do that, I would be willing to give it up. I am really prepared to yield back at the appropriate time on this amendment. Let me make this comment. If people are concerned my amendment is going to be devastating, just keep in mind we have this limitation. There is a very sizable mandate that is out there. The very maximum that would be used would be to reduce that mandate--in a year when a disaster occurs--by only 15 percent. In other words, 85 percent of that mandate would still be in effect. I think that is a very reasonable approach to it. With that, Mr. President, I will yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Well, I think that is probably a good idea.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, for a question. It is my understanding that the time you are taking right now will be taken off of our time equally, and since we are under a UC for a time- certain for a vote, I know that would not be the Senator's intention.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. First, I may be yielding back some time. Let me respond to a couple assertions that have been made. The Senator from Iowa was talking about in the event that livestock would not be hurt because they would actually end up going up later in the market and that will take care of that problem. I would suggest to you that a lot of individuals don't agree with that. I have a letter I will read a little bit out of. It is signed by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Chicken Council, the Pork Producers Council, the Restaurant Association, and the Turkey Federation. All of them don't feel this is going to be the market result. Since the Senator from New Mexico read some excerpts of a letter signed by a large number, we have many more who have signed this letter than the letter which was submitted by the Senator from New Mexico. One of the paragraphs in here says: We are concerned that the very aggressive increase in biofuels mandates proposed in S. 1419 raises fundamental questions about the impact that an increased Federal Government mandate for corn-based ethanol, in addition to new State mandates, will have on the livestock, poultry, and food industry's ability to produce competitively available, affordable food. In other words, this is going to affect a lot of people in their estimation in terms of the cost of food, not just livestock, not just the grain concern that is out there. It continues: It is vitally important that we fully appreciate and understand the implications of quintupling the renewable fuels standard mandate, and we would ask that you use careful consideration and listen to the significant issues being raised by those in the agriculture and food products community. Let me mention, I know the Senator from South Dakota was not in the Chamber when I made my remarks, but Oklahoma also is a corn State. I really believe the excellent statement that was made by the Senator from South Dakota--who has been a real champion, maybe the No. 1 champion, in this body of corn ethanol--really makes my case for me. If these States are increasing their production the way they are, then there is no problem. Nothing in this amendment is going to affect anything at all. In fact, the only concern we have is in the event there is a year where this is not true. Let me just go ahead and make sure everyone understands what this amendment does and does not do. Quite often on the floor, we get people opposing something, and then you scratch your head and say: Wait a minute, is that my amendment they are talking about? The amendment is a modification provision for food and animal feed based on the ratio of cornstalks to projected demand. In the case of a short- or low-corn crop year, there is currently no meaningful safety valve that would address this situation. This amendment would provide a small level of confidence to producers as well as investors that corn would be available to meet the needs of all uses. In other words, if the production is up, there is not a problem. This addresses disasters and worst-case scenarios and assures the renewable fuels standard does not lead to a shortage of corn for human or animal consumption. It requires the USDA and the EPA to make a midyear-end determination of current weather conditions, followed by an end-of-the-year determination on the stalks-to-use ratio following harvest. If the determination estimates the stalks-to-use ratio is below 10 percent, it would trigger a temporary adjustment in the RFS to account for the need for increased availability of corn feed. The amendment would not permit the RFS to fall more than 15 percent in any given year. Now, it has been said--I suspect there is a letter floating around somewhere that says this would be the end of the world and it would completely destroy what they are trying to do. Let me just read the one limitation that is in this amendment. It says: A requirement under the renewable fuels standard under section 111(a) shall not be reduced by more than 15 percent during any calendar year. That is, if there is some kind of a drought or some kind of a real serious problem--it can be too much water or not enough water--then it would not affect it by more than 15 percent. Well, that is 15 percent. That is not the end of the world. It means 85 percent of these mandates are still going to be there and still be in effect. So I think it is a very modest approach. The list of people who share this concern is a very long one. I mentioned some of the names--these industries. I will go ahead and read them at this time: American Feed Industry Association, American Meat Institute, Cargill, the Coca-Cola Company, ConAgra Foods, General Mills, Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association, Hormel Foods, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Chicken Council, National Pork Producers Council, the National Restaurant Association, National Turkey Federation, PepsiCo, Incorporated, Seaboard Corporation, Tyson Foods, United Egg Association, United Egg Producers--and the list goes on and on. So there is this concern out there. Again, my State is not dissimilar in any way to the State of New Mexico. They are right next door. I would suggest we probably have about the same size corn industry, as well as perhaps our cattle industry is not quite as large as it is in New Mexico, but it certainly is not dissimilar. There is nothing I would do to be damaging to the corn industry because that is a major industry, of course, in my State. The Food Products Association--let me mention to you how they feel. In a worst-case scenario, if you do not have some kind of a safety valve, it could be damaging. They say: More and more pursuit of corn- based ethanol is resulting in higher food and feed prices. The price of corn has jumped 55 percent since September. According to USDA's Chief Economist, the consequences of ethanol are the biggest thing going on in agriculture today. An increase in ethanol production is already having a significant impact on food and feed supplies, such as corn, soybeans, and wheat. The U.S. Labor Department recently reported that February prices for foodstuffs and feedstuffs were 18 percent above year-ago levels. That was in the Wall Street Journal of March of this year. According to the Wall Street Journal, the higher corn prices have raised costs for livestock and poultry which are fed corn and for crops such as soybeans, which farmers are replacing so they can grow more corn. The corn companies are starting to pass those higher prices on to consumers. Wholesale consumer food prices were 6.8 percent above year- ago levels. So this is not happening in a vacuum. Obviously, the mandates are there for corn ethanol, and they will continue to be there. As we look down the road, Oklahoma has been pretty active in the work they are doing right now on the other types of cellulosic biomass. Right now, one of our companies in Oklahoma has been very active in that. We are leading the field. We have Oklahoma State University and Oklahoma University and the Noble Foundation leading the country in the pursuit of these technologies. The coal-to-liquid technology is here. We are currently flying B-52s with all eight engines running on this type of a fuel. So we know it is coming. So it is not all just corn ethanol. Again, we are a corn State. We are also a big livestock State. I think this is a middle-of-the-road type of amendment. Again, you have to respond to these statements that you are going to destroy something, when the limitation by law would be 15 percent of the current mandate in the event of some kind of a disaster. USDA is already making these studies and doing it, and it is not really requiring anything more. With that, Mr. President, I will retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me inquire of the time remaining on each side, please?

Mr. INHOFE. Unfortunately, the collective livestock and grocery producers' concern continues. In fact, the earlier coalition has grown to 18 industry representatives, including cattle, poultry, swine producers, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, even Cargill. In a letter to me, the coalition writes: We are asking Congress to provide those that utilize and rely on corn and corn products a reasonable amount of certainty that adequate supplies are available to all users of this commodity. We know right now the price of corn is very high. This obviously has--it does not happen in a vacuum. Too often on the Senate floor we believe things can be done without affecting others. In this case, it is definitely affecting others, as indicated by these communications. Now, with respect to our amendment, they state: Your amendment would go a long way in ensuring a safety net ensuring those of us that utilize corn and corn products will have enough to go around should a drought or flood occur that would limit the harvested amount that is available. Now, our amendment seeks to provide some of the much needed equity in the current system. This amendment simply requires that the USDA provide information on projected corn harvests each year. Well, they do that anyway. This is not going to incur anymore of a hardship on the USDA; they have that capability; they are already doing it. If the projected harvest is below a certain percentage, then the administrator has the authority to modify the mandate for the next year. So that if it comes down and we see we are going to have a drought, we are going to have some kind of a problem, we would be able to address that by making a small adjustment to the mandate that is there. Now, I would expect the ethanol industry to support our amendment, since first they claim there is no food versus feed issue. Second, because they have stated repeatedly that corn farmers can grow much more renewable--Fuels Association President Bob Dineen said--this is the one who is very strong in the ethanol mandate the American farmer absolutely has the ability to grow more corn to provide sufficient quantities of grain and food and feed for fuel usage and we are going to see that that happens. Well, if that is the case, then there is not a problem. So I am not suggesting or picking any favorites with this amendment. I am saying we ought to be sure in the event that something that can be foreseen, and these droughts can be foreseen--as I say, they are doing it right now. So this amendment supports that concept. Corn farmers have done a great job in increasing yield per acre in the past and they will continue to do that. Our amendment simply provides, as a collective food industry State, a reasonable amount of certainty and a safety net, so that all the U.S. agriculture is able to prosper. I know there are others who are on the floor who would disagree with my amendment. I certainly wish to make sure they have time to express themselves. So if the Senator from Iowa is prepared at this point to speak, I would be glad to yield to him. Exhibit 1 June 20, 2007. Sen. James Inhofe, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Ranking Member Inhofe: We believe in the need to advance renewable and alternative sources of energy. New fuel sources offer the potential to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil while contributing to the long-term stability of our rural economies. But, as we seek to implement policy that will move us toward accomplishing this objective, it is essential that we carefully weigh the impacts of our actions on other segments of the economy. Additionally, we would hope that any policy that is agreed upon during this debate would not overly tax one group in an effort to hopefully achieve the objective of energy independence. We are concerned that the very aggressive increase in biofuels mandates proposed in S. 1419 raises fundamental questions about the impact that an increased federal government mandate for corn-based ethanol, in addition to new state mandates, will have on the livestock, poultry and food industry's ability to produce competitively available, affordable food. It is vitally important that we fully appreciate and understand the implications of quintupling the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandate, and we would ask that you use careful consideration and listen to the significant issues being raised by those in the agriculture and food products community. Rapid development of the corn-based ethanol industry is already having adverse impacts on food supplies and prices, a major concern for us. Rising food prices, coupled with the rising energy prices we are seeing throughout the country, pose a threat to the health of our national economy. According to a recent report by Merrill Lynch Chief Investment Strategist Richard Bernstein, within the first three months of the year, food prices rose at an annualized rate of 7.3 percent. That is slightly higher than the anticipated annual rise in healthcare costs over the next decade, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' National Health Statistics Group. In addition, the continued aggressive expansion of corn ethanol production diminishes the availability of soybeans and other crops. We need a safety valve that ensures availability and that works. We are asking Congress to provide those that utilize and rely on corn and corn products a reasonable amount of certainty that adequate supplies are available to all users of this commodity. Your amendment to S. 1419, the Agriculture Equity Adjustment Provision (#1666) would go a long way in achieving a safety net ensuring those of us that utilize corn and corn products will have enough to go around should a drought or flood occur that would limit the harvested amount that is available. We look forward to working with you to achieve a balanced approach between all competing uses of corn as we go forward in this energy debate. We need an adequate contingency plan in place, and this amendment achieves that goal. Thanks again for your leadership and efforts. Sincerely, American Feed Industry Association, American Meat Institute, Cargill, The Coca Cola Company, ConAgra Foods, General Mills, Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association, Hormel Foods, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Pork Producers Council, National Restaurant Association, National Turkey Federation, PepsiCo, Inc., Seaboard Corporation, Tyson Foods, United Egg Association, United Egg Producers.

Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the comments of the chairman. I recognize her concern with MTBE contamination. I understand that. But getting the Administrator authority to use the Clean Air Act to regulate water quality is something I would have to think about a little bit. Let me go back and talk a little bit about the amendment we are running concurrently with the other amendments. This is amendment 1666. We have a lot of cosponsors to this. I would invite more to come down. I think people would see this is a very rational way to address one of the problems with the mandates that come with this bill. We seek to ensure the bill does not pick winners and losers in domestic agriculture. Although high corn prices might be good for corn farmers, it is harmful for livestock and poultry industries. Now, in my State of Oklahoma, I don't have a dog in this fight, or I guess I could say I have all the dogs in this fight, because we are a corn State, we are a very large livestock State. I have heard from a lot of our people there expressing their concerns. In fact, 15 industry groups have joined together and sent both Senate leaders a letter expressing their concern that the biofuels title in this bill could harm their industries. I ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of my remarks to have printed in the Record a copy of that letter.

Mr. INHOFE. No, it can come off mine.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me first respond to something the chairman of the committee, Senator Boxer, had stated. I believe I agree that our committee should have the jurisdiction. I do agree with her. There are some other things. In fact, there is an easier way to do it, I would suggest to my chairman. That would be to strike the portion in the bill, the underlying bill, that talks about the President or the administration and merely put in the EPA. If you do that, then, of course, you correct the jurisdictional problems. It is another way of doing it. My concern is that your amendment does get into some areas I do not find I get quite as excited about as the chairman does, such as having us study land-use patterns, which I do not think is as appropriate for the Federal Government to do as State and local government. We had this debate in the past. But I would say I would like to accomplish some of the things that the chairman has tried to accomplish with her amendments.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the unanimous consent request was for the two amendments to be side by side. At this point, I call up amendment 1666 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I introduce S. 1623. I introduce this bill to prevent the imposition of global taxes on the United States. The current efforts of the United Nations and other international organizations are to develop and advocate a type of tax system that will keep them from having to answer to anybody. Last year, I introduced legislation, S. 3633, which garnered the support of 31 cosponsors, and I am pleased to reintroduce this bill today with 23 cosponsors. This bill states if the United Nations or other international organizations continue to pursue global taxation, the United States will withhold 20 percent of the assessed contributions to the regular budget of these organizations. This measure will last until certification is given by the President to the Congress that no international organization has legal taxation authority in the United States, that no taxes or fees have been imposed on the United States, and that no taxes have been proposed by any of these international organizations. One has to wonder sometimes what has happened to sovereignty in America. There are people in this body who don't think anything is good unless it is somehow proposed by some international organization, and quite often the interests of international organizations are not the same interests of our Nation. Our Government's primary leverage with the United Nations is controlling the flow of our regular contributions. By collecting enormous and global taxes on top of our regular contributions, the United Nations, or any other of these international organizations, would be accountable to no one. The United Nations' abuse of international trust, rampant corruption, and widespread waste are now all well-known. Allowing this clearly dysfunctional institution to extract U.S. dollars is absurd. Permitting this would condone the U.N.'s long sought-after goal of a U.N.-led global governance--something not in the best interest of the United States. The United States already pays 27 percent of the U.N. Peacekeeping budget and 22 percent of the regular U.N. dues and special assessments, the majority of which our Government tracks very poorly. To further loosen the reins on the United Nations would be disastrous. We can't allow this to happen. It is fascinating to watch the various things that are not in the best interests of this country and the fact that we are paying for 25 percent of that. This is a way we would be able to inject into this system something that would be far better and would take care of just the sovereignty of the United States; those things that are in our best interests and not just in the best interests of some international organization.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, the other day I saw something--and I should have it with me but I don't now--in the media that was critical of GEN Peter Pace, the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. When I think of words to describe Peter Pace, the words that come to my mind are always loyalty and honor. Those happen to be the words of the United States Marine Corps. These are their watch words. Peter Pace is today, and has always been, a true marine--the first marine to serve as both the Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He is loyal to this country, its people, and to the men and women who wear the uniform of its Armed Forces. He served this country with honor as a rifle platoon leader in Vietnam. He has done everything: a marine commander in Somalia, commander of U.S. Marine forces in the Atlantic, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, and then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As Chairman, he has led our military during one of the most critical times in history, fighting in wars against terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, engaged throughout the world providing support and aid to our allies and friends. I have long been, and still am, a real fan of Peter Pace, and I cannot think of one military leader I have known in the 21 years I have served on the House Armed Services and the Senate Armed Services Committees who is a greater American than Peter Pace. Let me just pay this tribute to him today as one great marine and one great American. (The remarks of Mr. Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S. 1623 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I introduce S. 1623. I introduce this bill to prevent the imposition of global taxes on the United States. The current efforts of the United Nations and other international organizations are to develop and advocate a type of tax system that will keep them from having to answer to anybody. Last year, I introduced legislation, S. 3633, which garnered the support of 31 cosponsors, and I am pleased to reintroduce this bill today with 23 cosponsors. This bill states if the United Nations or other international organizations continue to pursue global taxation, the United States will withhold 20 percent of the assessed contributions to the regular budget of these organizations. This measure will last until certification is given by the President to the Congress that no international organization has legal taxation authority in the United States, that no taxes or fees have been imposed on the United States, and that no taxes have been proposed by any of these international organizations. One has to wonder sometimes what has happened to sovereignty in America. There are people in this body who don't think anything is good unless it is somehow proposed by some international organization, and quite often the interests of international organizations are not the same interests of our Nation. Our Government's primary leverage with the United Nations is controlling the flow of our regular contributions. By collecting enormous and global taxes on top of our regular contributions, the United Nations, or any other of these international organizations, would be accountable to no one. The United Nations' abuse of international trust, rampant corruption, and widespread waste are now all well-known. Allowing this clearly dysfunctional institution to extract U.S. dollars is absurd. Permitting this would condone the U.N.'s long sought-after goal of a U.N.-led global governance--something not in the best interest of the United States. The United States already pays 27 percent of the U.N. Peacekeeping budget and 22 percent of the regular U.N. dues and special assessments, the majority of which our Government tracks very poorly. To further loosen the reins on the United Nations would be disastrous. We can't allow this to happen. It is fascinating to watch the various things that are not in the best interests of this country and the fact that we are paying for 25 percent of that. This is a way we would be able to inject into this system something that would be far better and would take care of just the sovereignty of the United States; those things that are in our best interests and not just in the best interests of some international organization.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I understand what is customary; I am just saying that we are entitled to close debate. Apparently, the Senator from California is not going to allow me to close debate. So let me just say for a few minutes here that I was going to go through every argument the Senator from California has made. For example, first of all, I already did the first one where she talks about subsidizing oil companies. No corporation in America is being subsidized by this. She said also, we don't want to become a China, where they do not care about the people and how they suffer. We don't want to go there. Politicians are prone to hyperbole, but the junior Senator from California has reached a new level. Nowhere in this bill or any other I would consider would I seek to make the United States similar to China. By the way, talking about China, one of the problems we are having right now is that while we do not have the refining capacity, they do. While we are not building generating plants, they are. While we have gone 15 years without adding a new coal-fired generating plant in the United States, China is cranking out one every 3 days. The argument that was made was American families who want their health protected do not want us to waive every single environmental law that protects the quality of the air they breathe inside their bodies. They also do not want to waive any single environmental law. We are not doing that. We are not waiving any environmental laws with this bill. Let me tell you something that is serious. I warn people right now, this is going to be considered to be maybe the most significant vote in the 2008 elections. For people to say we do not want America to have refining capacity when we have a bill that will allow them to have the refining capacity and increase the supply--the old theory of supply and demand still works--those people who will vote against this will forfeit your right to complain about the dependency on foreign oil. This is going to be a major, maybe the major campaign issue of the 2008 cycle. I suggest we spent a lot of time on this bill. We do not have any money going to oil companies. We do allow the EDA to help communities that want to set up refineries in their communities. Let's keep in mind, this is not just oil refineries. We are talking about oil refineries but also cellulosic biomass refineries, we are talking about coal-to-liquid refineries--all refineries to give us the availability of fuels for the transportation this country needs. If we do not have that, the price of gas at the pump is going to continue to go up. I suggest this is going to be the critical vote, in terms of energy, for this entire legislative session. It is going to come back to haunt a lot of people in 2008. I know the Democrats are generally much more disciplined than the Republicans are. They will say you have to vote against this amendment, make up things such as you are helping oil companies, which you are not. Whatever the case is, the bottom line is they are going to be taking away our ability to increase the supply of gasoline to run our cars within America. This will be a major issue in the 2008 campaigns. I encourage people to do something about this problem and to vote for the Inhofe amendment expanding our refining capacity. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding there was a unanimous consent agreement giving us 6 minutes equally divided, myself having the last 3; is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I understand that we have 3 minutes remaining to close debate on my amendment. I have a hard time keeping a straight face when the Senator from California suggests I have a socialistic amendment. I would invite anyone who is entertaining any kind of joy in that statement to look at our record over the past many years. It is just humorous. We have gone through listening to the same thing over and over and over again. We went through this yesterday for hours at a time. The Senator from California talks about subsidizing oil companies. Again, not one cent goes to any oil company. If we want to empower cities and communities to be able to take care of problems, maybe an economic problem that is due to the fact that they had to close a military base during the base realignment and closing process, we should be in a position to help. I never stated that Senator Feinstein--with endorsing this bill, she will be a good Democrat and oppose it with her junior Senator. I will say this. She said she recognizes we have a serious problem about having a refining capacity in this country, and about--I will just read it to you from her own press release: Today I urged Governor Schwarzenegger to help streamline the refining permit process in an effort to relieve gas prices in the State. All right. She says we have to relieve gas prices by streamlining the process. That is exactly what happens in this amendment. We want that to happen. For anyone to suggest that there is anything in here that would hurt the environment, here we have the Environmental Council of States--that is all States--saying there is nothing in here that will hurt the environment. It will actually help the environment. The Senator also said the Clean Air Act is going to be damaged, when, in fact, the underlying bill has language that would take the fuels system out from under the EPA and the Clean Air Act and put it in the President's power. So we have all of these letters. Here is another one from Ceres, a big company in California that is a company that needs to have refining capacity. They do not touch oil. It is all cellulosic bioethanol. They want to have this capacity. So the environmentalists, many of them are very much for this. It is a very strong bill. It goes right back to the initial argument of supply and demand. We have got some good things in this bill that are coming up. It is not affecting today's supply. All of the production in the world is fine, but we are not going to be able to do anything with that production unless we are able to refine it. That is exactly what we are talking about now. I honestly believe every argument the Senator from California has put up we have responded to over and over and over again. She keeps coming back with the same argument. I believe anyone who votes against the Inhofe amendment to the Energy bill should forfeit their right to complain about the dependency on foreign oil between now and the next election. I will say this also. I am glad to say this on the Senate floor because this way you cannot say we did not tell you. This is going to be one of the major issues in the upcoming 2008 election as to whether you want to increase our refining capacity to lower the price of gas in the United States of America. This is a chance to do it. I urge you to support the Inhofe amendment to the Energy bill.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cornyn and Senator Hutchinson be added as cosponsors of my amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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