Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I understand we have 10 minutes. I wish to retain the remainder of our time.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri. A lot of people don't know it, but his family has made a personal sacrifice in their efforts in this war. We appreciate that very much. The Senator from Missouri outlined the consequences of surrender in a very articulate way. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any quorum calls during the debate on the Iraq resolutions be equally divided.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding on this side we have 18 minutes. I am going to reserve 10 minutes for leadership time. That leaves 8 minutes I yield to the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today, I wish to speak to my amendment No. 381 that seeks to improve the U.S.'s national security through increasing our ability to fuel our country from domestic resources. Americans are familiar with the violence, terrorism, and instability in the Middle East. But forms of that instability are spreading around the world, including to our own backyard. This chart by the Energy Information Agency summarizes some of the energy security hot spots around the world. Since September 2005 when this chart was made, U.S. security interests have gotten even worse in some regions. On February 26, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez nationalized U.S. oil interests--the motivation for the Soviet-style move was to improve Venezuelan strategic interests. Adding insult to injury, while signing an agreement allowing Chinese companies to explore in Venezuela, Mr. Chavez stated that, ``We have been producing and exporting oil for more than 100 years but they have been years of dependence on the United States. Now we are free and we make our resources available to the great country of China.'' China has recognized that energy is a true security interest and has inked deals with Russia and OPEC, along with Castro's Cuba. The fact is that our national security is linked with our energy security. Yet even if we were to stop importing oil from the Middle East tomorrow our national security interests would still be at risk. And we are not alone. European Union countries as a whole import 50 percent of their energy needs, a figure expected to rise to 70 percent by 2030. A significant and increasing volume of those imports come from Russia. In December 2005, Russia decided to turn off the gas to Ukraine, affecting imports into Italy, Austria, Germany, Poland, and Slovakia. A similar dispute between Russia and Belarus affected Germany's oil imports. According to the Congressional Research Service, global energy demand is expected to rise by nearly 60 percent over the next 20 years. In order to meet motorists' demands today and tomorrow and the global struggle for energy security, I am introducing the Domestic Fuels Security Act. The Domestic Fuels Security Act lays out a coordinated plan to increase the production of critical clean transportation fuels for today and tomorrow in four significant ways. First, the amendment provides a coordinated process whereby the Federal Government--at the option of a Governor and in consultation with local governments--would be required to assist the State in the permitting process for domestic fuels facilities. These would include coal-to-liquids plants, modern refineries, and biorefineries. And this voluntary, coordinated, from-the-grassroots-up process would do so without waiving any environmental law. Second, the amendment would look to the future and conduct a full environmental review of fuel derived from coal. The U.S. has 27 percent of the world's coal supply--the largest in the world--nearly 250 billion tons of recoverable reserves. It is critical that we learn to use what we have and do so in an environmentally responsible way. Third, the amendment seeks to spur a viable coal-to-liquids industry in a comprehensive way. In order for a new fuels industry--to develop three components are required--upfront costs to design and build, a site to do it, and a market to sell the product. The amendment provides loan guarantees and loans for the startup costs. It provides incentives to some of the most economically distressed communities--Indian tribes and those affected by BRAC--to consider locating a facility in their backyard through Economic Development Administration grants. Last, the amendment requires the Department of Defense to study the national security benefits of having a domestic coal-to-liquids, CTL, fuels industry to comprehensively assess a new market. I have to give credit to my colleagues, Senators Bunning, Obama, Lugar, Pryor, Murkowski, Bond, Thomas, Craig, Martinez, Enzi, and Landrieu, who together had introduced a bill with similar language. I am hopeful that they will join me in moving this amendment. We can all agree that increasing domestic energy security is a vital objective. Yet it also provides good jobs. According to the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, a CTL plant, with an output of 10,000 barrels per day, can support 200 direct jobs onsite, at least 150 jobs at the supporting coal mine, and 2,800 indirect jobs throughout the region. During construction, another 1,500 temporary jobs will be created. Fourth, cellulosic biomass ethanol--renewable fuel from energy crops like switchgrass--is a popular concept but faces financial barriers. Recently, the Federal Government has released some initial money to help develop the industry, but more could be done. In order to entice private sector investment, it is important for the collective fuels industry and motorists to know what our renewable resource base is, as well as traditional fuels. This amendment requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to convene a task force to assess how we should modernize our reserves--both traditional and renewable for cellulosic biomass ethanol feedstocks. Energy security, job security, American security--please join me in passing the Domestic Fuels Security Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the chart to which I referred.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a very friendly question?

Mr. INHOFE. We had authorized $5.7 billion to be spent this year on the BRAC process and $4.1 billion was taken out, with $1 billion put back. My question to you is: Can we have that made up without taking it out of a supplemental that would be pulling it out of other wartime activities? I would say that probably would work. That is my concern.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, what is the regular order?

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, there is a vote coming up on the resolution. We already had one vote on a cloture motion. I have to say publicly one more time the reason I have so vigorously opposed this whole concept, and it is because in a very partisan way, in a very partisan manner, the Democrats were successful in taking out the money that would have implemented the fifth and last BRAC round. BRAC is the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. In this BRAC round, we would have saved $20 billion by 2012, but by delaying it a year, the costs are going to be far greater. There is $5.7 billion to implement BRAC, and the Democrats took out effectively $4.1 billion and then put $1 billion back--$3.1 billion out. That means we cannot implement these BRAC policies and actually effect the savings. The problem I have with this is they say this is going to come out of the emergency supplemental, we will get it all taken out of that. That means it comes out of money that otherwise would have gone to our fighting troops in Iraq. This is not what I want to happen. Right now, we are underfunded over there. We have great needs in armored vehicles, operating costs, and training costs for Iraqi security forces, and this translates into American lives. To have $3.1 billion come out of this BRAC process to me is unconscionable when we are at war. This means the units that were planning to return stateside will have to remain abroad. It means the temporary and old housing will continue to be used, further increasing the upkeep in costs. And it means it is going to cost a lot more to implement it. Each week that goes by, each time it is delayed, it is going to cost additional money. Here is the other problem we have, if we stop and think. All the communities that are surrounding our various military establishments have participated in the BRAC process and have said: If you will do this and expand this base, we will put in free housing, we will do health care for the children of our military people. All these very generous contributions which are made by the private sector very likely will not even be made. It is not too late to change our mind. I just wish I could reach a number of people here to convince the leadership, such as my good friend from North Dakota. I know he is interested in accommodating the BRAC needs. If we could just get this one amendment in to allow us to do the military construction and to pull that out of the continuing resolution, it would be appreciated very much by our troops who are fighting a very difficult battle. I will make my one last appeal. We cannot take the $3.1 billion out and adequately support the military operation. I yield the floor. Funding For Iraq: Refugees

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those 5 minutes be divided between myself and Senator Chambliss.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me inquire as to how much time is left open from the 10 minutes of the Senator of Texas?

Mr. INHOFE. The point I was trying to make in terms of community support, many communities in Georgia and Oklahoma have made commitments predicated on this next BRAC round coming forward. I ask the question, Aren't you a little concerned how to face the communities if we renege on what the Government's portion is?

Mr. INHOFE. And that at the conclusion of the unanimous consent request wherein the last speaker, it is my understanding, is the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, that the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been watching this debate as it has taken place. I am disappointed that procedurally we dropped the ball. We were hoping to be able to speak all afternoon on probably the most immediate crisis we are facing in terms of the budget; that is, the BRAC process. Let me share a couple of ideas as to what this is all about. A lot of people are not all that familiar with the process we are talking about. The BRAC process is the Base Closure Realignment Commission. It was brought to our attention and first voted on by a Congressman from Texas, Dick Armey. Prior to that time, it appeared that all of our military establishments that were in the United States had been looked at as economic bases. Consequently, it is very difficult to close down some that are either not efficient or not needed for defending the country. It was the idea of Congressman Armey to put together a system to take politics out of the base-closure system and to allow some criteria to be put forth and have a base-closure commission make recommendations and then take those recommendations and put them into effect. The bottom line would be they may find, in my State of Oklahoma, that one of our installations should be closed or should be realigned and part of it moved somewhere else. If that is the case, we would have to vote on the overall picture. You could not pick or choose. That way, as nearly as you can take politics out of a procedure on this Senate floor, I believe they successfully did that. We had the first BRAC round back in 1988. We have had four since then. The last one is the one we are talking about now. I have to say that when we came to this fifth BRAC closure vote as to whether we are going to allow the Commission to reconvene and make determinations as to priorities, I voted against it. I led the opposition. In fact, we only lost it by two votes. We have had a BRAC round, after all. I made a statement from this Senate floor, from this podium, that whatever recommendations they came up with on this independent, nonpartisan BRAC Commission, I would not object to, and that is exactly what has happened. The problem we are facing--and I can remember so well saying in the Senate before this last round was decided upon, I said it may be that we will save $20 billion over a period of time with another BRAC round. We don't know that for sure, but there is one thing we do know; that is, it is going to cost us a lot of money in the next 3 or 4 years, right when we are going to need the funding for our military. We went through the 1990s downgrading and downsizing the military. I remember this euphoric attitude that many people had--the Cold War is over, and we no longer need a military. Consequently, the attention was not given to the military. I have a chart I have not used for quite a while. This is during the Clinton administration, from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 2001. If we take the black line, that shows that if we merely kept the budget we had for the military from fiscal year 1993 and added nothing but inflation, the black line would represent the amount of the budget and what it would have been at the end of that period of time. The red line represents what the President's budget--it was President Clinton at that time and what he was requesting. You can see the huge difference in there, about a $412 billion difference. Congress, in its wisdom, increased the President's budget insofar as military spending is concerned to this line right here. Nonetheless, over that period of time, while we did bring it up a little bit, it still was $313 billion below what a static budget would have been from that year, in bringing that year forward. That is the problem we are facing in the 1990s, the late 1990s. I remember so many times coming to the Senate and saying that we will rue the day we downgraded the military. And we did. We went down to about 60 percent of the force strength, did away with and slowed down a lot of our military modernization programs. I remember watching other countries producing better equipment, so when we send our young people out to do battle, they don't have the kind of equipment someone else might have. A good example would be our non-line-of-sight cannon, artillery piece. The best piece we have today is the Paladin. That is World War II technology where you have to swab the breach after every shot--something that is totally unacceptable. There are five countries, including South Africa, that make a better cannon than we have. We are going to remedy that now, and we have future combat systems where we will start modernizing. We also slipped behind in the Air Force. I remember when General Jumper at that time came to the Senate, in 1998, and he said that now the Russians are making the Su series, and he referred to the Su-35 and he said it was better than any strike vehicle we have, our F-15s and F- 16s. Now we have an F-22 that will do a better job. This is what happened to us in the 1990s. Now we come to the BRAC process. We had an opportunity to save $20 billion. But to do that, we have to build installations in different areas, divest ourselves of other installations. That is where we are today. As has been said by several speakers in the Senate, we are in a position now going into a continuing resolution, that it would tie us to the 2006 budget. If this happens, the BRAC funding that is necessary to implement the changes to accommodate our fighting troops over there, in their rotations coming back home--all of these things that are taking place are things that can't be taking place now because we are $3 billion short. My next chart shows we are scraping just to fund the BRAC process. The money the military needs to pursue the BRAC round in fiscal year 2007 is $5.6 billion. You can see that on the chart. That is the amount the President requested. That is also the amount in our authorization bill, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act. Those on the Senate Committee on Armed Services authorized this $5.6 billion. The Senate appropriators thought they could shave a little bit off, so they cut from that $.4 billion. That brings it down to $5.2 billion. Because there is no appropriated amount, the BRAC was funded at the fiscal year 2006 level, which is $1.6 billion--far lower than what is required to even start the process of this latest BRAC round. Under the continuing resolution now being considered, the funding was increased by $1 billion, which puts us at a total of $2.5 billion less what the military is going to have to have. That means it is a $3.1 billion shortfall. I know it is confusing, so we put it on a chart so we can clearly understand it. That is what is necessary to carry out those requirements we had in the BRAC round. We did get $1 billion. Let me tell Members where that came from. The Democrats scraped and squeezed all the unfunded amounts that were needed to be funded by the CR. They were able to get an extra $13 billion to fund their own priorities. We talked about those priorities, many of them social programs, many of them programs I would support, some programs I would oppose. To me, they were not in the league of necessity that we have in our military construction in carrying out and implementing BRAC. The chart shows the amount of money, the $13 billion, and where this money went. If you go around the chart, you see Veterans' Administration, $4.5 billion--we supported that; defense health, $1.4 billion; State and Foreign Ops--this is HIV/AIDS, which has been talked about in the Senate--that is $1.25 billion; law enforcement, $1.35 billion--quite frankly, I am not sure what that is referring to; pay raise for Federal workers, $1 billion; Labor-HHS, Head Start, AIDS, Social Security, and so forth, Pell grants, that is $2.3 billion; Interior Department, $200 million. Finally, after everyone else is taken care of, everyone else has been funded, there is $1 billion left over to put toward BRAC. The need was $4.1 billion. It brings it down to the $3.1 billion. So the need is still there. That is how we got where we are today. What this Senate needs to do is to evaluate and establish priorities as to what is really significant. What do we need to add? We are at war. It is inconceivable to me, when we come along with a BRAC process that applies housing and other needs for our troops who are rotating back and forth, that we are not able to do that. One of the concerns I have that I have not talked about in the Senate is the problems we have in the communities. One of the reasons my State of Oklahoma has always, throughout all BRAC processes, all five of them, benefited--and I am bragging a little bit here, and I know other States do a good job--Oklahoma has always done an excellent job on community support. In our five major military installations, we have the communities building hospitals, doing child health care, helping with roads, donating land. For that reason, we have always done a very good job of that in my State. A lot of people were concerned when the BRAC processes took place; that is something which has actually been a benefit to my State. However, in this case, there isn't a State that isn't involved either in pluses or minuses, but overall it is a way to take care of those kids when they come back, when they rotate through. We have two things that are happening right now. We are trying to rotate our troops who were in battle, and the second thing is, we are trying to establish a program where, instead of sending some of our people overseas for 3 and 4 years with their families, to bring them back and let them rotate. With that, I am going to yield the floor. It is my intention to come back. I have quite a few more things to talk about.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, I further ask unanimous consent that after the completion of the remarks of the Senator from Nevada, and after one other Democrat, I be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada expressed my feelings in a much more articulate way than I ever could, and one of the last things he said is: Mistakes have been made in this war. I would suggest mistakes have been made in every war. Winston Churchill once said: Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy. Always remember, however sure you are that you could easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think he also had a chance to win. This statement was made many years ago, but it is relevant today. Today, we face an enemy who is determined, adaptive, and willing to go to any means of terror and violence to win. He cannot be negotiated with, and he will not be satisfied until the entire world is brought under his dreadful ideology. We have seen this kind before. We saw it with Stalin, with Pol Pot, and with Hitler, but never before has an enemy metastasized this way. There is no centralized headquarters we can bomb, no one leader we can eliminate. We will continue to strike terrorism where it appears and track down its leaders but know this will not end the conflict. Victory will come the way it always has. We will destroy the enemy's belief he can win. Any resolution against the President's plan does two things: It tells the enemy, No. 1, that they have been successful; and, No. 2, it gives them patience to wait us out. They are a very patient people. We have already done ourselves damage by bringing the issue to the public eye. Do you believe they do not watch our news; that they are not scouring our media for any hope or any chink in our resolve? Don't be so naive. Their very survival depends on it. This is the only way they can hope to win. If we cannot destroy their will, we will destroy them. This sounds brutal and not very reconciling, but I intend it that way. There is a clear choice and no other option. If we do not fight them in Iraq, we will be fighting them in Philadelphia, in Pittsburgh, in Kansas City, in Los Angeles, and in Seattle. We will be playing defensive until, once again, just as occurred after 9/11, our resolve hardens and we summon up the courage to destroy the enemy. And we must because the alternative is what happened to Rome: Factions of internal strife kept the great power tied up for so long that it lost its strength, its will, and its resolve. The period following was known as the Dark Ages, and this is indeed what al-Qaida seeks. Our country represents the light of freedom and democracy. Yet I fear we have begun a terrible introspective and downward cycle. Our resolve lasts for a few months, maybe a year, but all it takes is enough time and then we break. Our enemy knows this. We can look to our mission in Somalia in 1933, at our reaction to the bombings in Lebanon at the Khobar Towers and in Vietnam. I am not saying we necessarily should have stayed in Vietnam, but I am saying we must recognize that while this introspection guarantees our freedom, it is also our greatest weakness. There have been no major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. There have been attempts, and we know we have thwarted over 10 operations. However, we also know these were relatively underdeveloped and small in scale. I wish to ask a dark question: Why has al-Qaida not struck again? Because they cannot? We have stepped up our security, but they have shown their destructive creativity in the past. Because they are focused on Iraq and Afghanistan? Perhaps. But I would suggest another option. What if they have chosen not to. What if they have realized the strategy of restraint, pricking us just enough to launch ourselves at them, and then they fade back. We expend ourselves attacking new enemies, building countries, and undermining each other. Politics and personal reputations create an impetus of their own. We should debate. That is exactly what the Senate body is intended to do. But do not undermine. The new commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, has stated that a resolution of disapproval would hurt his efforts. This is the new guy. Let us keep in mind that we voted unanimously to confirm General Petraeus to take over that very difficult job. When asked by Senator Lieberman about the effect a resolution of disapproval would have on our troops and our enemies, General Petraeus stated that: This is a test of will at the end of the day. A commander in such an endeavor would obviously like the enemy to feel there is no hope. That is what General Petraeus said. He went on to say he does need more troops and he believes the new plan can work. I recognize there have been mistakes made in Iraq, as we have talked about. The President has also recognized this. Everyone has recognized this, and the President has taken full responsibility for it. Yet we still find ourselves in a difficult situation, with hard decisions to be made about the best way ahead. These decisions affect many lives, both our soldiers in harm's way and the American people they are pledged to protect. I think we all agree it would be disastrous to leave Iraq precipitously. If we do, we know we can expect increased levels of violence, the spread of extremist ideology, and Iraq itself collapsing into anarchy. A personal friend of mine, who actually was a commander at Fort Sill in Oklahoma, General Maples, stated that: Continued Coalition presence is the primary counter to a breakdown in central authority. Such a breakdown would have grave consequences for the people of Iraq, stability in the region, and the U.S. strategic interest. John Negroponte and the CIA Director, General Hayden agree with that, as does General Petraeus. So it is not too late to avoid this. I don't think it is time to start cutting our losses and just hope it goes away. We have heard the President ask for our support. Let me share, on a personal note, that I have had the occasion to be in Iraq more than any other Member of either the House or the Senate, some 12 times now, and the first thing I do is talk to the troops. The troops come up to me, and the first question they ask is: Why is it the media doesn't like us? Why is it they are constantly undermining our efforts here? Why is it the American people don't understand or appreciate what we are doing? I say, yes, the American people do, but a lot of the politicians don't act that way. I have been very much concerned about this, and I believe any resolution, and we are talking about five or six resolutions now, any resolution that is a resolution of retreat would be a resolution of surrender. I think it is ludicrous for any Member to say I support the troops but I don't support their mission. You try to explain that to them. I talked to the troops in Fallujah. In all this discussion about, do we need to be training the Iraqis to be fighting their own war--sure we do. That is what we have been doing. We have been doing that since we arrived on the scene in Iraq, and they are very proud and they are taking the frontal positions right now. The Iraqis are doing a good job. Their training has been good. Their equipment is not good, but it is getting better, it is improving. I stood there at the last election in Fallujah when our marines were there and I talked, through an interpreter, to the Iraqi security forces, and they said they are very proud. We are going to be in a position--please stay with us until we can hold our own here, and that won't be too long. I know that is true. I know they have come up with the numbers, now, that would be equal to about 10 divisions. I believe this can happen. This is very serious. Politics has crept into this thing. But any support of a resolution of surrender not only is undermining our troops and saying to our troops: We don't support you, but also saying to the loved ones of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice that they have died in vain. We can't let that happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I notice there are no other Members here, so I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, recent events in Somalia have opened a unique window of opportunity. The Islamic Courts have been militarily defeated. However, the Ethiopian troops that are currently maintaining order have stated that they have no intention of remaining. There are reports of troop withdrawals back to the Ethiopian border. Without outside support I fear that the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and Somalia as a whole will be swept back into the cycle of violence and chaos that has defined the country for the past 15 years. I believe that the United States can make great progress in securing the Horn of Africa by what actions we take right now. First and foremost is security. Until the government troops can offer sustainable stability, we need to assist them. This solution need not include U.S. troops; I am aware of negotiations for the deployment of 8,000 troops from other African countries, including a force of about 1,000 from Uganda. Any efforts in this direction should be greatly encouraged. The United States has no formal representative to the Somali Republic. The Transitional Federal Government has requested creating such a position. We need to offer assistance and aid at this most crucial juncture. At an appropriate time the U.S. should encourage public and private investment, possibly through a trade mission. Other areas where help is greatly needed include security training, basic sanitation, water purification, and tax collection. Perhaps most importantly, we should assist in any steps that can be taken to establish a national unity government. This will require groups from all sides of the spectrum getting together and working out serious solutions. The United States can make great progress in securing the Horn of Africa by what actions we take right now. I am submitting a resolution expressing the following: support for the Transitional Federal Government; recognize Ethiopia, particularly Prime Minister Meles, and Kenya for the noble efforts aimed toward pursuing peace in Somalia and support for the United States in the War on Terror; and the U.S. should support and push efforts for serious multi-party talks aimed at establishing a national unity government. There are a number of measures that should be taken at an appropriate time by the United States to promote stability. With the assistance of the U.S., the TFG will be better equipped to face the challenges of restoring peace to this war-torn country. While I understand that the situation is volatile and some forms of assistance may not be immediately appropriate, I believe it is necessary to raise awareness that there are definite ways that we can affect progress. Please join me in supporting Somalia and bringing peace to this war-torn region.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I will unavoidably miss the final vote on the minimum wage bill but I come down here now to ask unanimous consent that the Record reflect, immediately after the vote, my announcement that I would have voted against this bill. In so doing, I remain consistent on the issue. Government is best when it is does not pick winners and losers--when it does not competitively advantage one group of people over another or one set of States over another. Senator DeMint offered an amendment to equally and fairly increase the minimum wage by $2.10 for each State over what the wage is today. The fact that the liberals voted against the DeMint amendment is proof that their bill as now constituted is really about damaging the competitiveness of middle America--the so-called red States, disparagingly called `'fly-over country'' by liberals--compared to the liberal fringe States. Without this amendment, the underlying legislation would partially exempt minimum wage workers in higher-cost States that already have State minimum wage rates greater than the Federal level of $5.15 an hour, and completely exempt minimum wage workers in highest-cost States that have State minimum wage rates near $7.25 an hour. The DeMint amendment would increase the Federal minimum wage equally for workers in all States at the same rate as H.R. 2 would increase the minimum wage from the current Federal minimum wage rate. Senator Kennedy's arguments against this amendment have been both confusing and contradictory. On the one hand, he said that we need a one-size-fits-all mandate, and then he said that Massachusetts has a higher cost of living. I will not stand for people in Washington, DC, damaging the competitiveness of Oklahoma against other States. If Oklahomans vote to change our own laws, that is one thing, but we are not going to buckle under to DC and the liberal fringe States. Thus I would vote nay. I ask unanimous consent that the following chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate very much the senior Senator from Pennsylvania yielding to me. I know he is interested in getting these quality judges confirmed, and votes are taking place. We have one coming up in a few minutes that happens to be for a close personal friend of mine, a judge in Oklahoma, Greg Frizzell. I would like to make a couple of comments. First of all, we thought he would be confirmed before the end of last year, and it didn't work out. There was bickering going on that had nothing to do with him but with other judges. Fortunately, over the last few weeks, I have had a chance to talk to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I want to single out Senator Pat Leahy for being so generous with me and giving me time to talk about Judge Frizzell and why he should be confirmed. He told me, after listening to this, he would be willing to put him on his top priority list. He didn't have to do it. He is a Democrat and I am a Republican. So, again, I compliment Senator Pat Leahy for doing that for us and for justice in America. This young man, Greg Frizzell, has a great family background. I remember when his daddy, Kent Frizzell, was in Kansas and served as attorney general for that State. Then he had better judgment and decided to move from Kansas to Oklahoma. We became good friends many years ago. Greg was very young at that time. He was raised in this family of public servants, people who served as his father had for such a long period of time. I think his father is still at the University of Tulsa Law School and has been for about 20 years and is doing great work. That is the environment in which Greg Frizzell was raised. He has been a judge for a long time, and you would think you would hear some negative things about him. But you don't hear negative things about this guy. Even his political adversaries all agree that he is the quality and type of man who should be on the Federal bench. Robert Sartin, a member of the Board of Governors, said: Judge Frizzell is a man of extremely good character and high integrity, with a deep sense of personal responsibility toward his fellow man. A fellow judge, Claire Egan, praised him. She talked about the urgency of this confirmation and that they actually only have three judges now on that bench doing the work of six judges. One of the most highly respected senior Federal judges, Ralph Thompson, who is in senior status in Oklahoma right now, praised Greg, saying there is nobody out there who could be more qualified than Greg Frizzell for this particular appointment. So it is neat that we are finally getting around to this. I apologize to Greg and his family for the uncertainty that is always there, even though I never had any uncertainty. I knew he was going to be there. Getting back again to all these different people, Joe Wolgemuth, a prominent attorney in Tulsa, recalls an incident where Judge Frizzell-- he has six kids, by the way--had work to do one night, and he went down and took his six kids with him and did his judicial work. Anybody who can juggle six kids and do his job at the same time I know is qualified for this job. I am thrilled that just in a matter of minutes we will be able to vote to confirm Judge Frizzell to the Northern District of Oklahoma. He will be a great judge. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate very much the senior Senator from Pennsylvania yielding to me. I know he is interested in getting these quality judges confirmed, and votes are taking place. We have one coming up in a few minutes that happens to be for a close personal friend of mine, a judge in Oklahoma, Greg Frizzell. I would like to make a couple of comments. First of all, we thought he would be confirmed before the end of last year, and it didn't work out. There was bickering going on that had nothing to do with him but with other judges. Fortunately, over the last few weeks, I have had a chance to talk to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I want to single out Senator Pat Leahy for being so generous with me and giving me time to talk about Judge Frizzell and why he should be confirmed. He told me, after listening to this, he would be willing to put him on his top priority list. He didn't have to do it. He is a Democrat and I am a Republican. So, again, I compliment Senator Pat Leahy for doing that for us and for justice in America. This young man, Greg Frizzell, has a great family background. I remember when his daddy, Kent Frizzell, was in Kansas and served as attorney general for that State. Then he had better judgment and decided to move from Kansas to Oklahoma. We became good friends many years ago. Greg was very young at that time. He was raised in this family of public servants, people who served as his father had for such a long period of time. I think his father is still at the University of Tulsa Law School and has been for about 20 years and is doing great work. That is the environment in which Greg Frizzell was raised. He has been a judge for a long time, and you would think you would hear some negative things about him. But you don't hear negative things about this guy. Even his political adversaries all agree that he is the quality and type of man who should be on the Federal bench. Robert Sartin, a member of the Board of Governors, said: Judge Frizzell is a man of extremely good character and high integrity, with a deep sense of personal responsibility toward his fellow man. A fellow judge, Claire Egan, praised him. She talked about the urgency of this confirmation and that they actually only have three judges now on that bench doing the work of six judges. One of the most highly respected senior Federal judges, Ralph Thompson, who is in senior status in Oklahoma right now, praised Greg, saying there is nobody out there who could be more qualified than Greg Frizzell for this particular appointment. So it is neat that we are finally getting around to this. I apologize to Greg and his family for the uncertainty that is always there, even though I never had any uncertainty. I knew he was going to be there. Getting back again to all these different people, Joe Wolgemuth, a prominent attorney in Tulsa, recalls an incident where Judge Frizzell-- he has six kids, by the way--had work to do one night, and he went down and took his six kids with him and did his judicial work. Anybody who can juggle six kids and do his job at the same time I know is qualified for this job. I am thrilled that just in a matter of minutes we will be able to vote to confirm Judge Frizzell to the Northern District of Oklahoma. He will be a great judge. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was honored a few minutes ago to talk about this very outstanding young man, Greg Frizzell. Unfortunately, as the senior Senator from Vermont knows, we tried our best to get him in last year. We were unable to do it. But thanks to him and helping us to expedite the confirmation of this fine young man, we will be voting now. This gentleman comes from a background that is unusual and unique. I know of no one who has said anything negative about him in our State of Oklahoma. So I think justice will be served with the confirmation of Greg Frizzell for the Northern District of Oklahoma. I am proud to stand here today in support of Judge Greg Frizzell's nomination to be the U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma. After his Judiciary Committee hearing in September, I was certain that he would be confirmed before the end of the year. However, due to some regrettable political wrangling, his nomination was stalled. Fortunately, over the past few weeks, I have spoken to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help expedite Judge Frizzell through the committee process and bring his nomination to the Senate floor. I am convinced that he is the most capable and well-qualified person for this position. His family is no stranger to the legal field--I can remember his father, Kent Frizzell. He served as attorney general for the State of Kansas--that is when I first got to know his family. Later on, when they moved to Oklahoma, we became very close friends. He has had all kinds of experience in the past--serving the Under Secretary of Interior, and he has taught at the University of Tulsa Law School for almost 20 years. So given his father's distinguished work, it is no surprise that Judge Frizzell felt compelled to pursue a career in public service, and his friends and colleagues have praised his professional qualifications and personal integrity, as well as his ability to rule fairly from the bench. Someone who has been around as long as this young judge has been around, you would think you would hear negative things--I have never heard anything negative about him. Robert Sartin, member of the board of governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association said, ``Judge Frizzell is a man of extremely good character and high integrity, with a deep sense of personal responsibility toward his fellow man.'' Judge Claire Egan, praised him and talked about the urgency to fill vacant spots on the bench--she emphasized the fact that the court right now has three judges doing the work of six. One of the prominent and well-respected attorneys in Oklahoma, Joe Wohlgemuth of a distinguished law firm in Tulsa, called Judge Frizzell ``a man of integrity and a straight arrow''. Before serving in the current position of District Judge of the 14th Judicial District of Oklahoma, Greg Frizzell had a long and distinguished legal career and ample Federal experience. After graduating with a law degree from the University of Michigan, he clerked for Judge Tom Brett--Tom Brett is now in retirement and there is no one who has a better reputation than he, and he has praised Greg Frizzell time and time again. Ralph Thompson, a prominent senior judge serving on the Federal bench in Oklahoma, has also praised him. After clerking for Judge Brett, Frizzell became an associate at an Oklahoma law firm and then ran his own private legal practice until he was selected to be general counsel to the Oklahoma Tax Commission. After serving for a period of time at the Tax Commission, he was then appointed to his current position as Judge of the 14th District of Oklahoma. Not only has Judge Frizzell proven an effective and fair legal professional, he is a devoted husband and loving father of six children. Getting back again to Mr. Wohlgemuth, he recalls an incident where Judge Frizzell, had to work late one night doing work and he brought all six kids to spend time with them into the late hours--anyone who can handle six kids while doing his judicial work, I think can handle this job. So, Judge Frizzell is a man of great moral integrity who has proven his character in both his private and public life. I cannot say enough about him and his qualifications to be the next U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma and I urge my colleagues to confirm his nomination.