Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have just learned that two of our distinguished Senators, both from Massachusetts, have made the statement that they are trying to drum up support for a filibuster. This is not going to happen. I know that people get desperate. They get desperate because they are afraid something might happen to their liberal agenda. But the Constitution is very clear. We have discussed this, we have debated this, and there is not going to be a problem there. But I think it is worth bringing to the attention of the American people that this is actually taking place right now. Nowhere did our Founding Fathers say that to confirm a judge, you had to have a supermajority, and I do not believe this is going to happen. Let me share a couple thoughts with you. First of all, I am not a lawyer. I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee. In a way, that puts me in a position, perhaps, that is a little better than a lot of my colleagues who are. In fact, most of the people who have spoken are members of the Judiciary Committee. But, by now, we have heard so much about Judge Samuel Alito's resume, about the type of person he is. I would have to say, yes, he is guilty, he is guilty of being a strict constructionist, of being a strict interpreter of the Constitution, and he will rule according to settled law. I do not think anyone has any doubt in their mind that he would. The problem is that some of the Democrats have made it clear they are going to make this a partisan fight, now even talking about perhaps even a filibuster. They have a litmus test. They do not confirm any nominee of any President unless that nominee makes some type of a commitment and passes a litmus test for their far-left liberal agenda, whether that is gay marriage or whether it is abortion on demand or any of the rest of it. That is really what it is about. We do not talk about this. They kind of dance around this issue, but that is the real reason they do not like this guy, because he is not going to line up and give a litmus test to some liberal agenda. One of the things that bothers me about this is, this is all new. This did not happen in the past. I can remember when Judge Scalia was up for confirmation. People talk about Judges Scalia and Alito not just because their names sound similar, but their temperament is the same and their background is the same, their writings are the same--very similar. We went through a very long process with Judge Scalia during his confirmation, and he ended up being confirmed by a unanimous vote-- a unanimous vote. If you will remember, that is when William Rehnquist was taken from the Court and made the Chief Justice, which created the vacancy. A lot of people did not want to have someone who was a strict constructionist, but they realized he was qualified, and they realized he was appointed by a President who was a Republican, Ronald Reagan, and they went ahead and confirmed him. It was unanimous. Now this is something that is really changing now because there is no way in the world Judge Alito is going to be unanimously confirmed. Back in the Clinton administration, I remember so well when President Clinton nominated Judge Ginsburg and then Breyer. And keep in mind, we Republicans were not real excited about that. They did not have a very conservative background, and yet they were overwhelmingly confirmed. That is the change I see happening. It is not like it used to be. Ginsburg was 96 to 3. Breyer was 87 to 9. They were overwhelmingly confirmed. Not too long ago, just the other day, Jeff Sessions, who is our colleague from Alabama, made a statement. He said if we really get into this thing where we are looking at it philosophically, then you are going to have to remember--and the way he worded it was--``the knife cuts both ways.'' He said if this new standard is affirmed, then it will be more difficult for future Democrat Presidents to have their nominees confirmed. I agree with this. If a Democrat President comes up and makes a nomination, we would change, the same way they are changing during this. Maybe the litmus test would be discussed at that time. On the plane coming up here just a few minutes ago--we just landed, after this recess--my wife and I were talking about this, and I told her about the comments of Senator Sessions. I said: What I think I will do in my speech on the floor tonight on the confirmation of Judge Alito is make the statement that if they adhere to this litmus test, that if I am around--I do not think there is going to be a Democrat President, but if there is and I am still in the U.S. Senate, I am going to do the same thing. I am going to hold them to a litmus test. My wife said: No, don't do that. Don't stoop to that just because they are doing it. So I am not doing it. I learned a long time ago that--my wife and I have been married 46 years--I do what I am told. So anyway, this is something that is a change that we have observed, and I think it warrants our consideration. Now, the Democrats are also making outrageous accusations, trying to justify partisan votes. I believe in my heart that they do not believe these accusations they are making, but what they do want to do is have some excuse so they can go home and say, ``I voted against this guy,'' but not tell them the real reasons. Let's go over some of these accusations that are made. I start out with Senator Kennedy, who inaccurately stated that Alito opposes the one-person, one-vote principle. I will go ahead and give the quote. Senator Kennedy, on January 9 said: It expresses outright hostility to the basic principle of one person, one vote, affirmed by the Supreme Court as essential to ensuring that all Americans have a voice in their government. Now, the fact is, Judge Alito has stated that the principle of one person, one vote is a bedrock principle of American constitutional law. He has never taken issue with that principle. And to quote him, he said: [T]he principle of one person, one vote is a fundamental part of our constitutional law. . . . [and] I do not see any reason why it should be reexamined. And I do not know that anybody is asking for that to be done. . . . I think that is [a] very well settled [principle] now in the constitutional law of our country. I would adhere to that. Well, he could not be more emphatic than that. Again, Senator Kennedy--what he said is not true. I know he wants it to be true. He wishes it were true, but it is not. Then along came Senator Schumer from New York. In attacking Judge Alito's jurisprudence, Senator Schumer tried to paint Alito as someone who is ``too conservative.'' His statement was: Judge Alito, in case after case, you give the impression of applying careful legal reasoning, but, too many times, you happen to reach the most conservative result. Well, the fact is, Senator Schumer's characterization of Alito overlooks the bulk of Alito's record of nearly 5,000 votes as a court of appeals judge reached on the law and the facts, which are inconsistent with Senator Schumer's picture of Alito. Now, if you question this, the statement that was made by Senator Schumer, if you believe there might be some merit to it, let's stop. The easiest way to refute that is to read an editorial that was in the Washington Post. There is not a person who belongs to this body or anyone within earshot of what I am saying right now who is going to say the Washington Post is a conservative publication or a Republican publication. It is not. Yet what they said about Alito was: [J]udge Alito's dissents are not the work of an unblinking ideologue. . . .[T]hey are the work of a serious and scholarly judge whose arguments deserve respect--a respect evident among his colleagues even when their positions differ. And that is not the Washington Times; this is the Washington Post making this statement. So I would say, like Senator Kennedy, that Senator Schumer, what he said is just flat not true. I am sure he wishes it were true, but it is not. Here is another statement made by Senator Kennedy. He is trying to make a position that Judge Alito wants, through the Presidential signing statements--Presidential signing statements are statements that are made by the President when a new law is passed--to say: This is my interpretation of it. Well, he likes to imply that Alito supports giving the President absolute power. Senator Kennedy said: You argued that the Attorney General should have the absolute immunity, even for actions that he knows to be unlawful or unconstitutional; suggested that the court should give a President's Signing Statement great deference in determining the meaning and the intent of the law; and argued, as a matter of your own political and judicial philosophy, for an almost all-powerful presidency. Well, the fact is, the President's bill-signing statement is a device developed long before Alito came along. They try to imply that he had something to do with this. This has been embraced by Democratic and Republican Presidents for years and years, all the way back to Presidents Monroe and Jackson. The suggestion that Alito somehow invented this notion is patently absurd. So, again, Senator Kennedy is wrong. His statement is not true. He further cites false and inaccurate Knight Ridder analysis. This is rather interesting. Senator Kennedy made more outrageous statements this time about Alito's view of government searches. Senator Kennedy, on January 10: Mr. Chairman, at this point, I'd like to include in the appropriate place in the Record the Knight Ridder studies that concluded that Judge Alito never found a government search unconstitutional. Knight Ridder's writers, Stephen Henderson and Howard Mintz, have repeatedly been accused of biased reporting on Alito's record. The National Journal's Stuart Taylor wrote: I focus here not . . . on such egregious factual errors as the assertion on C-SPAN, by Stephen Henderson of Knight Ridder newspapers, that in a study of Alito's more than 300 judicial opinions, ``we didn't find a single case in which Judge Alito sided with African-Americans . . . [who were] alleging racial bias. He went on to say: What is remarkable is that any reporter could have overlooked [case after case after case] in which Alito has sided with African-Americans alleging racial bias. In a few minutes, I am going to be specific on some of these, but there would be too many to cite for the amount of time we have. Senator Kennedy's statements are inaccurate and untrue. I know he wishes they were true, but they are not. These guys are grasping at straws. Then Senator Biden came in with inaccurate statements on Presidential treatment toward the State. Senator Biden charged Alito with ruling in favor of the State against the individual. This is what he said: But as I've tried diligently to look at your record, you seem to come down more often and give the benefit of the doubt to the outfit against whom discrimination is being alleged. You seem to lean--in close cases, you lean to the state versus the individual. The facts belie that. The fact is, Alito's record shows he consistently approaches each case based on the law and the facts. He rules for plaintiffs and for defendants when the law supports him. He rules for the corporation or the State when the law supports their position. This is the appropriate approach for a Federal judge. It is clear that Alito understands the importance of the independence of the judiciary and has a healthy respect for its role as the bullwark against executive overreaching. Alito often cites Alexander Hamilton. I think Alito has quoted Alexander Hamilton more than anyone else, at least it seems that way to me. He said: [A]s Alexander Hamilton aptly put it in Federalist 78, the courts should carry out [the judicial power] with ``firmness and independence.'' ``Without this,'' he observed, ``all the reservations of particular rights or privileges [in the Constitution] would amount to nothing.'' Alito continued: When a constitutional or statutory violation [by other governmental institutions] is proven, a court should not hesitate to impose a strong and lawful remedy if that is what is needed to provide full redress. Some of the finest chapters in the history of the Federal Courts have been written when federal judges, despite resistance, have steadfastly enforced remedies for deeply rooted constitutional violations. During his 15 years on the bench, Judge Alito has repeatedly ruled to restrain executive authority, reflecting his understanding of the role of the judiciary to protect the constitutional rights, separation of powers, and so forth. What Senator Biden said is not true. I know he wishes it were. Next we had Senator Feinstein. She was approaching something to which I am particularly sensitive. I chair the committee called Environment and Public Works. The Presiding Officer is a member of that committee. We deal with environmental issues. Senator Feinstein mischaracterized Alito's environmental record. Let me say this for anyone who might be listening: If there is nothing better going on right now, these Senators I am very critical of, I love them dearly. That is possible. It doesn't happen in the other body, seeing a Senator here who also served in the House at the time that I was there. We can love our friends, our Senators, with whom we serve, and we can detest their philosophy and their agenda. I learned this the hard way. I will share this story. Back in 1994, I came from the House to the Senate. And operating as I had always operated in the House, there happened to be a Senator on the floor named Wendell Ford from Kentucky. He was known as the junkyard dog of the Senate. I disagreed with him. I came down here. That was the opening day, the first day I was elected and confirmed in a special election. I went down and I took him on. It was mean. It was wicked. And we are yelling and screaming. Afterwards I felt pretty good. I went to go back to the Russell Building, went down the elevator and ran into none other than Senator Bob Byrd. Bob Byrd said: Ride along with me. He said: Young man, I appreciate your spunk. I liked that because that happened to be November 17, 1994. It was my 60th birthday. He said: Young man, I appreciate your spunk, but this isn't the way we do it in the Senate. He explained to me the history of the Senate, how it must have been divinely inspired, so that there is a genuine love for your fellow Senators, something that doesn't exist in the other body. I don't know why I said all that. But Senator Feinstein accused Alito of ruling against the Clean Water Act. She said: In Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey v. Magnesium Electron, a citizens environmental group sued a chemical manufacturer under the Clean Water Act for polluting a river used by members of the group . . . your decision, as I understand it, was based upon your conclusion that the environmental group did not have standing to sue under the Clean Water Act because even though members of the environmental group had stopped using the river due to the pollution, they did not prove any injury to the environment. The decision, if broadly applied, would have gutted the Citizen Lawsuit Provision of the Clean Water Act . . . so you see where the concern comes with respect to overthrowing something on a technicality that can have enormous implications. That is what Senator Feinstein said. Keep in mind what Alito's vote was. He did not write the opinion. He voted in this case. It was a straightforward application of the Supreme Court's controlling precedent in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. Most of us remember Manuel Lujan who later became Secretary of Interior. This decision was a 1992 decision in which the Supreme Court required that in order to file suit, a plaintiff must allege the actual injury, not just have this great concern over activities such as pollution. What we are saying here is that Senator Feinstein should have read this. He was interpreting a law he may have agreed on or may not have, but this was sent down. This was settled law, established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Alito's vote, which he didn't write, was one based in law. I think what Senator Feinstein said was not true. It needs to be answered. That is the answer. Another one that Senator Kennedy researched. Senator Kennedy charged that Alito rarely votes for the little guy. Senator Kennedy charged Alito with false accusations saying that he was biased toward the rich and powerful. This is Senator Kennedy talking about the rich and powerful. He was biased toward the rich and powerful and against the little man. I will use the quote that he used. He said: And on the cases he decided, in case after case after case, we see legal contortions and inconsistent reasoning to bend over backwards to help the powerful. This is on January 12, stated by Senator Kennedy. Time after time during his hearings, Alito and other Senators have repeated instances in which Alito did rule for the little guy. In cases involving criminal law, employment and labor law, immigration law, and others, Judge Alito has consistently ruled for plaintiffs or defendants as the facts and the law demanded. I will give some examples. In Zubi v. AT&T Corporation, in 2000, Alito dissented from a case foreclosing a plaintiff's opportunity to advance his claim of race discrimination. Alito would have applied a longer statute of limitations to let the claim go forward. That is just the opposite of what was asserted by Senator Kennedy. In another case, Caruso v. Blockbuster-Sony Music Entertainment Center at the Waterfront, writing for the unanimous panel, Judge Alito reversed in part the district court's grant of summary judgment for Blockbuster-Sony ``E-Centre''--this is a big corporation--and against a disabled patron. The plaintiff was William Caruso. He was a disabled veteran of Vietnam who used a wheelchair, brought suit against E-Centre under the Americans with Disabilities Act claiming that the wheelchair areas in the pavilion do not provide wheelchair users with lines of sight over standing spectators. The lawn area is not wheelchair accessible. Judge Alito explained that even though the Department of Justice's standards do not require that wheelchair users must be able to see the stage when other patrons stand, the E-Centre must make assembly areas like the lawn accessible to people in wheelchairs. He concluded: We reject the argument that assembly areas without fixed seating need not provide access to people in wheelchairs. Again, Alito's stellar record proves that Senator Kennedy's statement is false. The next one I will mention was Senator Kennedy's statement on racial discrimination. Senator Kennedy wrongly stated that Alito had never written an opinion related to race discrimination, implying that he could be a racist. Senator Kennedy said: Judge Alito has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job: in 15 years on the bench, not one. He said that on January 9. The facts are that Alito has repeatedly ruled in favor of minorities making allegations of racial discrimination in employment. One such case is Smith v. Davis, 2001, in which Alito voted to reverse a grant of summary judgment against an African-American man's claim that he had been discriminated against in employment on the basis of race. Another one is Zubi v. Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc. Alito voted to reverse a district court's grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff. Judge Alito and his colleagues concluded that the female African- American plaintiff had introduced sufficient evidence to question whether the employer had, in fact, given her lower quality assignments due to her ``objective'' scores on certain evaluations, as the employer maintained. There are many more cases. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the other cases.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Small System Drinking Water Act of 2005 to assist water systems throughout the country comply with the numerous Federal drinking water standards. My bill will require the Federal Government to live up to its obligations and require the EPA to use all of the tools given the Agency in the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments (SDWA). In Oklahoma we continue to have municipalities struggling with the arsenic rule. Further nearly 80 percent of our small systems, those serving less than 10,000 people, are not in compliance with the Disinfection Byproducts (DBP) Stage I rule. In EPA's most recent drinking water needs survey, Oklahoma identified $4.5 billion in infrastructure needs over the next 20 years. $40 million a year of that need is to meet Federal drinking water standards. This does not include costs imposed by Oklahoma communities to meet Federal clean water requirements. The EPA on December 15th finalized the Disinfection Byproducts Stage II rule and the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. The costs of complying with these two rules are not included in the $40 million a year need recently identified by the State. At current funding rates, the State receives $8.5 million dollars for its drinking water revolving loan fund. My bill proposes a few simple steps to help systems comply with the rules. First, it reauthorizes the technical assistance program in the SDWA. The DBP Stage I rule is very complex and involves a lot of monitoring and testing. The other rules are equally complex in nature and many small systems simply do not have the expertise needed to implement them. If we are going to impose complicated requirements on systems, we need to provide them with help to implement those requirements. Therefore, my legislation also requires that each system receive the help it needs to come into compliance before an enforcement action can be taken. The bill also creates a pilot program to demonstrate new technologies and approaches for systems of all sizes to comply with these complicated rules. It requires the EPA to convene a working group to examine the science behind the rules compared to new developments since their publication. Section 1412(b)(4)(E) of the SDWA Amendments of 1996 authorizes the use of point of entry treatment, point of use treatment and package plants to economically meet the requirements of the Act. However, to date, these approaches are not widely used by small water systems. My legislation directs the EPA to convene a working group to identify barriers to the use of these approaches. The EPA will then use the recommendations of the working group to draft a model guidance document that states can use to create their own programs. This legislation seeks to provide communities with more tools in order to comply with these Federal requirements while also requiring EPA to use the tools it has been provided, including the identification of variance technologies.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Small System Drinking Water Act of 2005 to assist water systems throughout the country comply with the numerous Federal drinking water standards. My bill will require the Federal Government to live up to its obligations and require the EPA to use all of the tools given the Agency in the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments (SDWA). In Oklahoma we continue to have municipalities struggling with the arsenic rule. Further nearly 80 percent of our small systems, those serving less than 10,000 people, are not in compliance with the Disinfection Byproducts (DBP) Stage I rule. In EPA's most recent drinking water needs survey, Oklahoma identified $4.5 billion in infrastructure needs over the next 20 years. $40 million a year of that need is to meet Federal drinking water standards. This does not include costs imposed by Oklahoma communities to meet Federal clean water requirements. The EPA on December 15th finalized the Disinfection Byproducts Stage II rule and the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. The costs of complying with these two rules are not included in the $40 million a year need recently identified by the State. At current funding rates, the State receives $8.5 million dollars for its drinking water revolving loan fund. My bill proposes a few simple steps to help systems comply with the rules. First, it reauthorizes the technical assistance program in the SDWA. The DBP Stage I rule is very complex and involves a lot of monitoring and testing. The other rules are equally complex in nature and many small systems simply do not have the expertise needed to implement them. If we are going to impose complicated requirements on systems, we need to provide them with help to implement those requirements. Therefore, my legislation also requires that each system receive the help it needs to come into compliance before an enforcement action can be taken. The bill also creates a pilot program to demonstrate new technologies and approaches for systems of all sizes to comply with these complicated rules. It requires the EPA to convene a working group to examine the science behind the rules compared to new developments since their publication. Section 1412(b)(4)(E) of the SDWA Amendments of 1996 authorizes the use of point of entry treatment, point of use treatment and package plants to economically meet the requirements of the Act. However, to date, these approaches are not widely used by small water systems. My legislation directs the EPA to convene a working group to identify barriers to the use of these approaches. The EPA will then use the recommendations of the working group to draft a model guidance document that states can use to create their own programs. This legislation seeks to provide communities with more tools in order to comply with these Federal requirements while also requiring EPA to use the tools it has been provided, including the identification of variance technologies.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Repeat the time, Mr. President.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced S. 2117, which is a bill engaging our Nation to fight concerning our right to control entry. It is legislation that covers many aspects of the problem we are having on our very porous borders. One part of this is utilizing retired law enforcement officers. As many people know, national law enforcement officers have to retire at age 57. We learned of their availability after 9/11 when the Transportation Safety Administration and our office was inundated with calls from these brave law enforcement officers who are retired, saying that they wanted to participate in this activity, and they are willing to do it for costs. The legislation I have introduced does include the very sophisticated type of a fence that goes along the border between Mexico and the United States and also with an army of people who can join those who have already demonstrated very clearly that if we have enough people down there, we will be able to secure our borders. I am cautioning any of our colleagues who are concerned about this issue not to be tempted to use military because right now our military is stressed. We have an OPTEMPO that is unacceptable as it is right now. It should not be taking on other duties. Besides that, with the enactment of S. 2117, that would not be necessary. Illegal immigration is at an all-time high, with around 1 million illegal aliens infiltrating our borders each year. My legislation focuses on empowering our citizens and law enforcement officers to fight this flood of illegal immigration. First of all, I want to make it clear that I honor the millions of immigrants that have come to this Nation, waited their turn, and gone through all the requirements to become American citizens to make our great country what it is today. I have spoken at many naturalization services and seen what these people have gone through to become American citizens. I agree with the 1997 U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform that measured, legal immigration has ``led'' to create one of the world's greatest ``multiethnic nations.'' I also agree with the Commission that immigrants who are ``Americanized'' help cultivate a shared commitment to ``liberty, democracy and equal opportunity'' in our Nation. However, I cannot stand idly by and watch this great Nation collapse under the pressure of uncontrolled illegal immigration. Roy Beck, Executive Director of Numbers USA, a non-profit organization dedicated to immigration reform, stated that ``a presence of 8 to 11 million illegal aliens in this country is a sign that this country has lost control of its borders and the ability to determine who is a member of this national community . . . a country that has lost that ability increasingly loses its ability to determine the rules of its society--environmental protections, labor protections, health protections, safety protections.'' Beck goes on to say, ``In fact, a country that cannot keep illegal immigration to a low level quickly ceases to be a real country, or a real community. Rather than being self-governed, such a country begins to have its destiny largely determined by citizens of other countries who manage to move in illegally.'' My bill, the ENFORCE Act, works to solve the illegal immigration problem in several ways. It will provide a way for more civilians and retired law enforcement officers to help the Border Patrol in stopping illegal border crossings and reduce the illegal immigration rate. Through the creation of the National Border Neighborhood Watch Program, NBNW, retired law enforcement officials called the Border Regiment Assisting in Valuable Enforcement, BRAVE, Force agents, will come and work alongside Border Patrol agents. Civilian volunteers, much like the now well-known Minutemen, will be able to report immigration violations to assigned BRAVE Force agents. The NBNW Program is modeled after the National Neighborhood Watch program, a collaboration between law enforcement, businesses, and concerned citizens who watch for and report suspicious criminal activity in neighborhoods to the local police. The Neighborhood Watch Program has proven effective in reducing the crime rate in areas where it is implemented. I am hopeful that the National Border Neighborhood Watch Program will have the same effect in reducing illegal border crossings as the Neighborhood Watch Program has had in reducing crime. I also believe that the BRAVE Force will provide significant assistance to the Minutemen, who are sacrificing their time and energy as they work to preserve our liberties and enforce our laws. Another provision of the ENFORCE Act will make it a felony to be illegally present in the U.S. Under current law, it is only a misdemeanor to be unlawfully present in the U.S. This means that if illegal aliens are caught in the U.S. today and are deported, most of the time, they can turn around and come right back into our country legally, without consideration of the fact that they were previously in our country illegally. By making unlawful presence a felony under the ENFORCE Act, when caught, illegal aliens will be entered into the National Crime Information Center, NCIC, database, a computerized index of criminal justice information (i.e., criminal record history information, fugitives, stolen properties, missing persons), available to Federal, State, and local law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies. They will also be banned from legally entering the U.S. for 5 years. My bill will also establish another Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, office in Tulsa, OK. We only have one ICE office in the whole State of Oklahoma and this is not enough to do the job of enforcing our immigration laws. For example, in September 2004, 18 illegal aliens were riding in a van in Catoosa, OK. The police pulled them over and found several illegal minors, as well as cocaine in the van. When the police called the ICE office in Oklahoma City, ICE authorities told the officers to let the illegals go because ICE did not have the resources or manpower to take them into custody. So Catoosa police let them go. This is outrageous. This year alone, 12 agents of the Office of Investigations of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement served the 3,500,000 people residing in Oklahoma. Additionally, Highway I-44 and US-75 are major roads through Tulsa that are used to transport illegal aliens to areas throughout the country. We must provide our States and communities with the tools to arrest and detain illegal aliens. Creating a second ICE office in Tulsa, one of Oklahoma's largest cities, will help improve the lack of immigration enforcement in Eastern Oklahoma. I would also like to note that my colleague, Congressman John Sullivan, has introduced similar legislation to create an ICE office in Tulsa. Not only do I believe adding another ICE office in Tulsa will help local and Federal law enforcement, I also believe providing specific immigration training for law enforcement officers will help solve our illegal immigration crisis. Our State, local, and tribal law enforcement are experiencing increasing encounters with illegal and criminal aliens during routine police duties. The typical officer often does not know the law, policy, and procedures for determining immigration status or violations--apart from or in conjunction with other offenses--concerning alien lawbreakers. As immigration continues to affect interior communities, a key to addressing situations that intersect with other law enforcement involves providing State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers with basic training in immigration law and policy. Rather than expending millions of dollars on traditional classroom training, this basic training can be cost-effectively accomplished using the Internet. Knowledge of basic immigration enforcement can complement law enforcement's core mission; should a local officer have strong reason to suspect other law violations without sufficient evidence to hold or charge the alien on other offenses, immigration violations may constitute sufficient grounds to hold a criminal. This requires basic familiarity with immigration matters; therefore, this provision authorizes $3 million for a demonstration project to establish such an on-line training program through Cameron University in Lawton, OK. These funds will be used to develop and facilitate on- line training in basic immigration enforcement for up to 100,000 State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers in 6 to 8 States, similar to the 4 hours of classroom training provided to all of Alabama's state troopers in 2003. This system will also provide, at the end of the demonstration project, a ``return on investment'' study documenting the project's cost-effectiveness. Not only are illegal immigrants increasing by crossing the border and dodging law enforcement officers, they are having ``anchor babies'' in rapid numbers. Anchor babies are born to illegal aliens who come to our country and have a baby who is then treated as a citizen because it was born on U.S. soil. These babies are helping the immigration population grow more rapidly than the birth rate of American citizens. In fact the Census Bureau estimates that at the time of the 2000 Census, the illegal immigration population reached approximately 8 million. Therefore, according to this estimate, the illegal-alien population grew by almost half a million a year in the 1990s. These numbers are derived from a draft report given to the House immigration subcommittee by the INS that estimated the illegal population was around 3.5 million in 1990. In order for the illegal population to have reached 8 million by 2000, the net increase would be around 400,000 to 500,000 per year during the 1990s. Furthermore, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, CIS, a non-profit immigration reform organization, based on numbers from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2002 there were about 8.4 million illegal aliens, which represent about 3.3 percent of the total U.S. population. That same year, there were about 383,000 babies born to illegal aliens, which represents about 9.5 percent of all U.S. births in 2002. In the Spring 2005 issue of the American Physicians and Surgeons Journal, Dr. Madeleine Pelner Cosman says, ``American hospitals welcome anchor babies. ``Illegal alien women come to the hospital in labor and drop their little anchors, each of whom pulls its illegal alien mother, father, and siblings into permanent residency simply by being born within our borders. ``Anchor babies are, and instantly qualify for public welfare aid.'' Between 300,000 and 350,000 anchor babies annually become citizens because of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says: ``All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.'' These anchor babies are being used to enable their parents to skirt the law, cross our borders, and bring in additional, illegal aliens. As the law currently stands, because these children are considered citizens, it creates an incentive for more aliens to illegally cross into our country. My bill will end this incentive by clarifying that only children born to citizens or legal permanent residents are considered citizens and ``subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'' The ENFORCE Act will also address several issues including clarification of acceptable identification documents, verification of Social Security numbers and benefits, clarification of the rights of local and state law enforcement officers concerning illegal immigration and construction of a fence along our southern border. There is a growing problem regarding fraudulent identification, identity theft and foreign-issued consular cards in our country. Illegal aliens often steal a person's identification, such as the birth certificate of a deceased person, and use it to gain employment and other benefits. My bill will help eliminate this fraud by establishing birth and death registries for localities to have the ability to check a person's identification to ensure they are truly who they claim to be. It will also require independent verification of birth records of people applying for a Social Security number. The ENFORCE Act will clarify which identification documents can be used for official identification within the United States--such as driver's licenses, passports, etc.--eliminating the use of consular cards for identification. Often, foreign embassies, within the U.S., will issue consular cards to their citizens who are in the U.S. These cards are unnecessary because the U.S. government either recognizes foreign passports or issues its own identification documents to foreigners who are legally in the U.S. The majority of consular cards have been found to be used as identification for illegal aliens and have been called an insecure document by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security. Another provision in my bill will address Social Security benefits for work performed by illegal aliens. Under current law, former illegal aliens, who gain legal status, are able to receive Social Security benefits for the work they performed while they were illegal. My bill will end this practice by not allowing anyone to collect Social Security benefits for work performed while they were illegally present in this country. Our Social Security system is already strained and faces bankruptcy. Allowing work performed by illegals to be counted and used to further drain our Social Security system must stop. The ENFORCE Act will also address fraudulent use of the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, ITIN. The IRS created the ITIN in 1996 to improve tax administration because it needed a more efficient way to identify and track the tax reporting of non-citizens, such as foreign investors, who could not obtain a Social Security number when filing tax returns and other tax documents. ITIN applications can be mailed to the IRS, submitted at an IRS walk-in, taxpayer assistance center, or submitted through an acceptance agent. A GAO testimony by Michael Brostek before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Social Security in March 2004 revealed that IRS controls for the ITIN could be easily bypassed and that it could be used for non-tax purposes, such as general identification. Mr. Brostek went on to testify that the ``IRS concluded that most resident aliens who have ITINs and earn a wage income are not legally employed in the U.S.'' This creates many concerns about use of the ITIN by illegal aliens, which is why my bill will make the ITIN look physically different than a Social Security number and not allow it to be used to obtain tax credits. Another issue my bill addresses is building a fence along our southern border. It is known, according to government reports, that foreign nationals from countries such as Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia have crossed our southern borders, not to mention the high number of illegal aliens from other countries. According to We Need a Fence, an organization dedicated to ensuring a fence is built along our southern border, a CNN poll has shown that 87 percent of its respondents support building a security fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. The ENFORCE Act will direct a high security, state-of-the-art fence to be built along our southern border to prevent illegal border crossings. This fence will actually consist of two fences separated by a patrol road, ditches, barbed wire, and surveillance cameras. While the initial cost to build the fence is considered high by some, I firmly believe it will result in savings in the long run by preventing illegal border crossings and eliminating the cost of finding, arresting, detaining and deporting illegal aliens. The ENFORCE Act will also make it illegal to establish day-laborer centers and to assist illegal aliens in finding employment, much like the sites that are set to be built for illegal aliens in Fairfax County, VA. Earlier this year, the Fairfax County's Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to provide $400,000 in taxpayer funds to be used to build three day laborer sites to assist illegal aliens in finding employment. It makes no sense to not only ignore the large numbers of illegal aliens gathering in one place, but to enable them to continue to break the law by working in the U.S. and encourage others, such as employers, to break the law by helping illegals obtain jobs. Another problem we face is educating illegal aliens. Some states, such as Oklahoma, allow illegal aliens to receive in- state tuition at colleges and universities. This is a slap in the face to out-of-state students who must pay higher tuition than illegal aliens who have broken the law and do not even belong in our country. My bill will address this problem so that illegal aliens will not be able to receive this benefit. I would like to conclude by sharing a personal story regarding illegal aliens who commit crimes in the United States and then flee across the border to Mexico. Last May, my friend's son, Jeff Garrett, was tragically shot by an illegal alien while Jeff was turkey hunting in Colorado. After he shot Jeff, the illegal fled to Mexico, where he is hiding today. I know this story is just one among many about innocent Americans murdered each year by illegal aliens who then find safe harbor in Mexico. I believe the ENFORCE Act will not only help prevent these criminals from coming across our borders, but is a good start to ending our rampant problem of illegal immigration in general. I ask my colleagues to join me in solving our immigration problem by cosponsoring the ENFORCE Act.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I returned 2 days ago from Iraq. There was an article in yesterday's Hill magazine that was erroneous--there will be a correction printed--where they inaccurately stated the number of times I have been over to Iraq. It has actually been 10 times. I have been doing this not because I am a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, but because I believe it is our constitutional responsibility to see firsthand that our guys over there are getting the equipment they need to prosecute the war, and they have been. I want to share with you what happened the first of this week because even though the vote took place yesterday, on Thursday, the vote for the Iraqi security forces actually took place on Monday and Tuesday. We had a chance to go up there and visit with them. The interesting point is, we saw this coming. There have been a lot of politicians coming back and talking about how bad things are over there. I can't figure out where they get their information because as we have been approaching these elections over the last few months, we have noticed the IED incidents have been down 30 percent and suicide bombs have been down 70 percent. There is a road that goes from where we get off the C-130s to go into the Green Zone. Mr. President, you have been there. We were averaging about 10 terrorist incidents on that road each week up until June. We haven't had one since June. So we see all these good things are happening, and then the unexpected quality of the training we are getting for the Iraqi security forces. These guys right now--and I think this is significant because people keep asking, What is the exit strategy? I can tell you what I believe. One Senator believes we are going to be out. Right now there are 214,000 Iraqi soldiers who are trained and equipped. At the end of this month, while we are drawing down--we are drawing down probably 15,000 to 20,000 of ours troops--they are going to increase to 220,000. By the end of 2006, it is anticipated they will be at 300,000. The goal is to get 10 divisions of Iraqi security forces. Ten divisions of Iraqi security forces equal 325,000 troops. That will happen by July of 2007. In terms of the way we are functioning now, we will be out of there, but there will still be some troops there. We still have troops in Kosovo and in Bosnia, but the heavy lifting will be over. They will be taking care of themselves. I see the incredible courage of these people. Up in Fallujah 3 nights ago, I had all of the Iraqi security forces that had voted that day come in. They were all rejoicing, and I said to them--this is kind of funny. I said to them, through an interpreter: When is it going to be that you are going to be able to be on your own without our support? Is that going to be in the near future? And they said: No, no--which broke my heart when I heard this. Then I found out, in the Iraqi language, ``yes'' means ``na'am.'' So they are saying, ``Yes, yes,'' and when they shake their head this way, it also means ``yes.'' Anyway, a little advice in case that happens to anyone. These people are ready. They are so proud of the level of training they have had. Keep in mind, this is in the Sunni triangle. These are the Sunnis who are supposed to dislike us. Several weeks ago, I was there and I met General Mahdi, who is in charge of the Iraqi security forces in Fallujah. He had been in charge--under Saddam Hussein he was a brigade commander. He hated Americans until he started working with the Marines. He said he learned to love the Marines so much that when they rotated them out, they all got together and they cried. That guy right now, General Mahdi, is now over the eastern one-third of the entire city of Baghdad. We do not have our military there. It is all under Iraqi security. We have half of the city under security now. It is going to be up to 75 percent in a very short period of time. I think, when we see the successes--and even if that were not true, if one stops and realizes the bloody regime of Saddam Hussein, yes, the targets for the terrorists right now are not Americans, they are Iraqis, and they are killing some of the Iraqis, but when one stops and puts it on a chart, during the 10 years that Saddam Hussein had his bloody regime, on a monthly basis he was torturing to death more people than the terrorists are killing today. When one looks at the way that they have done it, the forms of torture, include gouging out of eyes, severe beatings, electric shocks--there is a testimonial here about a 3-month-old baby girl who was taken, and they gouged her eyes out in front of the father, smashed her head and broke it open against a concrete wall. There is a lot of talk on the other side of this issue about prisoner abuse. We do not have prisoner abuse. The documentation is right here about what they do with their prisoners. They will put them in shredders. If they are lucky, they will shred their head first. If they are unlucky, they will put their feet in there. This is what has been happening over there, but it is all over now, and they are in charge of their own destiny. I have enjoyed so much visiting with the members of Parliament who were going to be up for election. This would have been on Wednesday, and they were going to be up the next day. One lady was quite outspoken and quite negative in terms of what her people were saying to her. I said: Did it ever occur to you 5 years ago that there would be an opportunity for a woman to serve in Parliament, let alone to talk the way you are talking? She stopped and said: You know, I think that is right. So we are seeing such a change now in the attitudes. The polls look so good. The polls are showing that 70 percent of the people in Iraq are appreciative of the Americans being there. They want them to stay and get out when they are able to stand up on their own. I met with the election commission, and to handle the election the way they did was totally unprecedented. We could never have predicted how smoothly things would go. We talked to the people, and I want to particularly pay tribute to IFES, the International Foundation of Electrical Systems. They have done a great job. They had people on the ground, and they have truly been able to conduct an election that is actually comparable and better than many other mature countries, maturing democracies. It has been a great success. I am rejoicing with all the people of Iraq today and with the people of America. Lastly, I pay tribute to the brave people of Iraq who for the third time this year have gone to the polls in record number to vote for a brighter and more democratic future in Iraq. The early reports indicate that across the 18 provinces of Iraq, Iraqis again turned out in massive numbers to vote in favor of a democratic Iraq. In doing so the Iraqis demonstrated to us all the importance of voting. Earlier this week I was in Iraq and had the opportunity to see first hand the preparations for the historic election on December 15. I even had a chance to witness some of the early voting that took place in Iraq. It was a moving experience and one that demonstrated that the great sacrifice that America has made in Iraq helped to free people from tyranny and start them on the road to a democratic future. While in Baghdad, I met with the Chairman of the Independent Election Commission of Iraq, IECI, Isadin Al Mohamaady and the members of the commission. I had an opportunity to see first hand the extensive preparations that were being undertaken by the Iraqis. I was impressed by the sacrifice made by the members of the commission and their staff, many of whom have paid the ultimate price for democracy with their lives. However, the spirit that I found in Baghdad, Fallujah, and everywhere I went, was one of determination, professionalism, and a dedication to making sure that Iraqis could freely select their future leaders at the ballot box. It is important also to recognize the work of the International Foundation for Election Systems also known as IFES that has played a critical role in helping advance free and fair elections in Iraq and in 120 countries around the world. With the support of U.S. taxpayers, IFES was able to provide critical assistance that helped to make these elections possible. I stand here to salute the brave Iraqis who at great personal risk sent an important message to the world about the triumph of the ballot over the bullet. Iraqis of all ethnic groups have joined together with unity and determination to freely choose their leaders in a free and fair election. They have sent a message around the world that the best way to defeat tyranny is at the ballot box, the source of power of the people, by the people and for the people.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, both subcommittee Chairman Thune and I recognize the importance of oversight of the Superfund program. To that end, and consistent with Senator Boxer's request, Senator Thune's subcommittee will be holding an oversight hearing of EPA's Superfund program once Susan Bodine, the President's nominee to head EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, is confirmed by the Senate with Ms. Bodine testifying on behalf of EPA. After Ms. Bodine is confirmed, we will begin to work on scheduling this hearing with a targeted time frame of the first quarter of 2006, but no later than the Memorial Day recess. Senator Thune will work closely with Senator Boxer in scheduling the hearing. I expect EPA to be forthcoming in this hearing about the program and look forward to Ms. Bodine's confirmation so that she may help ensure that the EPA is responsive to the Senator's requests for information about the management of the program and the impacts on communities throughout the country.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. With this week's consideration of the tax reconciliation act, the United States Senate engaged in a heated exchange over the reinstatement of the windfall profits tax on American oil. The key question in this debate, which my colleagues have not been able to answer, is how can a tax increase on oil and gas production reduce prices? It can't and history proves it. First enacted under President Jimmy Carter in 1980, Congress imposed an excise levy on domestic oil production called the windfall profits tax. The result was inevitable. According to a 1990 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the results of Carter's WPT were hugely counterproductive: ``The WPT reduced domestic oil production between 3 and 6 percent, and increased oil imports from between 8 and 16 percent . . . This made the U.S. more dependent upon imported oil.'' The stakes for Oklahoma are huge considering that oil and gas production is our largest single industry. During debate, Democrats filed amendment after amendment, nine in total, to penalize and to increase taxes by billions of dollars on one of America's most vital industries. To Oklahoma's good fortune, and that of the American consumer, each of these amendments was either soundly defeated or withdrawn. Over the past few months, Democrats have fired a barrage of unfair rhetoric maligning all those who work in the oil and gas business. With one breath they demand Congress reign in the recent high oil prices, with the next they insist on tax increases to punish those who they claim are responsible. With so many friends, acquaintances, and constituents in the business, I find these reckless demands and accusations unfair and dangerous for Oklahoma. As a teenager, I worked as a tool dresser on a drilling rig for a man by the name of A.W. Swift. Many in Oklahoma know his name, but few in this Chamber would. Like many who have operated in oil and gas, he ran a thrifty and tight operation but was eventually taxed out of business. This same man lost his son, Burt Swift, after a rig explosion claimed his life but spared mine. Sacrifices, such as his, are often a part of the harsh realities faced by many in the oil business. Oklahoma would be especially hard hit by a WPT. Currently, well over two-thirds of the State's oil production comes from marginal wells. A marginal well is typically defined as one which produces less than 10 barrels of oil or 60 mcf of gas a day. They are called ``marginal'' because their profitability is at times just at the margin, depending upon production costs and current market prices. As oil prices decrease many of these wells become uneconomical and are increasingly ``shut in'' or ``plugged and abandoned.'' However, as oil prices increase, Oklahoma's independents increasingly drill for and produce from marginal wells. The added cost of a windfall profits tax drastically harms the economic viability Oklahoma's marginal wells. Outside of the damage a WPT would inflict upon Oklahoma, this tax would only further harm our Nation's shrinking energy independence. America's major oil companies already pay the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. How are they to compete internationally with an additional WPT tax? How could Conoco Phillips or Chevron Texaco compete with Total (French), BP (British), and Royal Dutch Shell (British/Dutch) not to mention government owned and operated oil giants like Saudi Aramco, NIOC (National Iran Oil Company), Petro China, CNOOC (China National Offshore Oil Corporation), Gazprom (Russia), and dozens more. With enactment of a WPT, American companies would be hard pressed to effectively compete in the competitive global market for exploration and production. The WPT gives all foreign owned oil companies a strong competitive advantage. With more than 2,100 firms and 60,000 people the oil and gas industry is the most critical component of Oklahoma's economy. Many of those in the business have in the past lost their business, their savings and their livelihood. The industry is cyclical with booms followed by busts as we saw most poignantly in the 1980s. For the jobs in Oklahoma and the consumers at the pump, let's reject WPT.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you. Mr. President, I may want to ask for a couple more minutes. First of all, let me state to the junior Senator from Oklahoma that I was not aware of this debate coming up. However, I don't have to practice for a debate; it comes from the heart. Let me also say to one of my best friends in the Senate, Senator Voinovich, that he is doing his job. We may come to a different conclusion on this particular issue, but I know he is in a real situation. You have shared that with several of us. Let me suggest to you, Mr. President, that there is something sadly lacking in this debate; that is, in the State of Oklahoma. There are only two of us in the Chamber from Oklahoma. We know what Oklahomans want. It is kind of interesting because Senator Coburn and I have kind of the same philosophy--we want to keep it the same place. We have different styles when we talk about trying to reduce the size of government. He talks about projects, and I talk about reducing appropriations. We both want to get to the same place. He has been an advocate and has talked about term limitation. I believe that everyone, if they don't want to go along with term limitations, ought to have to go out like I did and serve in the real world for 30 years, get beat up by the bureaucracy, and then you can come here and speak from the heart as a citizen back home. But when you look at our State of Oklahoma--and I read this section out of the U.S. Constitution, article I, section 4, which says the time, places, and manner of holding elections for the U.S. Senate preside in each State. That is what it says. That is what the Founding Fathers said--that we should make that determination from our own States. So here we are from the State of Oklahoma. We made the decision. And I have to say this: I know what people in Oklahoma want. One other thing Senator Coburn and I have in common is we go back every weekend. He may deliver a few babies while he is back there. But I would suggest to you, ask the question. A lot of people stay here in Washington all the time. Would you rather have your U.S. Senator staying in Washington and playing golf all weekend or going back to the State from which he came? We made a decision to go back. I have to say also that I have a bigger dog in this fight than most people think. I had the honor of going out many years ago and recruiting this bright young doctor to run for the U.S. House of Representatives. And he did. He came in and agreed to do that. He got an exception to allow him to work hard and still keep up his practice. He did that very successfully. I have to say this: When the Senator from Connecticut referred to a part-time Senator, which we hear now and then, let me tell you that there is no part-time Senator in Senator Coburn. I know this because we go back every weekend. I go around the State. I know what people want. The State of Oklahoma is not a Republican State or a Democrat State, it is a swing State. For him to come along and get in the race late--he got in the race so late for the U.S. Senate that I was already supporting another Republican. But when he got in and worked hard and went out, he won by 12 points. It wasn't a squeaker it was a landslide. And he was outspent by the other side. This is what we think in Oklahoma about Tom Coburn. You can talk all you want to about the rules in the Senate, but I can tell you right now that the Constitution is right when they say in article I, section 4, that the times, places, and manner of holding elections for the State for the office of Senator is within the State. I am here on behalf the State of Oklahoma, unlike anyone else who has spoken saying this is the right thing to do to carve out this exception, if you want to call it that, for Senator Coburn, he is a hard-working Senator, and he is doing what we in Oklahoma want him to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have addressed this Chamber several times on the subject of global warming. Many times, over and over in the past few years in those speeches I have presented well-documented facts regarding the science and economics of the global warming issue that, sadly, many of my colleagues in the public heard for the first time. Today, I will discuss something else--scientific integrity and how to improve it. Specifically, I will discuss the systematic and documented abuse of the scientific process by an international body that claims it provides the most complete and objective scientific assessment in the world on the subject of climate change--the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. I will conclude with a series of recommendations as to the minimum changes the IPCC must make if it is to restore its credibility. When I became chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, one of my top three priorities was to improve the quality of environmental science used in public policymaking by taking the politics out of science. I have convened hearings on this subject and the specific issue of global warming science. I am a U.S. Senator and a former mayor and businessman. I am not a scientist. But I do understand politics. And the more I have delved into the issue, the more convinced I have become that science is being co-opted by those who care more about peddling fear of gloom and doom to further their own, broader agendas than they do about scientific integrity. I am committed to shining a light on their activities. Global warming alarmists will undoubtedly continue to accuse me of attacking the science of global warming--that is part of their game. But nothing could be further from the truth. I support and defend credible, objective science by exposing the corrupting influences that would subvert it for political purposes. Good policy must be based on good science, and that requires science be free of bias, whatever its conclusions might be. As nations meet again next month in Montreal to discuss global warming, the pronouncements of the IPCC leaders will gain renewed attention as they continue their efforts to craft a fourth assessment of the state of global warming science. If the fourth assessment is to have any credibility, fundamental changes will need to be made. The flaws in the IPCC process began to manifest themselves in the first assessment, but did so in earnest when the IPCC issued its second assessment report in 1996. The most obvious was the altering of the document on the central question of whether man is causing global warming. Here is what Chapter 8--the key chapter in the report--stated on this central question in the final version accepted by reviewing scientists: No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic causes. But when the final version was published, this and similar phrases in 15 sections of the chapter were deleted or modified. Nearly all the changes removed hints of scientific doubts regarding the claim that human activities are having a major impact on global warming. It removes these doubts that were specific in the study. In the Summary for Policymakers--which is the only part of the report that reporters and policymakers read--a single phrase was inserted. It reads: The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate. The lead author for chapter 8, Dr. Ben Santer, should not be held solely accountable. According to the journal Nature, the changes to the report were made in the midst of high-level pressure from the Clinton/ Gore State Department to do so. I understand that after the State Department sent a letter to Sir John Houghton, co- chairman of the IPCC, Houghton prevailed upon Santer to make the changes. The impact was explosive, with media across the world, including heavyweights such as Peter Jennings, declaring this as proof that man is responsible for global warming. Notably, polls taken shortly afterwards showed scant support for the statement. The word ``discernible'' implies measurable or detectable, and depending on how the question was asked, only 3-19 percent of American scientists concurred. That is the very best scenario--less than 20 percent. In 2001, the third assessment report was published. Compared with the flaws in the third assessment, those in the second assessment appear modest. The most famous is the graph produced by Dr. Michael Mann and others. Their study concluded that the 20th century was the warmest on record in the last 1,000 years, showing flat temperatures until 1900 and then spiking upward--in short, it looked like a hockey stick. It achieved instant fame as proof of man's causation of global warming because it was featured prominently in the summary report read by the media. Let us take a look at this chart. This is the blade of the hockey stick, and this is what Michael Mann tried to show. Since then, the hockey stick has been shown to be a relic of bad math and impermissible practices. This chart starts the year 1000, 1200, and so forth. If they had included the three centuries prior to that, that was the time called the medieval warming period. In the medieval warming period, you would find another blade such as this where temperatures were actually higher than they are in this exhibit. Since then, the hockey stick has been shown to be a relic of bad math and impermissible practices. Dr. Hans von Storch, a prominent German researcher with the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research--who, I am told, believes in global warming--put it this way: Methodologically it is wrong: Rubbish. In fact, a pair of Canadian researchers showed that when random data is fed into Michael Mann's mathematical construct, it produces a hockey stick more than 99 percent of the time, regardless of what you put into it. Yet the IPCC immortalized the hockey stick as the proof positive of catastrophic global warming. How can such a thing occur? Sadly, it is due to the institutional structure of the IPCC itself--it breeds manipulation. First, the IPCC is a political institution. Its charter is to support the efforts of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has the basic mission of eliminating the threat of global warming. This clearly creates a conflict of interest with the standard scientific goal of assessing scientific data in an objective manner. The IPCC process itself illustrates the problem. The Summary Report for Policymakers is not approved by the scientists and economists who contribute to the report. In other words, the Summary Report for Policymakers is the one for policymakers and for the press. That is how people pick up their impressions as to what was in the report. However, the scientists and the economists who contributed to the report never did approve the Summary Report for Policymakers. It is approved by intergovernmental delegates--in short, politicians. It doesn't take a leap of imagination to realize that politicians will insist the report support their agenda. A typical complaint of scientists and economists is that the summary does not adequately reflect the uncertainties associated with tentative conclusions in the basic report. The uncertainties I identified by contributing authors and reviewers seem to disappear or are downplayed in the summary. A corollary of this is that lead authors and the chair of the IPCC control too much of the process. The old adage ``power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'' applies here. Only a handful of individuals were involved in changing the entire tone of the second assessment. Likewise, Michael Mann was a chapter lead author in the third assessment. One stark example of how the process has been corrupted involves a U.S. Government scientist who is among the world's most respected experts on hurricanes--Dr. Christopher Landsea. Earlier this year, Dr. Landsea resigned as a contributing author in the upcoming fourth assessment. His reason was simple--the lead author for the chapter on extreme weather, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, had demonstrated he would pursue a political agenda linking global warming to more severe hurricanes. Trenberth had spoken at a forum where he was introduced as a lead author and proceeded to forcefully make the link. He has spoken here in the Senate as well, and it is clear that Trenberth's mind is completely closed on the issue. The only problem is that Trenberth's views are not widely accepted among the scientific community. As Landsea put it last winter: All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. When Landsea brought it to the attention of the IPCC, he was told that Trenberth--who as lead author is supposed to bring a neutral, unbiased perspective to his position--would keep his position. Landsea concluded that: Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. Landsea's experience is not unique. Richard Lindzen, a prominent MIT researcher who was a contributing author to a chapter in the third assessment, among others has said that the Summary did not reflect the chapter he contributed to. But when you examine how the IPCC is structured, is it really so surprising? Second, the IPCC has demonstrated an unreasoning resistance to accepting constructive critiques of its scientific and economic methods, even in the report itself. Of course, combined with my first point, this is a recipe for delegitimizing the entire endeavor in terms of providing credible information that is useful to policymakers. Let me offer a few examples of what I am talking about. Malaria is considered one of the four greatest risks associated with global warming. But the relationship between climate and mosquito populations is highly complex. There are over 3,500 species of mosquito, and all breed, feed, and behave differently. Yet the nine lead authors of the health section in the second assessment had published only six research papers on vector-borne diseases among them. Dr. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, a respected entomologist who has spent decades studying mosquito-borne malaria, believes that global warming would have little impact on the spread of malaria. But the IPCC refused to consider his views in its third assessment, and has completely excluded him from contributing to the fourth assessment. Here is another example: To predict future global warming, the IPCC estimated how much world economies would grow over the next century. They had to somehow tie this into the economic activity. Future increases in carbon dioxide emission estimates are directly tied to growth rates, which in turn drive the global warming predictions. Unfortunately, the method the IPCC uses to calculate growth rates is wrong. It also contains assumptions that developing nations will experience explosive growth--in some cases, becoming wealthier than the United States. These combine to greatly inflate even its lower-end estimates of future global warming. The IPCC, however, has bowed to political pressure from the developing countries that refuse to acknowledge the likelihood they will not catch up to the developed world. The result: Future global warming predictions by the IPCC are based on a political choice, not on credible economic methodologies. Likewise, the IPCC ignored the advice of economists who conclude that, if global warming is real, future generations would have a higher quality of life if societies maximize economic growth and adapt to future warming rather than trying to drastically curb emissions. The IPCC turns a deaf ear. This problem with the economics led to a full-scale inquiry by the UK's House of Lords' Select Committee on Economic Affairs. The ensuing report should be required reading. The committee identified numerous problems with the IPCC. In fact, the problems identified were so substantial, it led Lord Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and a member of the committee, to recently state--in fact, he was here and testified before the committee I chair here in the Senate--Lord Lawson said: I believe the IPCC process is so flawed, and the institution, it has to be said, so closed to reason, that it would be far better to thank it for the work it has done, close it down, and transfer all future international collaboration on the issue of climate change. . . . To regain its credibility, the IPCC must correct its deficiencies in all of the following areas before it releases its fourth assessment report. Structurally, there are four ways we suggest changes be made. The first is to adopt procedures by which scientific reviewers formally approve both the chapters and the Summary Report for Policymakers. Government delegates should not be part of the approval process. The second thing is to limit the authority of lead authors and the Chair to introduce changes after approval by the reviewers. The third is to create an ombudsman for each chapter. These ombudsmen should consult with reviewers who believe valid issues are not being addressed and disseminate a report for reviewers prior to final approval which is made part of the final document. Fourth is to institute procedures to ensure that an adequate cross- section of qualified scientists wishing to participate in the process is selected based on unbiased criteria. The ombudsmen should review complaints of bias in the selection process. That is structurally what the IPCC should do. Now, there are many specific issues that the IPCC must address as well. For instance, the IPCC must ensure that uncertainties in the state of knowledge are clearly expressed in the Summary for Policymakers. When you read the Summary for Policymakers, which is not approved by the scientists and the economists, it does not say anything about the fact that there are doubts in these areas. That should be a part of it. The IPCC must provide highly defensible ranges of the costs of controlling greenhouse gas emissions. They have to talk about how this is going to be done. They must defensibly assess the effects of land-use changes in causing observed temperature increases. In other words, there are a lot of things we hear about, we are aware of; that is, the heat island effect that takes place in a lot of the major cities, the various agricultural changes where trees are cut down and crops are planted. These need to be considered. Fourth is to provide highly defensible ranges of the benefits of global warming. If we know the cost that is going to be incurred, as we learned in the Wharton econometric survey--that for each family of four in America, it would cost them about $1,715 a year in the cost of electricity, the cost of fuel; everything just about doubling--then people need to know what kinds of benefits the global warming will produce. The fifth thing is to examine the costs and benefits of an adaptive strategy versus a mitigation strategy. Sixth is to adequately examine studies finding a cooling trend of the Continental Antarctic for the last 40 years, as well as increases in the Antarctic ice mass. Seventh is to adequately explain why the models predict greater warming than has been observed, avoiding the use of selective data sets. Eighth is to ensure an unbiased assessment of the literature on hurricanes. Ninth is to ensure adequate review of malaria predictions by a range of specialists in the field, ensuring all views are expressed. Going back to No. 8, I am reminded every time something happens--it can be a hurricane or a tornado--there is always somebody standing up and saying: Aha, it is due to global warming. It is a level of desperation that I cannot believe people are becoming subjected to. There are dozens more issues, most of which are as important as the ones I have just raised. Instead of trying to list them all here, I intend to post on my committee's Web site this winter a more exhaustive and detailed list of issues that must be addressed in the fourth assessment. In conclusion, I quote from an article in Der Speigel by Dr. von Storch and Dr. Nico Stehr, who is with Zeppelin University. They wrote: Other scientists are succumbing to a form of fanaticism almost reminiscent of the McCarthy era. . . . Silencing dissent and uncertainty for the benefit of a politically worthy cause reduces credibility, because the public is more well-informed than generally assumed. In the long term, the supposedly useful dramatizations achieve exactly the opposite of what they are intended to achieve. If this happens, both science and society will have missed an opportunity. It is my solemn hope that the IPCC will listen to the words of Dr. von Storch and Dr. Stehr and not miss the opportunity to reestablish its credibility, which I believe is totally lost at this time. Only then will its work product be useful to policymakers. If the IPCC remains committed to its current path, however, then Lord Lawson's solution is the only viable one--the IPCC should be disbanded. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks not be charged against the time on the CJS appropriations conference report.

Mr. INHOFE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for yielding. On rollcall vote No. 307, I was recorded as voting yea. I voted no. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the official record be corrected to accurately reflect my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Harry Christy and Bob Lester of the State Foreign Operations and Related Programs Subcommittee be granted the privilege of the floor during considering of the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce and related agencies conference report.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I understand Senator Warner, our distinguished chairman, wants to speak, as well as Senator Brownback. I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 9 at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this joint hearing is to receive testimony regarding energy pricing and profits.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday November 9, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. in SH-216, Senate Hart Office Building. The purpose of this committee hearing will be to discuss agricultural transportation and energy issues.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Avian Influenza.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 9, 2005, at 2 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on Department of Defense business transformation and financial management accountability.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 9, 2005 at 2 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, at 2 p.m. in Dirksen 226. Agenda I. Bill: S.J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing titled, `` `Always Ready': The Coast Guard's Response to Hurricane Katrina.''

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 at 3 p.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Access Delayed: Fixing the Security Clearance Process, Part II.''

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, at 10 a.m., to review and make recommendations on proposed legislation implementing the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement.