Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the leader for allowing me to get in about 10 minutes to respond to some of the things said about the McCain-Lieberman legislation. First of all, I know how sincere both Senators McCain and Lieberman are. They deeply believe in their cause. However, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I feel compelled to refute some of the things that have been said. So what I have done--and I think I can do this in a very short period of time--is look at some of the statements made and respond to them. Now, tomorrow, we will have enough time to get into a lot of details. I have charts I wish to show. I will give a full-blown presentation. For tonight, I will let my colleagues know there are a lot of things we should be looking at and not just assuming that everything that has been said is true. I know they believe it, but some of these things are not true. First of all, the discussion on hurricanes--that hurricanes are going to be impacted in a way that will be detrimental and we are all going to blow away. Let's keep in mind that the same people who are talking about global warming and all of the catastrophic things are the same ones who were talking about gobal cooling about 25 years ago, saying that another ice age is coming, that we are all going to die. On hurricanes, according to Dr. Christopher Lansey, one of the foremost experts today on hurricanes, he said that hurricanes are going to continue to hit the United States on the Atlantic and gulf coast, and the damage will probably be more extensive than in the past, but this is due to natural climate cycles, which cause hurricanes to be stronger and more frequent and rising property prices on the coast, not because of any affect of CO2 emissions on weather. He goes on to say that it is determined that the total number of Atlantic hurricanes making landfall in the United States decreased from the normalized trend of U.S. hurricanes. The damage reveals a decreasing rate. In other words, they are decreasing. Finally, contrary to the belief--this is Dr. Christopher Lansey--reducing CO2 emissions will not lessen the impact of hurricanes. We can say anything we want on the floor of the Senate. These are scientists. He says the best way to reduce the toll hurricanes will take on coastal communities is through adaptation and preparation. I believe that is true. Second, they brought up the Arctic. I think when you look at some of the reports on the Arctic--I will quote from the report that was given before the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain's Committee, at that time. He said: Arctic climate varies dramatically from one region to another and, over time, in ways that cannot be accurately reproduced by climate models. The quantitative impacts of natural and anthropogenic factors remain highly uncertain, especially for a region as complex as the Arctic. In contrast to global and hemispheric temperatures, the maritime Arctic temperature was higher in the 1930s through the early 1940s than it was in the 1990s. That contradicts everything that has been said about the Arctic. I will elaborate on this tomorrow. It has been stated by one of the proponents of the McCain-Lieberman bill that there are modest costs involved. I will look at the impact. This is the CRA International analysis--not of S. 139 as it was before but as it has been pared down and supposedly will have less economic impact. They said that enacting McCain-Lieberman will cost the economy $507 billion in year 2020. Enacting McCain-Lieberman would mean a loss of 840,000 U.S. jobs in 2010. It will result in 1.306 million jobs in 2020. That is not just a domino effect. Enacting McCain-Lieberman would cost the average U.S. household up to $810 in 2020. The figure used before was $2,700 for the average family of four. The NAS, a letter about the NAS, let's take a look at that. The National Academy of Sciences--and I will quote out of their report-- said: There is considerable uncertainty and current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. Further quoting: A casual linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases and the observed climate change in the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established; thirdly, the IPCC-- That is the report of the International Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations. Summary for policymakers could give an impression that the science of global warming is settled, even though many uncertainties still remain. Again, that is the National Academy of Sciences. The Senator from California brought up the hockey stick theory. I believe that deserves more time than we will have tonight. I plan on talking about this tomorrow because when Michael Mann came up with the whole hockey stick theory, he talked about projecting the temperatures over the period of time, until the 20th century came along, and then they went up and off the charts. What he neglected to say, I say to my friend from Connecticut, is that there was another blade to this hockey stick, and that was the blade there during the medieval warming period. It is pretty well established now that the temperatures during the medieval warming period were actually higher than they were during this century--the current blade he talks about. That is significant. We will have a chance to elaborate on that. Finally, in the timeframe I have, I will say that when it is referred to that the Senator from Oklahoma will come up with some ``obscure'' scientist who might disagree, you are right, he will, because there are a lot of them out there who are pretty well educated. The Oregon Petition was made up of 17,800 scientists. I will quote from their report. They said: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth. I think we are going to have an opportunity--at least I will--to talk about many of the other scientists. At least we have to come to the conclusion that there are uncertainties out there. I think the people who try to say the science is settled believe that if they keep saying the same thing over and over again, people will believe it. Quite frankly, there is a very friendly media to the alarmists, those who want to believe there is a real serious problem that, No. 1, the climate is changing; and, No. 2, the changes are due to anthropogenic gases or manmade gases, when, in fact, the science is not settled. I believe this is very important for people to realize. People might ask the question, If the science is not settled and if there is that much of an economic problem with this, then what could be motivating people to be so concerned about our signing on to the Kyoto treaty? Margot Wallstrom is the EU Environment Commissioner. She said that Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big business worldwide. Another hero to some, Jacques Chirac, had a lot to say when he weighed in. Talking about it has nothing to do with climate change, he said that Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance. There are people who are motivated by wanting to effect economic damage to our country. Tomorrow, we will have opportunity to cover in much more detail the fact that there is another side to this story. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Voinovich amendment on diesel emissions reductions. I am an original cosponsor of the legislation which is the same as this amendment. I agree with the intent of this amendment, I believe it is helpful to provide a voluntary national and state-level grant and loan program to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. However, I am concerned that this proposal is being rushed through the process without the benefit of consideration by the committee of jurisdiction, the Environment and Public Works Committee, which I chair. I would prefer, prior to Senate action, that the Environment and Public Works Committee conduct legislative hearings on the issue, and ensure that the program design meets its goals in a cost-effective manner. I am concerned about the $1 billion cost of the program and I believe the goals might be accomplished with a smaller sum. I also believe that if this amendment is adopted, it needs to be reconciled with section 723 of this bill. I hope these issues will be given consideration as this legislation is reconciled with the House of Representatives.

Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding I have 13 minutes. Mr. President, first of all, let me commend Senator Hagel for the work he has done and for the realistic approach he is taking. Right now, there is so much misinformation out there in conjunction with the whole issue of climate change. Someone said the other day that climate change is not a scientific discussion, it is a religion. People have such strong feelings about it or they want to believe so badly. If my staff had the charts, I would show a few of them, but I will wait until we are debating the McCain- Lieberman bill to show them. I vividly remember not too long ago the front page of Time magazine, the front page of Science magazine, huge pictures: Another ice age is coming; we are all going to die. If some people cannot be hysterical and think the end is coming, they are not happy. One important area in this debate is to recognize, as I think the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Ohio both did, that this President has done quite a bit more than science would justify in pursuing the notion, first of all, is there a warming trend that is outside of natural variances; No. 2, if that is the case, is it due to anthropogenic gasses--methane, CO2. I suggest science does not show that either is true. It is not just me saying this. I don't know why people totally ignore the fact that we had the Heidelburg accords, when 4,000 scientists questioned that there is any major change. By the way, this morning's Wall Street Journal plots out the changes in the Earth's surface since 1000 A.D. and what has perhaps caused these changes. They have come to the conclusion that it could not be anthropogenic gases because at that time there were not any. There were not human-induced gases until about 1940. In 1940, what happened? In 1940, there was a cooling period that went all the way to the end of the 1970s. That is when you saw all the articles saying the ice age is coming. The largest increase in anthropogenic gases came right around 1940 and following World War II. You know, instead of precipitating a warming period, it precipitated a cooling period. So just the opposite of what they are saying seems to be true. We have the Heidelburg accords, 4,000 scientists say there is not a relationship between manmade gases and climate change. Then we have the Oregon Petition and 17,000 scientists coming to the same conclusion. We have the Smithsonian-Harvard peer-reviewed study that evaluated everything done so far and came to that same conclusion. Since 1999, science has been on the other side refuting the fact that, No. 1, climate is changing; and No. 2, it is due to manmade gases or to anthropogenic gases. People do not realize what this President has done. One would think by reading some of the magazines, publications, and watching TV that this President is not doing a good job with the environment. He is doing everything he can to determine if there is a relationship between these anthropogenic gases and climate change. If anyone does not believe it, look at the amount of money being spent. His 2006 budget proposed $5.5 billion for climate change programs, energy tax incentives, and these types of things. I see the Hagel bill as extending what the President is doing right now and is actually addressing what is happening internationally. I was very pleased to be part of the 95-to-0 vote on the Hagel-Byrd amendment some time ago that said that if you go to Kyoto meeting, we should oppose signing on to any kind of a treaty that does not treat developing countries the same as developed nations. That is exactly what happened. Now, at least in the Hagel approach, we are looking internationally. It is true, what the Senator from Idaho said a few minutes ago. Over the State of Ohio, if you get high up, that which is up there originated in China. The pollution--not that that is pollution, because it is not, it is a fertilizer. But in terms of SOx, NOx, mercury, they do not stop at State lines. We have a President giving the benefit of the doubt to the fact there might be something there. He is putting money into research. The Hagel bill is carrying that on to a logical conclusion. Quite frankly, when the Hagel bill first came up, I was a little concerned because the price tag, as I calculated it--and I would certainly stand to be corrected if it is not accurate--would have been $4 billion over a 5-year period; around $800 million a year. To add that to what is already being expended--perhaps we are talking about too much money. He has changed it and said such sums ``as necessary.'' This is a little bit disturbing to me. We do not know who will be in the White House. We do not know who will control Congress. We do not know what will happen in the future. I hate to leave it open-ended like that. When we look at the arguments out there, we will have ample time to debate when the next amendment comes up--the McCain Lieberman amendment--that the science clearly has turned around and is in favor right now of refuting some of the earlier suggestions. This whole thing started in 1998 when Michael Mann from Virginia came out with his hockey stick theory. He plotted out all the temperatures and came through the 20th century. Temperatures started going up as of late on the hockey stick. What he neglected to realize, prior to that time, the medieval warming period, which was around 1000 to 1300 A.D., the temperatures were actually higher at that time than they were in the 20th century. All these things are going to be discussed in the next amendment. I believe that reason is prevailing in this approach. I applaud the Senator from Nebraska for coming up with something measured and reasonable that will help convince a lot of the people that are right now participating in this religion called global warming to realize maybe this is something for which we shouldn't have to suffer economically. A lot of people have asked the question, If the science is not there and if we know as a result of the Wharton Econometric Survey that it will cause a dramatic increase in the cost of energy--it will cost each average family of four $2,700 a year--if the science is not there, what is the motivation? I suggest there are people outside of the United States who would love to see us become partners and sign on to the Kyoto treaty. Jacques Chirac said global warming is not about climate change but for leveling the playing field for big business worldwide. The same thing was stated by Margot Wallstrom, the Environmental Minister for the European Union, that it is leveling that playing field. Cooler heads are prevailing, and in this amendment we have a chance to look at this, study this as time goes by, and take whatever actions are necessary in the future but not react to fictitious science and to science that just flat is not there. I applaud the Senator from Nebraska for the fine work he has done. I believe this will be a good approach to making this through the current debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. No objection.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pest Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act. I am proud to be joined by ten of my colleagues, Senators Lincoln, Crapo, Bond, Isakson, Craig, Chambliss, Cochran, Thomas, Hagel and Roberts. This legislation codifies long-standing Democratic and Republican Administration policy of not requiring a Clean Water Act permit for pesticides in full compliance with their EPA-approved label. It will further affirm historic a Federal practices with regard to the Clean Water Act and fire suppression and other foreset management activities. In 1972, Congress enacted both the Clean Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. CWA authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the Nation's waterways by regulating discharges of large industrial operations and wastewater facilities through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. FIFRA proyided the EPA with the authority to regulate the sale and use of pesticides through a comprehensive registration and labeling protocol. Until some recent court decisions, the application of agricultural and other pesticides in full compliance with labeling requirements did not require NPDES permits. Because pesticides undergo lengthy testing under FIFRA including tests to ensure water quality and aquatic species preservation, a NPDES permit was considered unnecessary and duplicative. These court decisions commonly known as Talent and Forsgren contradict years of Federal policy and undermine the manner in which the Federal Government regulates farmers, foresters, irrigators, mosquito abatement officials, and other pesticide applicators. Similar cases are pending. Groups are now using the notice of intent to sue to intimidate farmers, mosquito abatement districts and Federal and State agencies into stopping or reducing West Nile virus prevention and crop loss rangeland protection operations. While EPA has proposed a rule to ensure that pesticides sprayed to, near, or over waters do not need a permit, the rule needs to be codified in statute. Environmentalists who filed notices of intent to sue Maine's two largest blueberry farmers have indicated that they plan on threatening others with lawsuits including more farmers and foresters. Our legislation fills this regulatory gap left by EPA. While the agency's rule is a step in the right direction, our legislation codifies the agency's longstanding policy that the application of agricultural and other pesticides, in accordance with their label, does not require an NPDES permit. Moreover, the rule does not protect farmers, irrigators, mosquito abatement districts, fire fighters, Federal and State agencies, pest control operators or foresters vulnerable to citizen's suits, simply for performing long-practiced, expressly approved and already heavily regulated pest management and public health protection activities. Without such protection, those who protet us from mosquito borne illnesses and other pest outbreaks or combat destructive and potentially deadly forest fires will continue to be potential victims of mischievous citizen's suits. My bill codifies EPA's rulemaking, as well as affirms Congressional intent and the long-held positions of Republican and Democratic administrations with regard to the CWA and pesticide applications generally, as well as fire suppression and other forest management activities. I am pleased to be joined by so many of my colleagues in this effort and encourage others to cosponsor our proposal.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. To set aside mine. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. I say to the distinguished minority leader that I appreciate his comments and I note his thoughts, but the answer would be no.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, I would inquire of the Chair, was there a UC proposed?

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object----

Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will allow me to speak for 4 or 5 minutes after he speaks?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I agree with my friend from North Dakota, although I do not agree with him on the whole idea of the mandated ethanol. We have talked about that. We had that debate. That is already behind us now, and this is where we are. I would suggest that many years ago, when I was in the State legislature, my first trip to Washington was to protest Ladybird Johnson's Highway Beautification Act of 1965. So I do not like mandates to start with, but what I don't like more than the mandates is the fact that you mandate something and then open them up to exposure and expose them to lawsuits. We drafted in my committee this very narrow safe harbor provision which is included in the underlying amendment. It was a product of very careful deliberation. It was a compromise. It was a piece of the overall package. The amendment requires the use of a set and increasing amount of renewable fuels. Because the Government requires the use of a particular additive, the Government should not allow compliance with that requirement to be the basis of a lawsuit. That is just common sense. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from California, but when she talks about the powerful interests we are protecting, is a farmer from Gage, OK, or from Woodward, OK, a powerful special interest group? No, he is not. He is someone who has a law. There is a law out there. He is complying with the law. He says: I guess I will have to go ahead and supply the corn for ethanol. Then he finds out, down the road, he is being named in a lawsuit. We know this happens. It may not be the intent of the law, but it is the effect of the law. That is what happens. On April 22, trial lawyers in the City of Merced v. Chevron have already filed an MTBE-style case attacking ethanol. The plaintiff's drafting in their lawsuit is purposely different and includes the term ``other oxygenates and ethers.'' This careful inclusion necessarily includes ethanol because the only other ``oxygenate'' per se is ethanol. Any of those trying to use the argument that if you do this, this somehow affects MTBE and would reduce their responsibility, it does not affect them. The renewable fuels safe harbor does not relate to MTBE. The text of the renewables liability provision is clear. Only renewable fuels, as defined elsewhere in the amendment, can qualify for the safe harbor. MTBE is not within the renewables definition. I would hope, as people cast their vote, they would keep in mind there is one great issue, and that is a fairness. For Government to come along and mandate something is bad enough. But for Government to come along and mandate something and then say there is no protection for complying with the law, that is not right. It is a fairness issue. I believe we should defeat the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as the senior Senator from Nebraska said, today, June 14, is the 230th birthday of the U.S. Army. Although we commend the service of the men and women of all branches, Active Duty and Reserve components, on this day the Senate Army Caucus, which I cochair with my colleague, Senator Akaka, particularly celebrates the soldiers of the U.S. Army as they answer the Nation's call to duty. These brave men and women are giving something back to their country every day through the sacrifices they and their families make. Mr. President, 230 years ago, the Army was established to defend our Nation. Today, its mission remains the same as throughout the Army's history. America's soldiers have always answered the call to end tyranny, free the oppressed, and light the path to democracy. As citizens and lawmakers, we appreciate our freedoms and our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But we know our freedoms are not free and should not be taken for granted. The men and women of the Army and the other branches of the Armed Forces shoulder the load of being on freedom's frontier, defending our very way of life. On this day, it would be easy for us as citizens of this great Nation to take for granted our God-given rights. In our daily routines, we all too often overlook the selfless commitment the American soldier is making to protect our national interests and freedoms around the globe in over 120 countries. Each mission is contributing to our safety and well-being here at home. For this reason, we should remember that June 14 is the day the U.S. Army was established and celebrates its birthday. The men and women serving in the U.S. Army embody the ideals set forth in the Soldier's Creed and Warrior Ethos. They have the unwavering belief that they will be victorious in whatever they do. This belief stems from knowing that the American people support them, and from the confidence they have in their leaders at every level. They are well equipped and well led, and they will perform their sacred duty. Just listen to these words our soldiers live by every day: I will always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat. I will never quit. I will never leave a fallen comrade. It is kind of interesting. Many years ago, I served in the U.S. Army. It is the same thing we said at that time. We have been living those words not just since the time I was in the Army but for 230 years. Both Senator Akaka and I, the cochairmen of the Senate Army Caucus, were soldiers in the U.S. Army. The principles we learned then--the timeless principles of discipline, pride, integrity, honor, and sacrifice--have helped guide us throughout our lives. They still characterize the Army today. So on behalf of Senator Akaka and the rest of the Senate Army Caucus, I wish the U.S. Army a happy 230th birthday. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ratepayers Protection Act of 2005. This bill will ensure that the poor and elderly and other groups who are disproportionately harmed by rising energy prices are not forced to pick up the tab for utilities that incur costs to control carbon dioxide. The science underlying the climate change theory does not justify the enormous expenditures mandatory climate bills would impose. Moreover, implementing these climate bills would have virtually no effect on reducing temperatures even if climate alarmists are correct. Yet those in our society least able to bear the costs of these mandatory schemes will be hit the hardest. With my bill, disadvantaged individuals will not be saddled with these costs. I understand that this bill will be referred to the Energy Committee. I do not plan to move this bill as stand-alone bill, however, but instead to offer it as an amendment to any mandatory climate bill that sets caps on greenhouse gases.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ratepayers Protection Act of 2005. This bill will ensure that the poor and elderly and other groups who are disproportionately harmed by rising energy prices are not forced to pick up the tab for utilities that incur costs to control carbon dioxide. The science underlying the climate change theory does not justify the enormous expenditures mandatory climate bills would impose. Moreover, implementing these climate bills would have virtually no effect on reducing temperatures even if climate alarmists are correct. Yet those in our society least able to bear the costs of these mandatory schemes will be hit the hardest. With my bill, disadvantaged individuals will not be saddled with these costs. I understand that this bill will be referred to the Energy Committee. I do not plan to move this bill as stand-alone bill, however, but instead to offer it as an amendment to any mandatory climate bill that sets caps on greenhouse gases.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the junior Senator from Nevada, he is right on target as he always is. The Senator is right: The policy of appeasement is what we have been watching for a long time. I have often said an appeaser is a guy who feeds his friends to the alligators hoping they eat him last. Hiram Mann said: No man survives when freedom fails, The best men rot in filthy jails, And those who cry appease, appease Are hanged by those they tried to please. John Bolton is not that appeaser. I am so much in support of this man. I have been listening to the criticisms, and I cannot figure who they are talking about. My feelings about John Bolton can be summed up by the former Governor of Massachusetts, William Weld. He is not someone I very often quote, very often agree with, but William Weld said: He's strong medicine, all right, but sometimes strong medicine is needed, such as it is at the United Nations today. I think he is actually very correct in that. My colleagues know I have many concerns about the United Nations and about Kofi Annan. I have been quite outspoken and a critic of his and the United Nations in general. It seems every day we hear new reasons to express outrage about the performance of the United Nations. There are clearly abundant problems in the United Nations, particularly related to the Iraqi Oil for Food Program. We are not talking about thousands of dollars; we are talking about millions of dollars. We are talking about dollars with ties to the actual family of Kofi Annan. Do not get me wrong, the United Nations should be a tremendous force for good in the world by providing a place for countries to cooperate and pursue and achieve the original missions of the U.N. founders: to promote freedom, peace, respect for human rights. Unfortunately, it has been a disaster. I have grave concerns about the means that have been employed, reportedly, to achieve those ends. The U.N. peacekeeping missions have been questionable. In addition, these operations rely heavily on the use of U.S. troops and funding in a way that threatens our military readiness and unfairly taxes our resources. Other serious concerns are questions about the focus of the United Nations on its inefficient structure and massive bureaucracy which wastes American taxpayer dollars. This is significant because the United Nations operates by collection of assessments and dues. Each member of the United Nations is required to pay a certain percentage of the organization's budget based on their size and based on their ability to pay. I never quite understood the formula. Since January of 2001, the United States was assessed 22 percent of the regular budget of the United Nations even though all nations, regardless of size, get the same vote in the General Assembly. This leads to the situation where the United States is forced to both subsidize the United Nations and go along with many of the decisions that are against our national interests. As Americans, we should have no problem leading the way on the global stage on issues of peace, human dignity, and liberty, but the U.N.'s action in recent years has made it clear that the organization has lost its moorings. Unless things change for the better, we will want to reevaluate our support. In addition to financial matters, there are several other areas in which the U.N. has shown itself to be badly in need of reform. I mentioned the oil-for-food scandal. We know about that. That has received a lot of attention--not enough but a lot of attention. One of the elements of the oil-for-food scandal has not gotten as much attention, and that is what Saddam Hussein's regime was doing with the money they got by skimming from oil contracts negotiated under the program. As we learned from Charles Duelfer's Iraqi Survey Group report: The ISG has been investigating Iraq's procurement process, sources of finance, the involvement of foreign firms, and the specific types of goods that were sought, Iraq utilized a complex and well developed procurement system hidden by an effective denial and deception strategy. By the late 1990s, Iraq, in contravention of U.N. sanctions, pursued the procurement of military goods and technical expertise for military capabilities . . . . . . Money also was obtained from kickback payments made on contracts set up through the U.N.'s Oil for Food Program. Iraq derived several billion dollars between 1999 and 2003 from oil smuggling and kickbacks. One senior regime official estimated Iraq earned $4 billion from illicit oil sales from 1999 to 2002. By levying a surcharge on Oil for Food contracts, Iraq earned billions more during the same period. . . . this was revenue outside U.N. control and provided resources the regime could spend without restriction . . . . . . Iraq imported banned military weapons, technology, and dual-use goods through Oil for Food contracts. Companies in several countries were involved in these efforts. Direct roles by government officials are also clearly established. If this is the kind of program the U.N. runs, I don't know how anyone can get away with saying it does not need serious reform. Another outrageous abuse of U.N. authority took place in the Democrat Republic of Congo. The U.N.'s own watchdog department, the Office of Internal Oversight Services, investigated alleged abuse by the U.N. peacekeeping forces in the northeastern Congolese town of Bunia and found a pattern of sexual exploitation of women and children which it said was continuing at the time of the report. U.N. peacekeepers working in the Democrat Republic of Congo sexually abused girls as young as 13. I have been to both Congos many time, and I have watched these things going on. The other day I was in the Congo and I saw a fleet of cars, about 400 cars. I asked what they were. They had the U.N. symbol. They were cars that were going to take the peacekeeping people to remote areas of Africa. I suggest for the reading of anyone who is interested in that part of the country, ``King Leopold's Ghost.'' It tells what has happened in that country. I cannot help but believe that many of these U.N. peacekeepers are continuing to abuse these people, as we have seen in the past. I have spoken many times on this floor about the redundant and counterproductive bureaucracy that has been built up, layer upon layer, providing cushy jobs with no accountability and little, if any, transparency. And I have also noted in the past the exorbitant cost of the renovation of the U.N. headquarters, for which American taxpayers are again footing the bill, we think. These issues, and others like them, remain unresolved and will continue to undermine the U.N.'s legitimacy around the world. There are so many things we hear about over and over again, about the abuse of power of these peacekeepers going in, but I would like to share with you a personal experience. About 3 weeks ago, I was in Uganda, and in northern Uganda, on the southern Sudan border, there is a terrorist group there that has been operating for 30 years, with the same individual. They will go in and raid these camps, take these kids out--I am talking about 12-year-old kids--and arm them with guns, teach them to fight, and then send them back home to murder their parents. And if they don't do it, they cut their hands off. Now, this is going on today. I saw it. I was there. Where is the United Nations? They are not there. They are not doing anything. I often wonder what they are doing. But something has to happen to change all of that. That is where this nominee comes in. After reviewing John Bolton's credentials, I cannot tell you how strongly I endorse him. He has served as Under Secretary of State, is extremely qualified to hold the position of ambassador to the United Nations, and has an impressive record as an accomplished lawyer, diplomat, and scholar. My colleagues have extolled Mr. Bolton's successes as a reformer in this Chamber before. He has a reputation of toughness, reliability, honor, and, yes, tenacity. Because of these very reasons, I believe Mr. Bolton will be extremely effective in this position and will best represent President Bush and the United States at the United Nations. I have often watched the United Nations and have wondered sometimes, who is on our side? I can assure you, with John Bolton there, you are going to have someone on our side. We have already spent a great deal of time discussing the Democrats' obstructionism this week, so I will only say a few words about that now. The various political ploys used to hold up Mr. Bolton's nomination were frustrating and ridiculous, and were based on nothing more than personal dislike, attacks on this administration's policy, and a misguided and irresponsible vision for the United Nations. Now, I have heard criticism that John Bolton should not be confirmed because he has opposed the U.N. activities and he has said negative things about the United Nations. That is all the more reason we should confirm him in this position. I often think how they say: Well, he doesn't like the United Nations. Why should we send him as our representative? That is exactly the kind of person who needs to be there to effect some changes. It is like saying, if you have a prison, that you need to have a convict running the prison. No, you do not. You need to have somebody who is wanting to come up with some reforms. So we need somebody who will reform the mess that is up there. There are a lot of us who have said for a long period of time that we ought to just get out, just give up, that the United Nations is not looking after our best interests. I think with John Bolton there that will change. He has a proven record of success. He will do a great job. It is broke. He can fix it. We need to confirm his nomination. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I am grateful to the chair of the Small Business Committee for her concern about the interests of small business. As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the manager of the Highway bill on the part of the Senate, I agree that the Senate conferees on the Highway bill will secure the Senate Small Business Committee's consent before negotiating or agreeing to any changes to the Small Business Act or to any program relating to the Small Business Administration.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise in support of this resolution recognizing the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association on its 50th anniversary and also recognizing its members' vital contribution to the oil and gas industry of the United States. The Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association--OIPA--was founded by Roy Woods on January 13, 1955. Roy Woods and other founders possessed the leadership and vision to establish a unified voice for independent crude oil and natural gas producers. The founders were independent oil and natural gas producers, and its membership still comprises independents, both large and small. OIPA is my State's largest oil and gas advocacy group, representing over 1,500 member companies in the crude oil and natural gas exploration/production industry, as well as affiliated businesses. OIPA is also a member of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. OIPA's mission is to enhance and protect the ability of Oklahoma's independent oil and natural gas producers to conduct their business and to ensure a strong energy supply. OIPA is a proactive and diverse organization striving to provide a broad range of services to its members and the industry it supports. OIPA has worked successfully on behalf of Oklahoma independent producers on State and national issues, advocating for State and national governmental policies that protect and enhance the Oklahoma independent producers' ability to do business. Most recently, I have worked with OIPA in the introduction of the Natural Gas Production Act of 2005--S. 926, which I introduced, that would extend section 29 to include natural gas produced from depths below 15,000 feet. This bill is strongly supported by OIPA members and I thank them for their support. The Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association has been and will continue to be an invaluable asset in developing and promoting the oil and gas industry in the United States. I am introducing this resolution as an expression of my appreciation. I congratulate the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association for its 50-year history and its contributions to the oil and gas industry in Oklahoma and the United States.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. What is the regular order?

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak as in morning business for such time as I consume.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, over the past few weeks, I have debunked the notion of scientific consensus about global warming. The claim there is consensus rests on four fundamental pillars. My previous talks made clear that the first three pillars are made of sand. It is not true, for example, that the National Academy of Sciences believes the science of climate change is settled. In fact, the report is replete with caveats, warning the reader of the many uncertainties associated with claims of global warming. Yet advocates continue to recite small excerpts while ignoring the caution about uncertainties contained within the same paragraph or even the same science. It is also not true that the second pillar, the U.N. science report known as the IPCC, proves a consensus. The flagship study on which the IPCC report relies, known as the hockey stick, which shows an unprecedented rise in 20th century temperatures, has been thoroughly discredited by scientists on both sides of the debate. In fact, recently, and since 1999, there hasn't been anyone who has agreed there is authenticity to the issue. In addition, the U.N. report relies on an explosive increase in emissions from poor countries over the next century based on the political decision by the report's author that countries such as Algeria will be as wealthy or wealthier than the United States. The third pillar, supposedly proving that the science is settled that the Arctic is melting, is based on political science. Arctic temperatures are no warmer than they were in the 1930s. Similarly, the thickness of the Arctic glaciers and the sea ice appears to vary naturally by as much as 16 percent annually. These and other factors which the alarmists find inconvenient would seem to indicate that projections of an Arctic climate catastrophe are speculative, at best. Today I conclude the series on the four pillars of climate alarmists by discussing the problems associated with global climate models. Let me begin by briefly explaining the climate models and how they function. Climate models help scientists describe changes in the climate system. They are not models in the conventional sense; that is, they are not physical replicas. Rather, they are mathematical representations of the physical laws and processes that govern the Earth's climate. According to Dr. David Legates of the University of Delaware, climate models ``are designed to be descriptions of the full three-dimensional destruction of the earth's climate.'' Dr. Legates claims models are used ``in a variety of applications, including the investigation of the possible role of various climate forcing mechanisms and the simulation of past and future climates.'' Thousands of climate changes studied rely on computer models. The Arctic Council, whose work I addressed last week, stated that arctic warming and the impact stemming from that warming are firmly established by computer models. Quoting from him: While the models differ in their projections of some of the features of climate change, they are all in agreement that the world will warm significantly as a result of human activities, and that the Arctic is likely to experience noticeable warming, particularly early and intensely. Similarly, the IPCC, which I also discussed in the earlier talks, relied on such earlier models to project a long-term temperature increase ranging from 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Celsius and assorted and potentially dangerous climate changes over the next century. According to Dr. Kenneth Green, Dr. Tim Ball, and Dr. Steven Schroeder, the politicians clearly do not realize that the major conclusions of the IPCC's reports are not based on hard evidence and observation but, rather, largely upon the output of assumption-driven climate models. The alarmists cite the results of climate models as proof of the catastrophic warming hypotheses. Consider one alarmist's description, who wrote recently: Drawing on highly sophisticated computer models, climate scientists can project, not predict, how much temperatures may rise by say 2100 if we carry on with business as usual. He continues: Although scenarios vary, some get pretty severe, and so do the projected impacts of climate change, rising sea levels, species extensions, glacier melting and so forth. It sounds pretty scary, but the statement is completely false. It sheds no light on the likelihood or reliability of such projections. If, for example, a model shows a significant temperature increase over the next 50 years, how much confidence do we have in that projection? Attaching probabilities to model results is extremely difficult and rife with uncertainties. In the 2000 edition of ``Nature,'' four climate modelers noted that: A basic problem with all such predictions to date has been the difficulty of providing any systematic estimate of uncertainty. This problem stems from the fact that: These [climate] models do not necessarily span the full range of known climate system behavior. According to the National Academy of Sciences: . . . without an understanding of the sources and degree of uncertainty, decision-makers could fail to define the best ways to deal with the serious issue of global warming. This fact should temper the enthusiasm of those who support Kyoto- style regulations that will harm the American economy. Previously, we have talked about the harm to the economy and have referred to the Wharton Econometric Survey which was conducted by the Wharton School of Economics. It gets into a lot of detail as to what is going to happen. For example, to comply with Kyoto, it would cost the average family of four some $2,700 a year. So it is a very significant thing. Now note, too, the distinction between ``project'' and ``predict.'' The alarmist writer noted earlier creates the misimpression that a projection is more solid than a prediction. But a projection is the output of a model calculation. Put another way, it is only as good as the model's equations and inputs. As we will see later in this presentation, such inputs or assumptions about the future can be extremely flawed, if not totally divorced from reality. And this, to be sure, is only one of the many technical shortcomings that limit the scientific validity of climate modeling. Unfortunately, rarely does any scrutiny accompany model simulations. But based on what we know about the physics of climate models, as well as the questionable assumptions built into the models themselves, we should be very skeptical of their results. This is exactly the view of the National Academy of Sciences. According to the NAS: Climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty of interpreting their answers that exhibit as much complexity as in nature. At this point, climate modeling is still a very rudimentary science. As Richard Kerr wrote in Science magazine: Climate forecasting, after all, is still in its infancy. Models, while helpful for scientists in understanding the climate system, are far from perfect. According to climatologist Gerald North of Texas A&M University: It's extremely hard to tell whether the models have improved; the uncertainties are large. Or as climate modeler Peter Stone of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology put it: The major [climate prediction] uncertainties have not been reduced at all. Based on these uncertainties, cloud physicist Robert Charlson, professor emeritus at the University of Washington-Seattle, has concluded: To make it sound like we understand climate is not right. This is not to deny that climate modeling has improved over the last three decades. Indeed, scientists have constructed models that more accurately reflect the real world. In the 1970s, models were capable only of describing the atmosphere, while over the last few years models can describe, albeit inadequately, the atmosphere, land surface, oceans, sea ice, and other variables. But greater complexity does not mean more accurate results. In fact, the more variables scientists incorporate, the more uncertainties arise. Dr. Syukuro Manabe, who helped create the first climate model that coupled the atmosphere and oceans, has observed: Models that incorporate everything from dust to vegetation may look like the real world, but the error range associated with the addition of each new variable could result in near total uncertainty. This would represent a paradox: The more complex the models, the less we know. We are often reminded that the IPCC used sophisticated modeling techniques in projecting temperature increases for the coming century. But as William O'Keefe and Jeff Kueter of the George C. Marshall Institute pointed out in a recent paper: The complex models envisioned by the IPCC have many more than twenty inputs, and many of those inputs will be known with much less than 90 percent confidence. Also, tinkering with climate variables is a delicate business-- getting one variable wrong can greatly skew model results. Dr. David Legates has noted that: Anything you do wrong in a climate model will adversely affect the simulation of every other variable. Take precipitation, for example. As Dr. Legates noted: Precipitation requires moisture in the atmosphere and a mechanism to cause it to condense (causing the air to rise over mountains, by surface heating, as a result of weather fronts, or by cyclonic rotation). Any errors in representing the atmospheric moisture content or precipitation-causing mechanisms will result in errors in the simulation of precipitation. Dr. Legates concluded: Clearly, the interrelationships among the various components that comprise the climate system make climate modeling difficult. The IPCC, in its Third Assessment Report, noted this problem, and many others, with climate modeling, including--this is a quote from their report; the very basis that many of the alarmists are basing their decisions on: Discrepancies between the vertical profile of temperature change in the troposphere seen in observations and models. Large uncertainties in estimates of internal climate variability (also referred to as natural climate variability) from models and observations. Considerable uncertainty in the reconstructions of solar and volcanic forcing which are based on limited observational data for all but the last two decades. Large uncertainties in anthropogenic forcings associated with the effects of aerosols. Large differences in the response of different models to the same forcing. I want to delve a little deeper into the first point concerning the discrepancies between temperature observations in the troposphere and the surface. This discrepancy is very important because it tends to undermine a key assumption supporting the warming hypothesis--that more rapid warming should occur in the troposphere than at the surface, creating the so-called greenhouse ``fingerprint.'' But the National Research Council believes real-world temperature observations tell a different story. In January of 2000, the NRC panel examined the output from several climate models to assess how well they mimicked the observed surface and lower atmospheric temperature trends. They found that: Although climate models indicate that changes in greenhouse gases and aerosols play a significant role in defining the vertical structure of the observed atmosphere, model- observation discrepancies indicate that the definitive model experiments have not been done. John Wallace, the panel chairman and professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, put it more bluntly. He said: There really is a difference between temperatures at the two levels that we don't fully understand. More recently, researchers at the University of Colorado, Colorado State University, and the University of Arizona, examined the differences between real-world temperature observations with the results of four widely used climate models. They probed the following question: Do the differences stem from uncertainties in how greenhouse gases and other variables affect the climate system or by chance model fluctuations; that is, the variability caused by the model's flawed representation of the climate system? As it turned out, neither of these factors was to blame. According to the researchers: Significant errors in the simulation of globally averaged tropospheric temperature structure indicate likely errors in tropospheric water-vapor content and therefore total greenhouse-gas forcing, precipitable water, and convectively forced large-scale circulation. Moreover, based on the ``significant errors of simulation,'' the researchers called for ``extreme caution in applying simulation results to future climate-change assessment activities and to attributions studies. They also questioned ``the predictive ability of recent generation model simulations, the most rigorous test of any hypothesis.'' There does not seem to be much wiggle room here: Climate models are useful tools, but unable, in important respects, to simulate the climate system, undermining their ``predictive ability.'' Based on this hard fact, let me bring you back to the alarmist writer I referenced earlier. As he wrote recently: Drawing on highly sophisticated computer models, climate scientists can project--not predict--how much temperature may rise by, say, 2100, if we carry on with business as usual. Again, based on what I have just recounted, this is disingenuous at best. I think a fairminded person would find it horribly misleading and inaccurate. Another serious model limitation concerns the interaction of clouds and water vapor with the climate system. Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, reports of ``terrible errors about clouds in all the models.'' He noted that these errors ``make it impossible to predict the climate sensitivity because the sensitivity of the models depends primarily on water vapor and clouds. Moreover, if clouds are wrong,'' Dr. Lindzen said, ``there's no way you can get water vapor right. They're both intimately tied to each other.'' In fact, water vapor and clouds are the main absorbers of infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Even if all other greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect. But according to Dr. Lindzen, ``the way current models handle factors such as clouds and water vapor is disturbingly arbitrary. In many instances the underlying physics is simply not known.'' Dr. Lindzen notes that this is a significant flaw, because ``a small change in cloud cover can strongly affect the response to carbon dioxide.'' He further notes, ``Current models all predict that warmer climates will be accompanied by increasing humidity at all levels.'' Such behavior ``is an artifact of the models since they have neither the physics nor the numerical accuracy to deal with water vapor.'' I think sometimes you have to look at the science and the contradictions, and even if we don't thoroughly understand what these people are saying, the fact is, they contradict each other. Sometimes you have to go back and look at reality. If they say the increase in the use of carbon dioxide and the presence of it is the major thing causing anthropogenic gases and global warming temperatures, look at what happened right after the war. After the war, they increased the use of CO2 by 85 percent. You would think that would precipitate a warmer period, but it didn't. It precipitated a cooling period. When you get back to the arguments and discrepancies, they agree there are problems. Along with water vapor and clouds, aerosols, or particles from processes such as dust storms, forest fires, the use of fossil fuels, and volcanic eruptions, represent another major uncertainty in climate modeling. To be sure, there is limited knowledge of how aerosols influence the climate system. This, said the National Academy of Sciences, represents ``a large source of uncertainty about future climate change.'' Further, the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, CCSP, which was reviewed and endorsed by the National Research Council, concluded that the ``poorly understood impact of aerosols on the formation of both water droplets and ice crystals in clouds also results in large uncertainties in the ability to project climate changes.'' Climate researcher and IPCC reviewer Dr. Vincent Gray reached an even stronger conclusion, stating that ``the effects of aerosols, and their uncertainties, are such as to nullify completely the reliability of any climate models.'' Another issue affecting model reliability is the relative lack of available climate data, something the National Research Council addressed in 2001. According to the NRC, ``[a] major limitation of these model forecasts for use around the world is the paucity of data available to evaluate the ability of coupled models to simulate important aspects of past climate.'' There is plenty of evidence to support this conclusion. Consider, for example, that most of the surface temperature record covers less than 50 years and only a few stations are as much as 100 years old. The only reliable data come from earth-orbiting satellites that survey the entire atmosphere. Notably, while these temperature measurements agree with those taken by weather balloons, they disagree considerably with the surface record. There is also concern of an upward bias in the surface temperature record, caused by the ``urban heat island effect.'' Most meteorological stations in Western Europe and eastern North America are located at airports on the edge of cities, which have been enveloped by urban expansion. In the May 30, 2003, issue of Remote Sensing of Environment, David Streutker, a Rice University researcher, found an increase in the Houston urban heat island effect of nearly a full degree Celsius between 1987 and 1999. This study confirmed research published in the March 2001 issue of Australian Meteorological Magazine, which documented a significant heat island effect even in small towns. Although climate modelers have made adjustments to compensate for the urban heat island effect, other researchers have shown such adjustments are inadequate. University of Maryland researchers Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai, in Nature magazine, concluded that the effect of urbanization and land-use changes on U.S. average temperatures is at least twice as large as previously estimated. Finally, to expand on a point I raised earlier, climate models are helpful in creating so-called ``climate scenarios.'' These scenarios help scientists describe how the climate system might evolve. To arrive at a particular scenario, scientists rely on model-driven assumptions about future levels of economic growth, population growth, greenhouse gas emissions, and other factors. However, as with the IPCC, these assumptions can create wildly exaggerated scenarios that, to put it mildly, have little scientific merit. In 2003, scientists with the Federal Climate Change Science Program agreed that potential environmental, economic, and technological developments ``are unpredictable over the long time-scales relevant for climate research.'' William O'Keefe and Jeff Keuter of the George C. Marshall Institute reiterated this point recently. As they wrote, ``The inputs needed to project climate for the next 100 years, as is typically attempted, are unknowable. Human emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols will be determined by the rates of population and economic growth and technological change. Neither of these is predictable for more than a short period into the future.'' Put simply, computer model simulations cannot prove that greenhouse gas emissions will cause catastrophic global warming. Again, here's the National Academy of Sciences: ``The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one because--and this is a point I want to emphasize--the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale.'' It's clear that climate models, even with increasing levels of sophistication, still contain a number of critical shortcomings. With that in mind, policymakers should reject ridiculous statements that essentially equate climate model runs with scientific truth. As I discussed today, climate modeling is in its infancy. It cannot predict future temperatures with reasonable certainty that these predictions are accurate. The physical world is exceedingly complex, and the more complex the models, the more potential errors are introduced into the models. We understand little about how to accurately model the troposphere and about the role of aerosols, clouds and water vapor. Moreover, there are enormous data gaps in the very short temperature records that we have. And surface data often conflict with more accurate balloon and satellite data. Models can enhance scientists' understanding of the climate system, but, at least at this point, cannot possibly serve as a rational basis for policymaking. It seems foolish in the extreme to undermine America's economic competitiveness with policies based on computer projections about what the world will look like in 100 years. In short, we have no idea what the world will look like in 20 years, or even 10 years. So this concludes the fourth of the pillars of climate alarmists, hopefully just to show the science is flawed. I think it is clear, as I mentioned a minute ago, that the science is not there. Since 1999, the old argument of Michael Mann, the guy who invented the hockey-stick theory, where he was measuring the Earth's temperatures, we come into the 20th century--and that is the blade on the hockey stick--he intentionally left out the fact that between the years 700 A.D. and 1100 A.D., there is another blade on the hockey stick that went up the other way and temperatures were warmer than they are today. If you read the Wharton Econometrics Survey, you will realize what will happen to America if we were to sign on to this, the economic damage we would have to sustain, the fact it would double the cost of energy, double the cost of gasoline to run our cars, and it would cost the average American family $2,700, and you have to ask the question: If the science is not real and it would inflict that much danger, what is the reason we are doing it? I think we can find the answer in quoting from Margot Wallstrom. Margot Wallstrom is the European Union's Environment Commissioner. She states that Kyoto is not about climate change, it is ``about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide.'' One of your favorite people, I am sure, French President Jacques Chirac, in a speech during The Hague in 2000, said that Kyoto represents ``the first component of an authentic global governance.'' I think we have had an opportunity to discuss this over and over, and it is somewhat warming to me to realize that things are not getting that much warmer, and if that is happening, the science is not showing it is due to anthropogenic gases. Consequently, we as policymakers, have to look at this and be sure before we make any rash decisions that the science is there. Clearly, the science is not there. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me acknowledge that the senior Senator from Utah is so much more knowledgeable on all these issues than most of the rest of us--certainly much more than I am. He has been on the committee and has chaired the Judiciary Committee. He knows these things. He is an attorney. I am none of the above. I chair a committee called Environment and Public Works. But I think it is important for those of us who are not living this every day to express ourselves because we have just as strong feelings, even though we don't work with this on a daily basis. Mr. President, what is the question pending before the Senate?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today, I want to enter into this debate, as we have so many times, on these judicial nominees, including Justice Priscilla Owen and Justice Janice Rogers Brown, both of whom are highly qualified. Priscilla Owen was nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a seat that has been designated a judicial emergency by the Judicial Conference of the United States. That means we have to fill the seat. She has served on the Texas Supreme Court since 1994 and was endorsed for reelection by every major Texas newspaper. She practiced commercial litigation for 17 years. She received her undergraduate degree from Baylor University and graduated third in her class from Baylor Law School in 1977. The American Bar Association has unanimously rated Justice Owen as ``well-qualified,'' the highest possible rating. She is the first nominee considered well- qualified by the ABA to be denied a floor vote by the Democrats. Priscilla Owen even has significant bipartisan support from three former Democrat judges on the Texas Supreme Court and a bipartisan group of 15 past presidents of the State Bar Association of Texas. Justice Owen has served the legal field in many capacities. She was liaison to the Texas Supreme Court's mediation task force and on statewide committees on providing legal services to the poor and pro bono legal services. She has always been very sensitive to the poor. Justice Owen organized a group called Family Law 2000, which warns parents about the difficulties children face when parents go through a divorce. Similarly, President Bush has nominated Justice Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. This morning, I was at the White House. As I came back, I walked by that district court office and thought very much at that time about Justice Brown. She currently serves as an associate justice on the California Supreme Court, a position she has held since 1996. She is the first African-American woman to serve on California's highest court and was retained with 76 percent of the statewide vote in her last election. It is kind of interesting that they use the term ``out of the mainstream'' quite often. Yet here is someone who got 76 percent of the vote in a statewide election. Justice Owen actually got 84 percent. I don't think anybody in this body has been able to gain those majorities. Justice Brown was the daughter of a sharecropper. She was born in Greenville, AL, in 1949. She grew up attending segregated schools during the practice of Jim Crow policies in the South. Her family moved to Sacramento, CA, when she was in her teens, and she later received her B.A. in economics from California State, and earned her J.D. from UCLA School of Law in 1977. She has participated in a variety of statewide and community organizations dedicated to improving the quality of life for all citizens of California. For example, she has served as a member of the California Commission on the Status of African-American Males, as a member of the Governor's Child Support Task Force, and as a member of the Community Learning Advisory Board of the Rio Americano High School. Two weeks ago, my colleague in the other Chamber, Congressman Dan Lungren of California--he is a Congressman I served with for many years when I was in the other body, and he went on to be the Attorney General from the State of California. He spoke of his professional experience with Justice Brown. I really think it is important to go back to people who have served with them at the grassroots level. He was in State government with her in the early 1990s. Congressman Lungren said: . . . It is my observation that in the absence of the opportunity to be voted up or down, to be subjected to a debate on the floor of the United States Senate in the context of such a consideration, that in fact the Janice Rogers Brown that I know in the State of California . . . is not the person that I hear discussed, the person that I hear characterized, or the person that I see presented in the press and other places. When I was elected the attorney general in the State of California and took office in January of 1991, I asked a number of people who had previously served in the attorney general's Office for recommendations of people who should serve at the top level of the department of justice in my administration. Her name (Justice Brown) was always offered by those who had experience in that office. During the confirmation hearings that we had, I had the opportunity to review the opinions that she had written while on the appellate court. Interestingly enough, every single member of the appellate court on which she served recommended her confirmation to the California supreme court. I recall at the time that the chief justice of the California supreme court, Justice Ron George, surprised the public hearing that we had by actually putting on the table every single written opinion that she had done and advising everybody there that he had read every opinion that she had written at that point in time, not once but twice, and rendering his opinion that she was well qualified to serve on the California supreme court. Further quoting: If you look at her opinions, they are the opinions of someone who understands what I believe jurists ought to understand, that their obligation is to interpret the law, not make the law. He concluded his statement by saying: My point this evening is a simple one. That which we are observing in the Senate is denying the American people an opportunity to review the nominees of the President of the United States. It is my belief that Janice Brown should be presented to the United States Senate for consideration. She is an American story. From the humblest background, she has risen to the highest court in the most populous State in the Nation. She subscribes to a judicial philosophy considered radical in some circles, that the text of the Constitution actually means something. She holds to a consistent enforcement of individual rights that is not result oriented. In my judgment, these are the qualities of a true jurist and is why she should be confirmed to sit on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and, at the very least, that her story be told in open debate on the floor of the United States Senate in the context of the consideration of her nomination by the whole body. That is what we are attempting to do today. This is a debate that could quickly be brought to an end by a simple up-or-down vote. We offered the minority as much time as they wanted to debate these nominees, as long as an up-or-down vote would follow. But this hasn't happened. As a matter of fact, at least seven of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have actually stated the same thing--that nominees deserve an up-or-down vote regarding previous nominees, and they all received an up-or-down vote. The same people now that are objecting to an up-or-down vote are the ones who stood up and said we think they should have an up-or-down vote previously. Somehow that has changed from the 1990s, and they don't want that. Let me remind them that Senator Durbin said this on September 28, 1998: We should vote the person up or down. That is all we want. Senator Feinstein, on September 16, 1999, said a nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up or down. Again, Senator Feinstein, a month later, said in October of 1999: Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote. That is what we are talking about, our institutional integrity. I agree with Senator Feinstein from 1999. On March 7, 2000, Senator Kennedy said: The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court said, ``The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry, it should vote him up or down, which is exactly what I would like. Senator Lautenberg said: Talking about the fairness in the system and how it is equitable for a minority to restrict the majority view, why can we not have a straight up-or-down vote? That was on June 21, 1995. Senator Leahy, who actually chaired that committee, said: When President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, I was the first Member of the Senate to declare my opposition to his nomination. I did not believe that Clarence Thomas was qualified to serve on the Court. Even with strong reservations, I felt that Judge Thomas deserved an up-or-down vote. Again, 4 years later, Senator Leahy said: . . . I also took the floor on occasion to oppose filibusters to hold them up and believe that we should have a vote up or down. Senator Lincoln said: It's my hope that we'll take the necessary steps to give these men and these women especially the up-or-down vote that they deserve. That was in the year 2000. Senator Sarbanes said: It is not whether you let the President have his nominees confirmed. You will not even let them be considered . . . with an up-or-down vote. I could go on and on. In fact, I did the other day. I went over so many of these people who are demanding an up-or-down vote. Not only are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle holding up these qualified judges by not allowing an up-or-down vote, I also believe they are discriminating against people of faith. I will reiterate a quote from an article in the L.A. Times that I read on the floor in April regarding the filibuster of qualified nominees, such as Justices Owen and Brown. It states, and I am quoting now the L.A. Times which has never been accused of being a Republican newspaper: These are confusing days in Washington. Born-again conservative Christians who strongly want to see President Bush's judicial nominees voted on are leading the charge against the Senate filibuster, and liberal Democrats are born-again believers in that reactionary, obstructionist legislative tactic. Practically every big-name liberal senator you can think of derided the filibuster a decade ago and now sees the error of his or her ways and will go to amusing lengths to try to convince you that the change of heart is explained by something deeper than the mere difference between being in the majority and being in the minority. I know that both Justice Brown and Justice Owen are active members of churches and are distinguished women of faith. Justice Brown has taught adult Sunday school at her church for more than 10 years, and Justice Owen teaches Sunday school and is the head of the altar guild at her church. One has to ask the question, Have we come to the point in America where Sunday school teachers are disqualified by the strength of their faith and the boldness of their beliefs? The Bible urges us, like Justices Brown and Owen, to be bold in our faith. I Timothy 3:13 says: For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. Hebrews 4:16 says: Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy. . . . I agree with Justice Brown, as she recently told an audience, that people of faith were embroiled in a war against secular humanists who threatened to divorce America from its religious roots, according to a newspaper quoted in an April 26, L.A. Times article. One example of this attack is our parental notification and consent laws which require girls under 18 who are seeking an abortion to either notify or obtain permission--either notify or obtain permission--from one or both of her parents. Many States have such laws. However, there are many instances where these protective laws have been struck down by liberal judges who are bypassing the law and legislating from the bench. For example, on August 5, 1997, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren. The court held that the 1987 statute requiring minors seeking abortion to obtain parental consent or judicial authorization violates the California Constitution's explicit right to privacy. This is outrageous. Parents have a right to know what their children are doing. Children who are not old enough to vote or drink, why should they be old enough to have an abortion without at least telling their parents? We are not talking about getting permission, we are talking about notifying them. In another case, Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, the Supreme Court held that statutes, which allow a parent or guardian to absolutely prohibit an abortion to be performed on a minor child, were unconstitutional. There are a number of such cases. The whole point is this is outrageous. We keep hearing people say these two justices are out of mainstream America, and I suggest to you, Mr. President, that it is the individuals who are making the accusations who are out of the mainstream. It was not long ago that they did polling on all these traditional values, and it would seem to me that the traditional values are in the mainstream. It is the liberals who are opposing these nominations who are out of the mainstream. To give an example, by 85 to 15 percent, Americans say religion is very or fairly important in their lives. Only 15 percent say it is unimportant. In the case of Government should help faith-based initiatives to help the poor, 72 percent of Americans agree. On the issue of whether violent attackers of pregnant women who kill the baby should be prosecuted for killing the baby, 84 percent say yes. That is mainstream. On the issue of whether children should be allowed to pray in school, 78 percent of Americas agree. And 73 percent of Americans favor a law requiring women under the age of 18 to get parental consent for any abortion. Democrats are with the 24 percent who oppose it. That is mainstream America, Mr. President. Also, 74 percent oppose removing all references to God from oaths of public office--74 percent--and 91 percent of Americans want to keep the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. Those who are opposing them are on the other side of these issues. I suggest this all averages to over 78 percent of the American people believe these issues, and that is clearly the will of the American people. That is mainstream. That is what our Founding Fathers talked about when they founded this great country, this one Nation under God. We have said it over and over again. I see the distinguished Senator from Nevada is here to speak. I agree with all the liberal Democratic Senators who in the 1990s said: All we want is an up-or-down vote; that is all we are asking today. They got theirs, now we deserve ours. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I assure the Senator that I am willing to discuss with my fellow conferees the idea of including in the conference agreement on this legislation language adding PM-10 to the CMAQ apportionment formula.