Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today, as an experienced pilot over age 60, along with my colleagues, Senator Stevens and Senator Burns, to introduce a bill that will help end age discrimination among airline pilots. I also want to thank my colleague in the other chamber, Congressman Jim Gibbons, for his leadership on this issue and for introducing the companion version of this bill. This bill will abolish the Federal Aviation Administration's Age 60 Rule-the regulation that for more than 40 years has forced the retirement of airline pilots the day they turn 60 and replace it with a rational plan that ties the commercial pilot retirement age to the Social Security retirement age currently 65. Most nations have abolished mandatory age 60 retirement rules. The United States is one of only two countries in the Joint Aviation Authority that requires its commercial pilots to retire at the age of 60. Some countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have no upper age limit at all. The Age 60 Rule has no basis in science or safety and never did. FAA data shows that pilots over age 60 are as safe as, and in some cases safer than, their younger colleagues. There have been numerous studies and statements in support of abolishing the Age 60 Rule. In 1981, the National Institute of Aging stated that ``the Age 60 Rule appears indefensible on medical grounds'' and ``there is no convincing medical evidence to support age 60, or any other specific age, for mandatory pilot retirement.'' The FAA released the Hilton Study in 1993, which stated ``the data for all groups of pilots were remarkably consistent in showing a modest decrease in accident rate with age no hint of an increase in accident rates as pilots near age 60.'' Furthermore, in May 1999, the Senate Appropriations Committee asked the FAA to report on why the US should not cautiously increase the age to 63, ``like other countries have for commercial aviation.'' Airline Pilots magazine stated in a September 2003 article, ``If a permanent replacement for the 30 year Treasury bond rate is also applied to the calculation of lump-sum payments, we recommend a long transition period, similar to that proposed in H.R. 1776, the pension legislation introduced by Rep. Bob Portman. For pilots who must retire at age 60, this is particularly important. It would be unfair to pull the rug out from under employees who have carefully planned their retirement finances, especially pilots who can't fly longer to make up for the amounts lost because of a change in the basis used to calculate lump-sum payments.'' As recently as September 14, 2004, in a hearing before the Senate Special Committee on Aging, Captain Joseph ``Ike'' Eichelkraut, President of Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association, testified: ``The 4400 plus pilots of the Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association, oppose the Age 60 Rule. ``Flying a commercial airliner is not the physically demanding environment I encountered 15 years ago in the 7 9 ``G'' world of the F- 16 I flew in the Air Force. Commercial piloting is, however, a job requiring key management skills and sound judgment. These are talents that I have found typically come with age and experience. ``The facts are that plain. The FAA has the ideal mechanisms for ensuring safe pilots at any age are already in place. To retain my license and fly as a pilot for Southwest Airlines, I must pass semi- annual flight physicals administered by a qualified (FAA licensed) Aero-Medical Examiner (AME). When a pilot turns 40 years of age, he must undergo an EKG every other flight physical, which is electronically transmitted by the AME directly to FAA headquarters where a computer program alerts if parameters dictate. ``Pilots must also successfully pass semiannual simulator training and flight checks designed to evaluate the crewmember's ability to respond to various aircraft emergencies and/or competently handle advances in flight technology and the Air Traffic Control (ATC) environment. Captains must demonstrate, twice yearly, complete knowledge of systems and procedures, safe piloting skills and multi- tasking by managing emergency and normal flight situations, typically in instrument flight conditions conducted in advanced simulators. There is no greater test of cognitive ability and mental dexterity than these simulator rides. Flight crews are also administered random inflight check rides by FAA inspectors and Southwest check airmen. Further, we are subject to random alcohol and drug testing at any time while on duty. There is no other profession examined to this level. The 59 year old Captain arrives at this point in his career having demonstrated successful performance following years of this kind of scrutiny. FAA studies have verified the superior level of safety exhibited by this senior Captain. ``At Southwest, our pilots are trained to fly the aircraft on instruments down to 50 above the ground in poor visibility conditions before acquiring the intended runway and landing visually. In simulators, both pilots must demonstrate the ability to immediately determine whether a safe landing can be made at this point and then either execute a ``go-around'' or land. The First Officer is trained to assume control of the aircraft and execute a ``go-around'' if the Captain fails to respond to procedures at this critical decision point. If either pilot should become incapacitated, even at touchdown, the other pilot is capable of assuming control in order to fly the airplane to a safe landing. The passengers would probably remain unaware that a pilot had become ill until the aircraft is met at the gate by Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT). ``Simulator failure rates among SWA pilots are low. Last year there were only 31 out of 4,200 simulator checkrides. But as pilots approach age 60 the failure numbers are at their lowest. The graph attached shows this and I believe that experience is the key. As pilots get older, they know how to better handle the extreme situations they may have encountered in simulator checks. The mean failure rate declines at an even rate from a pilot's thirties through his fifties. Of course, because of the Age 60 rule, I don't have data to show that this trend would continue throughout a pilot's sixties, but I suspect it would.'' I urge the Commerce Committee to hold hearings along these lines. Furthermore, on September 29, 2004, thousands of people watched as 63-year-old Michael Melvill made history by becoming the first civilian to pilot a craft into space. In doing so, he helped Paul Allen, the owner of Mojave Aerospace Ventures, which owns SpaceShipOne technology, along with the designer of SpaceShipOne, Burt Rutan, win the coveted $10 million Ansari X-Prize. Melvill took SpaceShipOne above the 62-mile altitude point, ultimately soaring to 337,500 feet. Despite rolling nearly 30 times, Melvill was able to gain control of the vehicle, re-enter the atmosphere, and glide to a landing. I attribute this recovery and subsequent landing to Melvill's years of extensive experience as a test pilot. This bill will allow our most experienced pilots, those like Michael Melvill demonstrably healthy, and fit for duty-to retain their jobs, a step that will benefit pilots, the financially burdened airlines, and most importantly, passengers. Now, more than ever before, we need to keep our best pilots flying. Again, there is no scientific justification for requiring pilots to retire at age 60. Our pilots, our airlines, and our passengers deserve our consideration. I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear rather than science. I am the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. In addition to its normal expected jurisdictions, the committee also has a lot to do with the Energy bill. We have probably as many provisions in the Energy bill as the Energy Committee does. It is one with which we have great concern. We recognize we have an energy crisis in America. The House passed a very good Energy bill last year. We should have passed it in the Senate. We did not. I hope we will pass it this time. In the meantime, we need to do what I committed to do when I became chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee 2 years ago. We are going to encourage decisions that are made in Government to be made on sound science. Many times that is not the case, and such a case is the hoax referred to as ``global warming.'' I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people in a statement, to put it mildly, that was not viewed very kindly by the environmental extremists and their elitist organizations. I also pointed out in a lengthy committee report that those same environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising purposes, raking in millions of dollars, even using Federal taxpayers' dollars to finance the campaigns. For these groups, the issue of catastrophic global warming is not just a favored fundraising tool. In truth, it is more fundamental than that. Put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith to the radical far left alarmists. Therefore, contending that its central tenets are flawed to them is heresy and of the most despicable kind. Furthermore, scientists who challenge its tenets are attacked sometimes personally for blindly ignoring the so-called scientific consensus. That is not all. Because of their skeptical views, they are contemptuous, dismissed for being ``out of the mainstream.'' This seems to me highly ironic. Aren't scientists to be nonconforming and question consensus? Nevertheless, it is not hard to read between the lines. ``Skeptic'' and ``out of mainstream'' are their thinly veiled code phrases meaning anyone who doubts the alarmists' orthodoxy is, in short, a quack. I have insisted all along that the climate change debate should be based on fundamental principles and science, not religion. Ultimately, I hope it will be decided by hard facts and data and by serious scientists committed to the principles of sound science instead of censoring skeptical viewpoints, as my alarmist friends favor. These scientists must be heard, and I will do my part to make sure they are heard. I am sure the Presiding Officer from Rhode Island is very much concerned with the sound science with which we address this subject. Since my detailed climate change speech in 2003, so-called skeptics continue to speak out. What they are saying is devastating to the alarmists. They amassed additional scientific evidence convincingly refuting the alarmists' most cherished assumptions and beliefs. New evidence has emerged that further undermines their conclusions, most notably those of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, one of the major pillars of the authorities cited by the extremists and climate alarmists. I guess what I am saying is we are going to be looking at this new evidence. Just since we have adjourned and have come back in today to swear in our new Members, the scientists are almost entirely on the side that there is no sound science behind the idea that, No. 1, the climate is changing and, No. 2, if it is that it is the result of manmade gases. Evidence has come to light in very interesting times. Just last month, the 10th Conference of the Parties--that is called the COP-10--to the Framework Convention on Climate Change met in Buenos Aires to discuss Kyoto's implementation and measures to pursue beyond Kyoto. As most of my colleagues know, Kyoto goes into effect on February 16. I think, with the exception of Russia, an exception I will explain later, the nations that ratified Kyoto and agreed to submit to its mandates are making a very serious mistake. I went to this meeting, the conference, COP-9, last year in Milan, Italy. It was shocking to see what was actually going on there. I was involved in a mission in west Africa. I saw a person I deal with on a regular basis from a little country in west Africa who was there. It happens that his title in his country's government is Minister of the Environment. I said: What are you doing here? Do you really believe in this Kyoto stuff? He said: Oh, no, this is the biggest party of the year. These people are paid for by the United Nations and paid for by this country, in an inordinate amount, percentage, to come up with and have big parties for 3, 4, 5 days in some of the most exotic places in the world just to show support for Kyoto. It is outrageous. In addition, last month, a popular author, Dr. Michael Crichton, who has questioned the wisdom of those who trumpet a scientific consensus, released a new book called ``State of Fear.'' You all know who Dr. Michael Crichton is. He is a medical doctor as well as a scientist and best-selling author. This is all premised on the global warming debate. I am happy to report Dr. Crichton's new book reached No. 3 on the New York Times bestseller list. I highly recommend this book to the Presiding Officer. I will supply him with this book because I think it is imperative people see some of what is going on right now and how public opinion is catching on to this hoax that has permeated our country for so long. Dr. Crichton, as I said, is a medical doctor and scientist. He very cleverly weaved a very compelling presentation of the scientific facts of climate change--with ample footnotes and documentation throughout, I might add--into a gripping plot. From what I can gather Dr. Crichton's book is designed to bring some sanity to the global warming debate. In the author's message at the end of his book, he refreshingly states what scientists have suspected for years. He says: We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850-- I do not know who will argue with that. --as we emerged from a 400 year cold spell known as the Little Ice Age. Dr. Crichton states that ``nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon,'' and ``Nobody knows how much of the present trend might be man-made.'' For those who see impending disaster in the coming century, Dr. Crichton writes: I suspect that people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume much more energy, have a smaller global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don't think we have to worry about them. For those who do worry or induce such worries in others, ``State of Fear'' has a very simple message: Stop worrying and stop spreading fear. Throughout the book, fictional environmental organizations are more focused on raising money, principally by scaring potential contributors with bogus scientific claims and predictions of the global apocalypse, than they are with saving the environment. As the saying goes, here we have art imitating life. As my colleagues will remember from a floor speech I gave last year, this is part and parcel of what these organizations peddle to the general public. Their fearmongering knows no bounds. Just consider the debate over mercury emissions. President Bush proposed the first ever cap to reduce mercury emissions from powerplants by 70 percent. True to form, these groups said he was allowing more mercury into the air. Now stop and think about it. Right now there is no cap on mercury. It is proposed by this President for the first time. As I mentioned earlier, several nations, including the United States, met in Buenos Aires in December for the 10th round of the international climate change negotiations. I am happy to report that the U.S. delegation held firm both in its categorical rejection of Kyoto and the questionable science behind it. Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs and the leader of the U.S. delegation, put it very well when she told the conference: Science tells us that we cannot say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided. Ms. Dobriansky and her team also rebuffed attempts by the European Union to drag the United States into discussions concerning post-Kyoto climate change commitments. With the ink barely dry on Kyoto ratification, not to mention what the science of climate change is telling us, Ms. Dobriansky was right in dubbing post-2012 talks premature. It was clear from discussions in Buenos Aires that Kyoto supporters desperately want the United States to impose on itself mandatory greenhouse emissions controls. Moreover, there was considerable discussion but no apparent resolution over how to address emissions from developing countries such as India and especially China, which over the coming decades will be the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gases. Developing nations, most notably China, remained adamant in Buenos Aires in opposing any mandatory greenhouse gas reductions now or any time in the future. Securing this commitment was a necessary component for the U.S. ratification of Kyoto. Now, some may not have been here at the time, but 2 years ago we passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution that said that if Kyoto treats developing nations any different than developed nations, we will not ratify it. That passed 95 to 0. Every Senator voted that way, and it was very clear. So I think one can say with that commitment at least in the United States that Kyoto is dead. Kyoto goes into force on February 16. According to the European Union Environmental Ministry, most EU member states will not meet their Kyoto targets. That is kind of interesting because the very people who are behind it and are so adamant that, yes, we must do this, are the ones who have not met their voluntary targets and have no real intention of doing so. They may do so only on paper due to Russia's ratification of the treaty. Russia, of course, ratified Kyoto not because its government believes in catastrophic global warming--it does not--but because ratification was Russia's key to joining the World Trade Organization. Also, under Kyoto, Russia can profit from selling emission credits to the European Union and continue business as usual without undertaking economically harmful emissions reductions. Just stop and think about this now. We are talking about the huge, massive country of Russia. I have been active in aviation for 48 years now, and I had occasion a few years ago to fly an airplane around the world, replicating the flight of Wiley Post. In doing so, I went all the way across Siberia. I can remember going not just hour after hour but time zone after time zone, seeing no signs of civilization, just great forests. Well, they ended up getting credits for all of that. When I talked to the Russian people last year in Milan, Italy, they were very straightforward, saying: No, there is no science to it, but we stand to make millions of dollars if we sign on to this thing. That was my first indication that they were going to do so. So as the talks in Buenos Aires revealed, if alarmists cannot get what they want at the negotiating table, they will try other means. I was told by reliable sources that some delegation members of the European Union suddenly hinted that America's rejection of Kyoto could be grounds for a challenge under WTO. I surely hope this was just a hypothetical suggestion and not something our European friends are actively and seriously considering. I predict such a move would be devastating to the United States and the United States-European Union relations, not to mention the WTO itself. I suspect it is not just hypothetical. The lawsuit is the stock and trade of environmental activists. We are witnessing a new crop of global warming lawsuits now being leveled at individual U.S. companies and at the United States itself. In Buenos Aires, Earth Justice, a San Francisco-based environmental group, and the Center for International Law announced plans to seek a ruling from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that the U.S., because of its supposed contribution to global warming, is causing environmental degradation in the Arctic and therefore violating the human rights of Alaska's Inuits, or Eskimos. As the New York Times wrote: The commission, an investigative arm of the Organization of American States, has no enforcement powers. But a declaration that the United States has violated the Inuits' rights could create the foundation for an eventual lawsuit, either against the United States in an international court or against American companies in a U.S. court, said a number of legal experts, including some aligned with industry. The Times did not mention that such lawsuits already have been filed with the U.S. Eliot Spitzer, New York's State attorney general, along with eight other State attorneys general, mainly from the Northeast, last year sued five coal burning electric utilities in the Midwest. The reason: ``Given that these are among the largest carbon dioxide polluters in the world,'' Mr. Spitzer wrote, ``it is essential that the court direct them to reduce their emissions.'' To me, this is a clear-cut sign of desperation by the alarmists, but I am not surprised. President Bush has rejected Kyoto. The Senate has rejected Kyoto 95 to 0. The Senate rejected the McCain-Lieberman bill by 55 to 43, and there is little hope that Congress will pass mandatory greenhouse gas reduction, at least not in the near future. So resorting to the courts is their last hope. I hope the courts have enough sense in moderation to reject these lawsuits out of hand. I am interested, for one, to see how Mr. Spitzer quantifies with scientific precision just how these particular companies have contributed to climate change. How is it, one might ask, that emissions, specifically from American Electric Power, are causing rising sea levels, droughts, or hurricanes? Such efforts fly in the face of compelling new scientific evidence that makes a mockery of these lawsuits. By now most everyone familiar with the climate change debate knows about the hockey stick graph constructed by Dr. Michael Mann and his colleagues which shows that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years and then spiked upward in the 20th century. The hockey stick graph was featured prominently in IPCC's third assessment report published in 2001. The conclusion inferred from the hockey stick is that industrialization, which spawned widespread use of fossil fuels, is causing the planet to warm. I spent considerable time examining this work in my 2003 speech because Dr. Michael Mann effectively erased the well-known phenomena of the medieval warming period. In other words, he never even recognized-- I wish we had the chart because I have a chart that shows this, and one can see the shaft of the hockey stick over 900 years go like this, but all of a sudden in the 20th century it starts up like this, and they failed to realize that there was another blade in the hockey stick that was the medieval warming period where the temperatures were warmer than they are today. This has been going on since creation. I think the fact that he did it--I was challenged in a speech that I made in Italy on this subject. I said I believe Michael Mann must have intentionally left that off because that completely destroys the credibility of his findings. But don't take my word for it. Just ask Dr. Hans Von Storch, a noted German climate researcher, who, along with colleagues, published a devastating finding in the Sept. 30, 2004 issue of Science magazine. As the authors wrote: ``We were able to show in a publication in Science that this [hockey stick] graph contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: Rubbish.'' Dr. Von Storch and colleagues discovered that the Mann hockey stick had severely underestimated past climate variability. In a commentary on Dr. von Storch's paper, T.J. Osborn and K.R. Briffa, prominent paleoclimatologists from the University of East Anglia, stressed the importance of the findings. As they wrote, ``The message of the study by von Storch et al. is that existing reconstructions of the NH [northern hemisphere] temperature of recent centuries may systematically underestimate the true centennial variability of climate'' . . . and, ``If the true natural variability of NH [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed as `unusual' would need to be reassessed.'' In other words, in obliterating the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, Mann's hockey stick just doesn't pass muster. Dr. Von Storch is one of many critics of Michael Mann's hockey stick. To recount just one example, three geophysicists from the University of Utah, in the April 7, 2004 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, concluded that Mann's methods used to create his temperature reconstruction were deeply flawed. In fact, their judgment is harsher than that. As they wrote, Mann's results are ``based on using end points in computing changes in an oscillating series'' and are ``just bad science.'' I repeat: ``just bad science.'' As to the arctic climate assessment, these findings, alongside a spate of new reports, at least in the eyes of the media supposedly confirm the ``consensus'' on global warming. ``The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment,'' released last fall, perfectly fits that mold. ``Arctic Perils Seen in Warming,'' blared a headline by the New York Times. As the Times wrote: ``The findings support the broad but politically controversial scientific consensus that global warming is caused mainly by rising atmosphere concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, and that the Arctic is the first region to feel its effects.'' What do we really know about temperatures in the Arctic? Let's take a closer look. As Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor has shown, Arctic temperatures are actually slightly cooler today than they were in the 1930s. As Dr. Taylor has explained, it's all relative--in other words, it depends on the specific time period chosen in making temperature comparisons. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Dr. Taylor wrote: ``appears to be guilty of selective use of data. Many of the trends described in the document begin in the 1960s or 1970s--cool decades in much of the world--and end in the warmer 1990s or early 2000s. So, for example, temperatures have warmed in the last 40 years, and the implication, `if present trends continue,' is that massive warming will occur in the next century.'' Dr. Taylor concluded this way: ``Yet data are readily available for the 1930s and early 1940s, when temperatures were comparable to (and probably higher than) those observed today. Why not start the trend there? Because there is no net warming over the last 65 years? This is pretty convincing stuff. But, one might say, this is only one scientist, while nearly 300 scientists in several countries, including the United States, signed onto the Arctic report. I want to submit for the record a list of scientists, compiled by the Center For Science and Public Policy, from several countries, including the United States, whose published work shows current Arctic temperature is no higher than temperatures in 1930s and 1940s. For example, according to a group of 7 scientists in a 2003 issue of the Journal of Climate: ``In contrast to the global and hemispheric temperature, the maritime Arctic temperature was higher in the late 1930s through the early 1940s than in the 1990s.'' Or how about this excerpt from the 2000 International Journal of Climatology, by Dr. Rajmund Przybylak, of Nicholas Copernicus University, in Torun, Poland: ``The highest temperatures since the beginning of instrumental observation occcured clearly in the 1930s and can be attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation.'' I ask unanimous consent the list of scientists be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Despite this evidence, alarmism is live and well. As you can see behind me, the Washington Post today ran an editorial cartoon that, yes, actually blames the Sumatra tsunami on global warming. Are we to believe now that global warming is causing earthquakes? The tsunami, of course, was caused by an earthquake off Sumatra's coast deep beneath the sea floor, completely disconnected from whatever the climate was doing at the surface. Regrettably, the tsunami-warming connection merely confirms the state of fear extremists are so eager to create. As Terence Corcoran of Canada's Financial Post wrote: ``The urge to capitalize on the horror in Asia is just too great for some to resist if it might help their cause . . . Green Web sites are already filling up with references to tsunami risks associated with global warming.'' There is something inhumane about that, that they would capitalize on the tragedy of a hundred thousand people to push a hoax like global warming. To address this, let's ask some simple questions: Is global warming causing more extreme weather events of greater intensity, and is it causing sea levels to rise? The answer to all of these is emphatically no. Just look at this chart behind me. It's titled ``Climate Related Disasters in Asia: 1900 to 1990s.'' What does it show? It shows the number of such disasters in Asia, and the deaths attributed to them, declining fairly sharply over the last 30 years. Let's take hurricanes. Alarmists linked last year's hurricanes that devastated parts of Florida to global warming. But this is patently false. Credible meteorologists were quick to dismiss such claims. Hugh Willoughby, senior scientist at the International Hurricane Research Center of Florida International University stated Plainly: ``This isn't a global-warming sort of thing. . . It's a natural cycle,'' A team led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Dr. Christopher Landsea concluded that the relationship of global temperatures to the number of intense land-falling hurricanes is either non-existent or very weak. In this chart you can see that the overall number of hurricanes and the number of the strongest hurricanes fluctuated greatly during the last century, with a great number in the 1940s. In fact, through the last decade, the intensity of these storms has declined somewhat. What about sea level rise? Alarmists have claimed for years that sea level, because of anthropogenic warming, is rising rapidly. Based on modeling, the IPCC estimated that sea level will rise 1.8 millimeters annually, or about one-fourteenth of an inch. But in a study published this year in Global and Planetary Change, Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Sweden found that sea level rise hysteria was overblown. In his study, which relied not only on observational records, but also on satellites he concluded that: ``there is a total absence of any recent `acceleration in sea level rise' as often claimed by IPCC and related groups.'' Yet we still hear of a future world overwhelmed by floods due to global warming. Such claims are completely out of touch with science. As Sweden's Morner puts it, ``there is no fear of massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.'' What I have outlined today will not appear in the New York Times. Instead you will read much about ``consensus'' and Kyoto and hand wringing by its editorial writers that unrestricted carbon dioxide emissions from the United States are harming the planet. You will read nothing, of course, about how Kyoto-like policies harm Americans, especially the poor and minorities, causing higher energy prices, reduced economic growth, and fewer jobs. After all, that is the real purpose behind Kyoto, as Morgot Wallstrom, the EU's environment minister, said in a moment of candor. To her, Kyoto is about ``leveling the playing field'' for businesses worldwide--in other words, we can't compete, so let's use a feel-good treaty, based on shoddy science, fear, and alarmism, which will have no perceptible impact on the environment, to restrict America's economic growth and prosperity. Unfortunately for Ms. Wallstrom and Kyoto's staunchest advocates, America was wise to the scheme, and it has rejected Kyoto and similar policies convincingly. Whatever Kyoto is about--to some, such as French President Jacques Chirac, it's about forming ``an authentic global governance''--it's the wrong policy and it won't work, as many participants in Buenos Aires conceded. I recommend--and I will include at the end of my remarks--the economic study which was done by the Wharton School of Economics talking about what would happen to America and the cost of global warming. If we should sign on to Kyoto, what would it cost? They go into detail. They talk about doubling the price of energy. They talk about the price of fuel more than doubling. Keep in mind this is the economic survey. They talk about the cost to the average family of four in America being $2,715 a year by 2010. People have to understand that the economic destruction of our country is something that would inure to the benefit of the European Union and many others who are in competition with us. We have to understand that there is an economic motive behind it which one would have to seriously consider. Despite the bias, omissions, and distortions by the media and extremist groups, the real story about global warming is being told and, judging by the success of Michael Crichton's ``State of Fear,'' much to the dismay of certain groups, it is now being told to the American public. I think one thing which we all have to understand in this body is we have to recognize the fact that we have an energy crisis in America today. Right now, there are a few people around the country who are now catching on that it is true. We need all forms of energy to run this great machine called America. Our forms of energy can be nuclear, they can be renewable, they can be fossil fuel, coal, oil, gas, all of the above. It is what we will have to have in order to be competitive. Chairing the committee and being active in the upcoming energy bill, we anticipate being realistic in thinking about not just ourselves today--not just my four kids or my 12 grandchildren and future generations--but you are going to have to run this most successful, highly industrialized machine ever conceived in the history of the world. And you can't do it sitting around closing the door on all opportunities that we have for energy. Certainly one is coal. Certainly we need to look at this whole issue of global warming and what the real motives are of these people who are behind this. I gave a speech on this floor the last session and talked about the amount of money--I am also going to insert that for the Record--being paid to elect people, money that is being filtered through a lot of these organizations. There is a lot of money made out there by causing people to be fearful, by making people afraid, by making people feel that the world is coming to an end. It is not. Exhibit I Scientist Rajmund Przybylak, Department of Climatology, Nicholas Copernicus University, Torun, Poland Paper Temporal and spatial variance of surface air temperature over the period of instrumental observations in the Arctic, International Journal of Climatology, 20, 587-614, 2000. Key Quote or Synopsis ``A detailed analysis of the spatial and temporal changes in mean seasonal and annual surface air temperatures over the period of instrumental observations in the Arctic is presented . . . The presented analysis shows that the observed variations in air temperature in the real Arctic (defined on the basis of climate as opposed to other criteria, e.g. astronomical or botanical) are in many aspects not consistent with the projected climatic changes computed by climatic models for the enhanced greenhouse effect. The highest temperatures since the beginning of instrumental observation occurred clearly in the 1930s and can be attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation. The second phase of contemporary global warming (after 1975) is, at most, weakly marked in the Arctic. For example, the mean rate of warming for the period 1991-1995 was 2-3 times lower in the Arctic than the global average. Temperature levels observed in Greenland in the last 10-20 years are similar to those observed in the 19th century.''

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first let me say to my friend, Senator Wyden, he has always been a champion of that cause. A lot of us with different political philosophies rely on his judgment, his experience, his background, and those things he has accomplished in the field of health care. I look forward to working with him in this coming year.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 45 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mike Catanzaro be granted the privilege of the floor for this day.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Oh, 10 minutes, but I probably will not use it all.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. I ask the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia if he would yield me a little bit of his time, and then I will yield right back, because something the Senator said I think is worth elaborating on a bit.

Mr. INHOFE. I would like that, yes, or I will wait until the Senator finishes his current thought. I want to reference former Senator Boren and some things that you mentioned.

Mr. INHOFE. I will wait.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senator had referred to a report and named several very distinguished people, including the former Senator from Oklahoma, my predecessor, current president of Oklahoma University, David Boren.

Mr. INHOFE. I would share with the Senator from West Virginia that when I won the election to replace him, he and I had a talk. And he said: I have something very significant to talk to you about. If the Senator from West Virginia will recall, Senator Boren was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at that time.

Mr. INHOFE. He said: You have to do something. I have tried and I haven't really succeeded because no one is aware of the shambles that the system is in in terms of the turf battles in intelligence collection and all of that. I told him at that time I would do everything I could even though I was going to be on the Intelligence Committee but not on some of the committees dealing directly with this. So he talked about the crisis it was in. I will read to you from the CSIS report that was written by the very people the Senator from West Virginia listed. It reads: Racing to implement reforms on an election timetable is precisely the wrong thing to do. I think that it does have to be deliberative, and we do have to have more time. Additionally, there is no one I hold in higher regard in terms of his background and capability than Porter Goss. I served with him in the other body. Here is a man who has the background, yet we haven't heard anything from him on this. It seems to me if we all agree, as we did when his confirmation took place, that he is the expert that he is, he should have some participation. At least I want to know what his thinking is about this. Just for a moment, I saw several things in the House bill I liked. I have a very short list of things that were taken out of the House bill in conference. This disturbs me. For example, they took out any requirement for proof of lawful presence in the United States. The requirement applies to immigration law provisions passed in 1996, which I supported, as did the Senator from West Virginia, that were signed into law by President Clinton. Secondly, the temporary license requirements, including a requirement--again this was in the House bill and was taken out--that the license term should expire on the same date as a visa or other temporary lawful presence authorizing document. This means if you are here on a document--it might be a visa--and it expires, your driver's license should expire at the same time. That was a part of the House bill that was taken out. The required documentation for identity is the hard document. Many States have inadequate and outdated proof of identity. This provision ensures that the States would have hard documentation on this. The restriction of the State's ability to accept foreign documents for a driver's license, we have discussed this. I, for one, do not hold in as high a regard foreign documents as I do our own documents that are generated here. The antitrafficking provision was taken out. The House bill adds to the existing criminal code addressing identity theft and fraud language to address the growing and lucrative crime of selling the technology and information that facilitates counterfeiting of identity documents. This was taken out. I have not had the opportunity to find out the reason for this. Notwithstanding that, I know there are many good provisions we should be passing. One of them I draw to the attention of the Senator and the Senate is the electronic confirmation by the various State Departments of Motor Vehicles to validate other States' driver's licenses. Had Virginia referenced the Florida records of Mohammed Atta who was stopped here, it is likely they would have discovered that his license was not current. Who knows whether that would have prevented 9/11 from happening. However, we do know this: He piloted one of the airplanes that went into the towers, and he was also one of the masterminds at that time. Mohammed Atta was actually stopped in Virginia. The House put a provision in to make it very difficult for that to take place. This morning on a news show on Fox News, Congressman Sensenbrenner was on, and E. D. Hill asked him some questions: . . . Explain to me this whole driver's license thing. Because I know that out in California they're giving out licenses and then there are these matricular I.D.s--all sorts of stuff like this. This bill--the last part that I read--said that they wanted national guidelines for federal--for identification, for driver's licenses and that type of identification form. What does this mean? Congressman Sensenbrenner responded: Well, it would be proof of lawful presence in the United States, which means either a birth certificate, a U.S. passport, a foreign passport with a green card. Or if someone is here on a temporary visa with an expiration date, that passport and changing the law to have the driver's license expire as of the date the visa expires. He goes on and talks about Mohammed Atta and when he was stopped and what happened. That part is very disturbing to me. Finally, there has been a lot of talk about the 16-mile gap that was in there that has now been returned back to about a 2\1/2\ mile gap between San Diego and Tijuana. It is a gap because there is no fence there. People come and go as they will. That is where a lot of the illegals are coming through, a lot of people who could be terrorists. We don't know. Nonetheless, they are going through. They had closed that gap in the House bill, and that language was taken out. That might be something that has been said on this floor. I haven't heard anyone justify why that was done, but it seems like it was done. I know that Congressman Hunter placed a provision to close the gap, and apparently there were some endangered species lawsuits that came in and have caused this conference report to leave that gap open. I suggest that if we are leaving it open, I say to the Senator from West Virginia, we are leaving it open to protect a maritime succulent shrub which is something that is required or could create a harassment to some endangered species. So I checked to see what that was. I found out that the two major species that might be endangered species, that might be harassed--not killed, harassed--were the vireos or the flycatchers. I am holding a picture of a flycatcher. Let me get the full name. I don't seem to have that here. Anyway, this is one of the species that might be harassed--not killed, but harassed. The other is this critter, a vireo. I checked with the U.S. Geological Survey, and I found out there are an estimated 2,000 vireos in existence today and 1,000 flycatchers in existence today, and the most this would prevent, not from being killed but from being harassed, would be 2 of these and 3 of these. Now, I ask you to prioritize this. Is it better to harass five of these endangered species and at the same time leave this 3.5-mile gap open for perhaps terrorists or someone else to come through? I have been very concerned about these things. I do understand that the House has said they are going to fix all this in January--I cannot remember, I think in the first part of January sometime--but every time that happens, when they say they are going to fix something that we rush through to pass, it doesn't happen. I saw my friend, the Senator from Florida, walking through here a minute ago. He reminded me that I was the only Senator in 2000 to vote against the Everglades Restoration Act. I did so because we did not have a core plan, a feasibility study, and we didn't know about the cost. We were given assurances that if we would pass that bill on that particular day, we would have a feasibility study and the cost would not exceed where they are today. Now we find out that the costs have dramatically exceeded the estimates in 2000. I only say this not to criticize anyone, but only to say that, without exception, every time we have rushed to do something, we have used the excuse that we are going to fix it 3 weeks from now or tomorrow or in the beginning of the next session, but it doesn't seem to take place. So like a lot of reforms that are in this, I would rather go back and have the opportunity to make sure we get the reforms I outlined that were taken out or put in by the House. The reason is that once you pass a bill, you lose your leverage to get those things that were controversial back in. I don't have any doubt that the Speaker--he says he will bring this up, and I don't doubt that. I have serious doubts that if they pass something in the House and send it here to correct those five areas I outlined, it would be done over in this body. I appreciate very much the Senator yielding me a few minutes of his time to share those thoughts with him.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is not very often that one has the opportunity to talk about someone they knew personally. We have so many fallen heroes in Iraq and in this war on terror. Those who have spent any time on the Armed Services Committee know that right now we are in the most threatened position our country has ever been in. Today, I honor the memory of a really remarkable man whom I had the honor of meeting. In fact, I had the honor of meeting this man over in Iraq. It was around the time the U.N. building was bombed and I happened to be there at the time. He was over there with General Griffin, and I am speaking of BG Charles ``Ben'' Allen. He was a classic Oklahoman, a hard worker and leader who was dedicated to his family, his faith, and his country. General Allen was an assistant commander in the 4th Infantry Division and was killed along with six other soldiers in the Blackhawk helicopter crash in central Texas. Although he was born in Alaska, Ben Allen grew up in the Lawton/Fort Sill, OK, area, an Army town where the artillery is king of battle and familiar to all. The son of an Army colonel, he graduated from Eisenhower High School in Lawton and went on to study at Lawton's Cameron University where he graduated from the ROTC program and was commissioned into the artillery. General Allen's career was a long and distinguished one and included assignments with the 9th Infantry Division at Fort Lewis, WA, the 70th Field Artillery Detachment in Greece, the 7th Infantry Division at Fort Ord, CA, and the 9th Field Artillery in Heilbronn, Germany, the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, KY, where he was the operations officer for division artillery during Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and the 24th and 3rd Infantry Divisions at Fort Stewart, GA. Allen then served as the J5 Balkans Branch Chief for the Joint staff at the Pentagon, after which he commanded the 4th Infantry Division's artillery and served in several positions under the Army deputy chief of staff for programming before returning to the 4th ID. It is often said that when a soldier chooses a branch of service, he also is choosing the hometown of his future wife. Ben changed the order of that expectation. He and Cindy were college sweethearts at Cameron. In college, Cindy was a serious student who shared Ben's competitive spirit. For fun, the couple would compete for the highest GPA. When Ben graduated from Cameron's ROTC program, he asked Cindy to marry him. She has been a partner, a friend, and a source of strength and truth, a cherished wife and beloved mother. Cindy is a teacher by trade. For her, life in the military was a positive challenge which she took on with the same focused energy Ben showed whenever the Allens arrived at the new assignment. Cindy educated herself about each new duty assignment. She managed each move in an organized and disciplined way. A lot of people do not understand what this is like for a family to be moved around this way, but Cindy handled it very well. Her leadership, responsibility, duty, love, and calm made her the perfect partner in life and love for this soldier. Even in this dark hour, Cindy is strong, dignified, and helping others cope with their losses as well. Although General Allen was a man who faced the foes of the world with steely resolve, he stood no chance when it came to his only daughter, Laura, who is a 20-year-old student at George Mason University. Ben and Laura had a special father-daughter relationship fortified by great humor, warmth, understanding, and natural affection, a bond that will endure in her heart forever. She will always be his little girl. I remember talking to him about this because my youngest daughter Katie and I also have that. To this day, I still call her my little girl. That is the relationship Ben had with Laura. As the saying goes, like father like son, we likewise send our heartfelt condolences to General Allen's son Brian who is attending the University of Virginia on an ROTC scholarship. So we are talking now about the third generation. Brian and Ben shared many great times together watching their favorite teams, the Boston Red Sox and the Dallas Cowboys, and of course the University of Oklahoma, the No. 1 team in the Nation. Whatever career path Brian chooses, he will have the life and accomplishments of a great and courageous man to serve as a bright and shining example for selfless service. I will also share several thoughts about GEN Ben Allen that I have heard from some of my constituents who knew him. Many of these folks attended the memorial service held yesterday at Fort Sill. I was unable to be there because of votes here but I believe their comments say even more about the man, Ben Allen, than the long record of honorable service I just read. Here are their words: Ben Allen was known to be a soldier's soldier. He cared about his troops and he enthusiastically led his troops to achieve victory both on and off the battlefield. He was also a soldier's son. Ben was the beloved son of a career Army officer. His father was a colonel. Ben had a special talent for maintaining friendships. When he arrived at new duty stations, he made a special effort to seek out and reconnect with friends and colleagues from previous assignments. Whether on the golf course or standing on the bank of one of his favorite fishing holes, Ben could make you feel as though only days had passed since he last saw you. Ben was a man of faith, with a great sense of humor. He worked hard and expected the best from himself and from his troops. He loved his family, the Army, his life, and his country. One friend suggested that this quotation from John Ruskin would be fitting in describing the way Ben Allen lived his life: Tis a good and safe rule to sojourn in many places, as if you meant to spend your life there, never omitting an opportunity of doing a kindness or speaking a true word or making a friend. In this time of trouble and tragedy, we remember and pay tribute to General Allen and also to the many other Americans who do dangerous work not only overseas in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, but within our own borders. Soldiering is a risky job. I am a veteran of the U.S. Army. I know there is no time you are not risking your life if you take this career. We should be grateful there are people like General Allen, people committed to defending freedom and truth, who are willing to take those risks on our behalf. We remember Cindy, Brian, and Laura Allen, as well as General Allen's mother, Christine Allen Harper. We grieve for them, for their fallen husband and father and son. In his life and his death he set a high standard for all of us to follow. As we travel onward together, we will never forget BG Charles ``Ben'' Allen. I know it is unusual to say something like this, but I have had occasion, just in the last few minutes, to talk to his wife Cindy. I recall something that he said to me when we were together over in Iraq. I said to him, ``Do you know Jesus?'' He was very straightforward, and he said, ``Yes.'' I talked to his wife about that. There was no doubt in his mind. For some who do not understand this, if you are a man of faith like Ben, we can assure you it is not: Goodbye, Ben. He is with Jesus now. It is: So long, we will see you soon. Corporal Bryan Wilson

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I stand today to honor a brave young American who gave his life defending our Nation. He felt a call to serve his country, to be part of something bigger than himself, and, ultimately, paid the highest price. LCpl Lamont Wilson, of Lawton, OK, was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, from Camp Pendleton, CA. His parents, Lanny and Florence Wilson, still live in Lawton, where he graduated from Eisenhower High School in 2003. By June, he was already serving as a marine, fulfilling a military dream Lamont kept alive since childhood. When asked why he joined the Marines, Lamont explained it was to make his father proud. On September 6, in Fallujah, Lamont was killed in combat. He gave his life for the freedom of millions of Americans and also for the peace and prosperity of the Iraqi people crippled by a totalitarian regime. His funeral, held at St. John's Missionary Baptist Church in Lawton, was a joyous celebration of Lamont's life and service to God and country. Although the loss of this young man is a loss we all feel, our thoughts and prayers are especially with his family and friends. Lamont's dedicated service showed the spirit that drives us to fight oppression around the world. He knew that he and his fellow marines were fighting to protect America, to keep their Nation safe. The way Lamont signed letters he wrote home--``Sleep Well, America''--embodied the noble spirit of sacrifice in the hearts of the men and women in our Armed Forces. It is for men like Lance Corporal Wilson that I am proud to be a part of this great country. He was a special marine but, more importantly, a special man. Several of us who have spent time over in Afghanistan and Iraq have talked to these young people there, the young troops. They sometimes ask the question: Why is it that people don't appreciate us? It is because they get kind of a perverted media over there that doesn't really understand what the war is all about. I gave them my assurance that we understand the sacrifices they make, that we are at the most threatened position today this country has ever been in, and it is people like you who are keeping and preserving our freedom. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to speak about a truly remarkable American who, after serving his country with remarkable competence and quiet excellence, has moved on with little fanfare. I am talking about Les Brownlee, a man we worked with very closely for a long period of time. So often you learn to love these people when you work with them over the years, and then they move on and you prepare to miss them, as we will. Les Brownlee would probably not want me to talk about him. He normally avoids that type of thing. He shunned public recognition for his achievements, while compiling a stellar record of support and leadership for the men and women of the U.S. Army. Mr. Brownlee was a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and executive officer to Army Under Secretary James Ambrose when he retired as a colonel in the U.S. Army in 1984. The experience he gained during his time in uniform made him an attractive candidate to advise my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner. Mr. Brownlee served on Senator Warner's staff for several years before joining the Senate Armed Services Committee as a professional staff member, where I worked with him for 7 years. From 1994, when I first came from the House to the Senate, until 2001, when he accepted a job as Under Secretary of the Army, Mr. Brownlee proved his expertise again and again while deflecting the accolades he deserved. It is hard to conceive of a more tumultuous time for an acting Secretary of the Army to hold that position. From the events of 9/11, which helped convince Mr. Brownlee to take the Under Secretary position, to the campaigns of Afghanistan and Iraq, to the myriad challenges faced by the Army today, these times are like no other. In the face of these daunting events, Mr. Brownlee provided incredibly strong leadership from the top without losing touch with the personal integrity that characterizes the finest members of the Army he oversaw. Moreover, while executing the high-level concerns of his office, he also worked to ensure that the pressing needs of individual soldiers were met. He reflected on the old days, and he knew he had the instinct as to what those needs were. I am thinking particularly of the need for more and better body armor for our troops. My only disappointment now is that Mr. Brownlee is moving on. It is clear his successors will have big shoes to fill, and the trajectory that Mr. Brownlee set for the service and coordination with the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs is one that will lead to transformation and victory in our current engagements and dominance in the decades to come. Perhaps more importantly, Mr. Brownlee has established a gold standard for character to which all of our military personnel should aspire. I thank him for his service, the time he spent, and the dedication and commitment he made to his country.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me say--this is probably the first and only time I have ever said this--I have been listening carefully to my friend from New Jersey, and I agree with everything he said. I have had a chance to talk a little bit about some of these people who are retiring, and at some length about Senator Nickles, and I certainly appreciate the Senator's remarks about him.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have been paying a lot of tributes to retiring Members of the Senate, and I think it is appropriate to pay tribute to at least one of our retiring public servants, and I would like to do that right now for the Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. James G. Roche. I know Secretary Roche has been attacked from time to time. That goes with the job. It is a tough job. He knew that when he came. I think we can put that aside and pay tribute for the things he has done that are not as controversial but have been good for the Air Force and for our country. You have to keep in mind that Secretary Roche left a lucrative career in private life to take this job as Secretary of the Air Force. He brought a lot of savvy with him from his private business career. I remember so well when he was first confirmed, his first trip was to go with me to Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma. After visiting that base, he returned to Washington with Secretary Gibbs and immediately put in place a plan to revitalize the depots using the existing Air Force budget. This is something that previous administrations have never accomplished. They seemed to be more interested in letting the depots rust away. Secretary Roche invested money, time, and industrial know-how into the depots, and he did it in a partnership arrangement where he actually stimulated the communities to pass very large bond issues to exercise the private participation. He started a program where depots were benchmarked off similar commercial enterprises and started informal competition that drove maintenance days down ever lower. He brought LEAN manufacturing processes to the depots and other similar commercial practices that revitalized the workforce, decreased the failure rates, raised readiness standards, and decreased overall costs at the depots. I look at the record he had. In fiscal year 2003 alone, AMC reported that the mission-incapable aircraft part hours decreased by 37.6 percent, the percentage of hours grounded. It bettered the goal by 922,000 hours. The mission-incapable aircraft part incidents decreased by 23.4 percent, which bettered the goal by 4,400 incidents. Logistics response time was reduced 20.4 percent. Stockage effectiveness increased by 5.5 percent. It goes on and on. His record is there. He has done a magnificent job at applying his business practices in making our scarce dollars in the military go a lot further. I was very impressed with his focus on depots, but his ability to guide the Air Force through the troubled waters after 9/11 were equally impressive. He restructured the force and focused training to support new missions: homeland defense, renewed focus on Close Air Support, close partnering with the Army in joint operations and Space support to warfighters. He expanded the role and support for special operations. He accelerated the delivery to the battlefield of Armed Predators and Global Hawks, bombers in support of close air support, tactics enabling engagement or the Time Sensitive Targets, networked Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, and advanced Combined Air Operations Center capabilities. Secretary Roche and General Jumper have done a remarkable job. I remember, back in the late 1990s, after we downsized and downgraded and had done away with a lot of the modernization programs in our military under the previous administration, General Jumper had the courage to stand before our committee and say and admit we were going to have to do something about modernization, something about the F-22, something about the Joint Strike Fighter, because the Russians were making the SU series that was actually better than our best strike vehicles, which were the F-15s and F-16s. And this was done. This is the type of courage that came forth during Secretary Roche's administration. The investigation into the tanker lease continues, and it will continue until all individuals who acted inappropriately are held accountable. That is appropriate. However, we must move forward on recapitalizing our tanker fleet, fighting the war on terrorism, and getting back to the business of supporting the warfighters, specifically, moving forward on confirmations of senior military leaders so our troops in the field have the leadership they deserve. I think it is time to allow the investigations to find out who is guilty of wrongdoing. Yes, it was wrong to take the tanker deal to the Appropriations Committee and skip the authorizers. But that was fixed. We held hearings. We compromised, and it looks like we have killed the tanker deal. We have investigations underway, some complete, and those who committed crimes are going to pay for their crimes. So let's not overreach this subject and bring innocent men and women under public attack. Let me say that Secretary Roche has been innovative. He has tirelessly pressed new ideas. I thank Secretary Roche for the very fine contributions he made to the U.S. Air Force and to the United States of America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am so pleased that I have a chance a say a few good words about my colleague, Don Nickles. It is hard to talk about Don Nickles. I remember him when he was in the State senate. I believe Don Nickles at that time was the president of the College Republicans in Oklahoma. I remember going to Ponca City and giving a speech at his invitation. Afterwards, he showed just an incredible interest in politics. This was back in the 1970s. He ran for State senate. I believe it was in 1978. And he won. Midway through that term, in 1980, a seat opened and he decided he was going to run for the U.S. Senate. Everybody laughed. Who is this kid, anyway? He was about 30 years old. He still looks like he is about 35 years old. At that time he looked like he was about 18 years old. He ran and defeated some of the real heavyweights in the State. Then he came and served in the Senate. I understand that in those early years they wouldn't let him ride the Members' elevators because they didn't believe he was a Member. They thought he was a page. Nonetheless, Don Nickles started proving himself. I watched him mature in this job. As the years went by, every time a 6-year period ended, he would talk about dropping out. But we talked him into running. Finally, he decided he needed to do something else with his life and do what is in the best interests of his family. But he grew with the ability to offer expertise that I haven't seen in the Senate since I have been here, and I have been here for 10 years. I have watched Don Nickles as he matured, as he gained knowledge in areas and expertise in not just one isolated area but in all areas. When he stands up to talk, everybody is quiet. They want to listen to him because they know he knows what he is talking about. I can recall when Elizabeth Dole was first elected. We were making a tribute to Don Nickles about 3 months after she was here. She said: I have watched him talk about the budget. I have watched him talk about how you finance Government. I have watched him go through all these very difficult things, and I have been here 3 months and I have to confess I don't even know what he is talking about. I said: Elizabeth, don't feel bad. I have been here 10 years and I still don't know what he is talking about. Don Nickles developed that level of expertise that other people do not. It is because he studies. He works. He is going to be sorely missed by a lot of people around here because of what he had to offer and because of the contributions he has made. I am 15 years older than Don Nickles. I have been his junior Senator. I guess it is now time I become senior Senator. I will miss his expertise, his charm, his humor, and most of all I will miss him because he is my brother. I will miss him dearly. Don, it is going to be goodbye to you but hang around. We look forward to working with you and accepting your advice because I know it will be there when we need it.