Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Well, good. I would like to make a couple of comments. That is not what I am here to talk about today. But this President has a commitment to do something about our tax system. I know there is a lot of class warfare that goes on and people are always talking about taxes and that the poor people are paying all the taxes. It is kind of interesting that this President wants to make a dramatic change in the tax structure. When I go back to my State of Oklahoma, no matter where I go the people are all united in saying they really want to have something different. The interesting thing is, I was riding yesterday with a CPA from Oklahoma and said: If we are successful in dramatically simplifying the Tax Code, why would you support that because you might be out of work? He said: I would gladly do it. I can always find something else. It is unfair and it is a system that needs to be cleaned up. I would only caution people who are watching what is going on in this Chamber, when we get into a discussion of changing the Tax Code, every time there is someone who suggests that you lower the marginal rates of taxation, they assume that this is an unjust burden on the lower income people. In fact, when this President did it he was lowering the tax rate on people who paid taxes. Obviously, if you don't pay taxes, you can't lower the rate. That is what he was faced with. Also, we learned a lesson following World War I when they raised taxes. It brought a lot of revenue into the system to fight World War I. When it was over, they decided they would go ahead and reduce the taxes because they did not need the revenue anymore. They were shocked to find out when they reduced the taxes that the revenue increased. Then again, a very smart President, one I admired very much, was the President of the United States by the name of Kennedy. When President Kennedy was in office we were expanding a lot of the things in the social programs in this country. He said we have to have more money, and we have to raise more revenue to take care of these programs. John Kennedy was a Democrat, not a Republican. He said the best way to raise revenue was to reduce marginal rates. So he reduced marginal rates, and sure enough, that opened it up and revenue increased. Another person came in the White House, Ronald Reagan, in 1980. He said the same thing. He actually reduced the top bracket rate from some 95 percent down to about 25 percent; and all other brackets, too. Everybody got in on that good deal. The largest tax reduction in the history of America successfully reduced taxes and increased revenue. The evidence of that, if you look at the total revenue that came from marginal rates in the 1980s, was $244 billion. In 1990, it was $466 billion. It almost doubled in that decade, that 10-year period. It was the largest reduction of taxes in this Nation's history. I hope those who will be engaging in class warfare and are going to be talking about how this is unfair and how the rich need to be paying more taxes keep in mind that the people who are paying the taxes are middle-income Americans. These are the people who need the relief. They need to have more opportunities to do more with the money. That is how you increase revenues. I hear a lot of people complaining about this President and the fact we have the deficit. Obviously, we have the deficit for three reasons. No. 1, we had a recession. This President inherited a recession. That started in March of 2000. With the economic activity low, you have to use the formula that for each 1-percent increase in economic activity it produces $46 billion in new revenue. So it was way down. No. 2, he had succeeded President Clinton where he had cut the defense spending down to the bone with the myth floating around that somehow the cold war was over; we didn't need a military anymore. We were down to about half the Army divisions, down in tactical airwings, and half in ships, down 300 from 600. Then we realized we were in a more hostile world. By the time President George W. Bush had to start rebuilding the military, our modernization programs had stopped. Then 9/11 came along. Here we are in a war. I can tell you that the three factors which caused the deficit are factors that we are overcoming as we are speaking. But you might as well hold your breath for a while because the war is going to last a while.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a number of things to address. I have been listening with great interest to my very good friend from North Dakota. I bow to his superior knowledge in economics. I was not aware that he was a professor of economics, or taught economics. They say confession is good for the soul. I will say to my friend from North Dakota, I went to nine different colleges and universities, all of them night school where I was stationed when I was in the military. I remember once I got out I backed a truck up to the University of Tulsa and shoved off all my transcripts, and they looked at it and said: You are an economist. So that is where I got my background in economics.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, many people may not be aware of Oklahoma's significant history in aviation, or that I am the only commercially licensed pilot in the Senate and have a passion for flying. Since 1910, beginning with Charles F. Willard who only flew a few hundred yards in a south Oklahoma City field, Oklahomans have been flying. The following year, Clyde Cessna, an automobile dealer from Enid who later formed the Cessna Aircraft Company, flew his mono-wing airplane near Jet, OK. Such early flights in Oklahoma continued and in 1929 perhaps one of the most notable aviation events occurred in Waynoka, Oklahoma, where Charles Lindbergh stopped on the first transcontinental passenger air and rail service. By 1931, Wiley Post, from Maysville, OK, gained international recognition when he flew around the world in a little over eight days. In July 1991, I had the honor of recreating Post's trip on its 60th Anniversary. However, Oklahoma's aviation history does not stop there. On November 2, 1929, 26 licensed women pilots founded what was known as the Ninety- Nine Club, or the Ninety-Nines. It was called so at the suggestion of its first president, Amelia Earheart, because of the 117 licensed women pilots in America who were contacted about joining the club, only 99 actually joined. The South Central Section of the Ninety-Nine Club comprising several states including Oklahoma, has through the years, issued several publications and in 1962, Mary Lester of the Oklahoma Chapter created a new version of the Club's publication, the Ninety- Nine News. Currently, the Ninety-Nine Club is an international organization of licensed women pilots from 35 countries, with its international headquarters at Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City. Today I rise to introduce a resolution to honor the life and work of another Oklahoman in this long line of aviation who served our country by fearlessly dedicating his life to space travel and exploration. Leroy Gordon Cooper, Jr., frequently called ``Gordo'', who passed away at his home on October 4, was often known as the first astronaut from the United States to spend more than a day in space. He was born in Shawnee, OK on March 6, 1927 and joined the Marines during World War II. He then transferred to the Air Force in 1949 and graduated from the Air Force Institute of Technology with a degree in aeronautical engineering in 1956. After graduating, Cooper became attracted to the space program as an elite test pilot for the Air Force at Edwards Air Force Base in California. During his career, he logged more than 7,000 hours of flying, including 4,000 hours flying jets. He also flew commercial and general aviation planes and helicopters. Cooper seemed to be born in the right place at the right time--with the right abilities. In 1958, the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, NASA, announced its new endeavor, Project Mercury, with three goals in mind: to place a spacecraft carrying a person into orbital flight around the Earth, to investigate a person's performance capabilities and his/her ability to function in space, and to recover the person and spacecraft safely. NASA began searching for people, especially military test pilots, who were willing and capable of enduring such a dangerous mission. They focused on finding military test pilots because they seemed to experience similar conditions to those of space. On April 1, 1959, it was announced that Cooper was chosen, along with Alan Shepard, Gus Grissom, John Glenn, Scott Carpenter, Walter Schirra, Jr., and Deke Slayton not only as one of the seven Project Mercury astronauts, but as one of America's first astronauts. These seven men made history with this project as they laid the groundwork for future space flights. On May 15 and 16, 1963, Cooper piloted Faith 7, the flight that ended the operational phase of Project Mercury. During this mission, he orbited the Earth 22 times and logged more time in space than all previous five Mercury astronauts combined. He also became known as the first American astronaut to sleep in orbit, as well as on the launch pad. Shortly thereafter, Cooper received the NASA Distinguished Service Medal from President John F. Kennedy at a White House ceremony. In August 1965, Cooper commanded the 8 day Gemini 5 mission with Charles Conrad. On this mission, Cooper set a new space endurance record, covering 120 revolutions and 3,312,993 miles in 190 hours, 56 minutes and 3 seconds and became the first man to make a second orbital flight. Overall, during his two space flights, Cooper logged 225 hours, 15 minutes and 3 seconds. He also served as backup command pilot for Gemini 12 and backup commander for Apollo X. He was the last American astronaut to orbit the Earth for an entire orbit by himself. After receiving an honorary Doctorate of Science degree from Oklahoma City University in 1967, Cooper retired from the Air Force and NASA as a colonel in 1970. However, his involvement with space did not end after his retirement. He served as a consultant to several companies related to aerospace, electronics, and energy fields, and was vice president for research and development for Walt Disney Enterprises, Inc. Cooper also devoted part of his life to studying UFOs, and wrote Leap of Faith based on his experiences as a pilot and astronaut. Even though we have lost this great American hero, his legacy and passion for exploring space live on through continued space ventures such as the Ansari X Prize. The famed $10 million X Prize was recently awarded to the team of SpaceShipOne, whose pilot, Brian Binnie, broke an August 22, 1963 altitude record by going 69.6 miles above Earth's surface, ironically, on October 4, the same day of Cooper's passing. I am pleased that my good friend and colleague Congressman Cass Ballenger has led the way in honoring the life and service of this great space pioneer. I know that Mr. Ballenger shares my passion of aviation and space exploration and hope that we will continue to build on the progress and sacrifice made by men like Gordon Cooper.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, I be recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 25 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Marine LCpl. Joseph L. Nice from Nicoma Park, OK, who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country on August 4, 2004. This fourth-generation soldier died defending the freedom he enjoyed and fighting to ensure it for others. Lance Corporal Nice moved to Nicoma Park, OK from Newark, NJ, in 1998. He was a gifted young man--a musician, artist and sportsman, who used these gifts in the marching band and on the soccer team at Choctaw High School. From the age of 5, he had longed to follow in the footsteps of his father, his grandfathers, and his uncle in serving in the military. After weighing this tradition and putting on hold his plans to study law, Joseph Nice decided to join the Marine Corps in June 2003. Lance Corporal Nice was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force stationed at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, CA. His unit was deployed to Iraq in February 2004, where Lance Corporal Nice and his fellow Marines faced daily attacks in the Anbar province. During one of these attacks on August 4, 2004, Joseph Nice was killed. I represent the State of Oklahoma in paying my condolences to the family of this American hero. A friend of his said about him: ``If you had a problem, he was always there for you.'' Through his service in Iraq, LCpl Joseph Nice demonstrated his worthiness to receive this highest compliment. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends today. army spc. sonny g. sampler Mr. President, we also pay homage to Army SPC Sonny G. Sampler from Oklahoma City, OK, who died in the name of freedom in Iraq on 8 July 2004. He moved to Oklahoma City from Altus, OK and began attending John Marshall High School. Specialist Sampler saw the Army as an opportunity for focus and direction and joined in 2001. He was deployed to Iraq with 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division based in Schweinfurt, Germany. In serving his country, Sonny Sampler did not shy away from his other duties. In the words of Maj. Gen. Douglas Dollar, ``This young man was willing to go to a strange land and fight for people he didn't know.'' It is the same young man who sold some belongings to pay for a flight from Germany back to the United States at Christmas to surprise his mother. Such a family man is to be much valued. Specialist Sampler was tragically killed when he was searching the Iraqi National Guard Headquarters for survivors, following an allied attack. When the ruins underwent an attack by insurgents, Sonny Sampler and five other U.S. soldiers died. He was 23 years old. Our thoughts and prayers are with this American hero's family and friends at this very difficult time. We should never cease to be proud of this man.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to introduce two bills today. One of them is about a program nobody seems to know about. That is the space launch program. I don't know whether it is in the State of Texas or where they are doing this. But in Oklahoma, in Burns Flat, we have been very active in trying to get the Commercial Space Launch Program going. This is an opportunity for people to go into suborbital launch vehicles using a hybrid technology of a combination rocket injection engine. We are doing this. There have been several of them so far. I have been a commercial pilot now for almost 50 years--47 years, I guess. I have a natural interest in this. I have had occasion to fly an airplane around the world. I have watched it from all levels. I see the excitement in people's faces saying, I can fly in space. We have this program which nobody knows about. It is a program that will allow people to get into things such as a Learjet that has a rocket on that will actually launch them, take them up and give them the experience of travel in space. There have been some problems with this, however. There are some problems with people being able to do this with the company putting these programs together incurring responsibilities and liabilities. It is very similar to the program we have been concerned with in the oil industry to try to expand it and keep people from being able to have frivolous lawsuits. That is what we are up against here. We have introduced a bill that is designed to allow participation in this emerging space launching activity for a greater number of people. The FAA will now have sole regulation authority for the suborbital hybrid vehicles. It will be appropriately considered. We are not taking any risk here. This is just to allow the private sector to enjoy this type of thing. I will be introducing today S. 2998 with the idea of making this a reality and giving this privilege to a lot of people and allowing us to develop technology. It is interesting. A lot of people go to an event every year in Oshkosh, WI. I have gone for 27 consecutive years. We go up there to see all of the new technology, what people are putting together in their experimental aircraft, airplanes they are making in their garages and basements. A lot of technology we are now using in the space program was actually started right there in someone's garage. That is essentially what we want to get at with the Commercial Space Launch Act we introduce today.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I would be close to that amount of time, too, so I will go ahead and wait. If I could lock in after the Senator from North Dakota, that is fine.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes. If I could ask the Senator from North Dakota about how much time will he be using?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there was a lot of hysteria a short time ago about the flu vaccine and the fact it was not available to a lot of people. There are several problems. One, the flu vaccine production currently takes approximately 6 months. I am introducing a bill that will expedite that and will have the sense of the Senate to steer the NIH research dollars toward the development of faster technology. They are using egg cultures to grow this vaccine when it can be done through the cells of silk moths. It will take more research to get there and we will encourage them to do that. Second, the bill removes price controls for the purchasing of the flu vaccine. This happened during the Clinton administration. We should have learned during the Nixon administration that price controls in reality do not work. The result of this has been that we do not have many companies now that are willing to get in there and take the risk and develop and manufacture these vaccines. As soon as they do, they find out there is no profit at the other end because of price controls. Lastly, we allow investment tax credits. I have long been dedicated to quality healthcare for my constituents in Oklahoma and across America. I supported the Medicare bill of 2003 to give a voluntary prescription drug benefit to seniors. I have championed the rural health care providers, who received some of the greatest benefits of the Medicare bill. In 1997, I was one of few Republicans to vote against the Balanced Budget Act because of its lack of support for rural hospitals. Back then, I made a commitment to not allow our rural hospitals to be closed, and I am pleased we finally addressed that important issue in the Medicare legislation. I also cosponsored S. 816, the Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act, to protect and preserve access of Medicare beneficiaries to health care in rural regions. I am a strong advocate of medical liability reform and am an original cosponsor of S. 11, the Patients First Act, to protect patients' access to quality and affordable health care by reducing the effects of excessive liability costs. There are solutions to alleviate the burden placed on physicians and patients by excessive medical malpractice lawsuits, and I am committed to this vital reform. I have also worked with officials from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand access to life-saving Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators. I supported legislation to increase the supply of pancreative islet cells for research and cosponsored a bill to take the abortion pill RU-486 off the market in the United States. The federal government invests in improving hospitals and healthcare initiatives, and I have fought hard to ensure that Oklahoma gets its fair share. Specifically, over the past three years, I have helped to secure $5.2 million in funding for the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, the Oklahoma State Department of Health planning initiative for a rural telemedicine system, the INTEGRIS Healthcare System, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology, St. Anthony's Heart Hospital, the Hillcrest Healthcare System, and the Morton Health Center. The unexpected influenza, flu, vaccine shortage beginning last month highlights the need to encourage the production of flu vaccine in America. As you know, on October 5th, Chiron, a California-based biotechnology company, notified U.S. health officials that its plant in Liverpool, England had been shut down due to vaccine contamination. Almost 50,000 doses of flu vaccine were thrown away, which created a severe shortage for Americans just as the flu season began. In light of the current shortage, I have examined why America found itself unable to accommodate the public demand for the flu vaccine. As we have seen, once a vaccine shortage strikes, a rapid response is difficult and often impossible. Thirty years ago, more than a dozen American companies were in the flu vaccine business. Today only two companies make the vaccine for America, and only one in an America- based company. This is no coincidence. High liability costs, tedious production, price caps, and the complicated United States tax code have kept the market bare. In October, President Bush signed the JOBS bill, which curbed the billion-dollar lawsuits that have crippled the flu vaccine industry. By adding flu vaccine to the list of vaccines protected by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, VICP, a no-fault alternative must be used for resolving vaccine injury claims. I am encouraged with this progress, but more can be done to prevent a shortage in the future. My bill supports allocating a greater percentage of the National Institutes of Health budget to develop faster and safer vaccine production technology. The ever-changing nature of the flu virus results in a complicated production process. The dominant strain of the flu virus mutates each year, requiring a different vaccine for every flu season. Because harvesting the flu vaccine currently takes at least six months and requires tens of thousands of fertilized eggs susceptible to contamination, this process must begin nearly a year before the flu season begins. Research should be focused on developing new technologies to allow us to produce more vaccine--in the same season--when we encounter a shortage. A company in Connecticut is developing a flu vaccine relying on cell lines from silk moths. This type of innovative research promises to shave at least one month off of production time and significantly reduce cost. My bill includes a sense of the Senate on the importance of allocating a greater percentage of the National Institutes of Health, NIH, research dollars to developing new technology in flu vaccine production. The encouragement of safer and faster flu vaccine production technology is a prudent use of existing Federal research dollars through the National Institutes of Health. Furthermore, my bill removes the suffocating price controls that have discouraged companies from producing the flu vaccine. The Vaccines For Children program, VFC, enacted under the Clinton administration, imposed a price cap on all vaccines purchased through Federal contracts. From a shortsighted perspective, these regulated prices may expand access to vaccines. However, in the long run this policy devastates the vaccine production industry and decreases the availability of vaccines. This occurred in 1998 when manufacturers of tetanus diphtheria vaccine refused to bid on Government contracts. Consequently, this vaccine is no longer available to children through the VFC program. Similarly, the CDC purchased nearly 12 percent of the flu vaccine this season, and significant quantities were purchased through the Department of Defense, the Veteran's Administration and Medicare. The price controls imposed from Federal government purchasing create a high-risk, low-reward business market. Price controls destroy any profit incentive. Manufacturers avoid this artificial environment and will continue to as long as the government over steps its bounds. The harmful effect of government price controls is especially pronounced in the flu vaccine market because the vaccine has a single- season shelf life. The difficulty of predicting the demand for vaccines each year exposes companies great risk. A slight drop in demand can force them out of the market. Financial losses--from 7 million extra doses in 2002 and 4.5 million extra in 2003--compelled Wyeth Pharmaceutical Company to end its flu vaccine manufacturing. In addition to lifting price controls, the government can loosen its grip on the flu vaccine market by reforming its complicated tax code. Fortunately, the JOBS bill made headway in simplifying the current United States international tax rules. To further offset the heavy penalties within the United States tax code, my bill gives a tax credit to companies, new and old, that construct facilities to manufacture flu vaccine. Currently, ten American companies produce the 47 FDA-approved vaccines. An investment tax credit will encourage these existing companies to expand their production to cover the flu vaccine and will invite start-up companies to join the industry. This will better equip the United States market to prevent and deal with a shortage in the future. Scientific experts consider vaccination to be the most effective medical intervention, and we live in an age of unprecedented vaccine development and implementation. We cannot continue to overregulate the flu vaccine industry and hope companies will hang on and produce vaccines regardless of profit. The current national flu vaccine shortage reveals the need to act. My bill would steer NIH research dollars towards cutting-edge technology, remove suffocating price controls, and free American companies to enter the flu vaccine industry with an investment tax credit. I urge my colleagues to stand with me in supporting this vital legislation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there was a lot of hysteria a short time ago about the flu vaccine and the fact it was not available to a lot of people. There are several problems. One, the flu vaccine production currently takes approximately 6 months. I am introducing a bill that will expedite that and will have the sense of the Senate to steer the NIH research dollars toward the development of faster technology. They are using egg cultures to grow this vaccine when it can be done through the cells of silk moths. It will take more research to get there and we will encourage them to do that. Second, the bill removes price controls for the purchasing of the flu vaccine. This happened during the Clinton administration. We should have learned during the Nixon administration that price controls in reality do not work. The result of this has been that we do not have many companies now that are willing to get in there and take the risk and develop and manufacture these vaccines. As soon as they do, they find out there is no profit at the other end because of price controls. Lastly, we allow investment tax credits. I have long been dedicated to quality healthcare for my constituents in Oklahoma and across America. I supported the Medicare bill of 2003 to give a voluntary prescription drug benefit to seniors. I have championed the rural health care providers, who received some of the greatest benefits of the Medicare bill. In 1997, I was one of few Republicans to vote against the Balanced Budget Act because of its lack of support for rural hospitals. Back then, I made a commitment to not allow our rural hospitals to be closed, and I am pleased we finally addressed that important issue in the Medicare legislation. I also cosponsored S. 816, the Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act, to protect and preserve access of Medicare beneficiaries to health care in rural regions. I am a strong advocate of medical liability reform and am an original cosponsor of S. 11, the Patients First Act, to protect patients' access to quality and affordable health care by reducing the effects of excessive liability costs. There are solutions to alleviate the burden placed on physicians and patients by excessive medical malpractice lawsuits, and I am committed to this vital reform. I have also worked with officials from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand access to life-saving Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators. I supported legislation to increase the supply of pancreative islet cells for research and cosponsored a bill to take the abortion pill RU-486 off the market in the United States. The federal government invests in improving hospitals and healthcare initiatives, and I have fought hard to ensure that Oklahoma gets its fair share. Specifically, over the past three years, I have helped to secure $5.2 million in funding for the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, the Oklahoma State Department of Health planning initiative for a rural telemedicine system, the INTEGRIS Healthcare System, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology, St. Anthony's Heart Hospital, the Hillcrest Healthcare System, and the Morton Health Center. The unexpected influenza, flu, vaccine shortage beginning last month highlights the need to encourage the production of flu vaccine in America. As you know, on October 5th, Chiron, a California-based biotechnology company, notified U.S. health officials that its plant in Liverpool, England had been shut down due to vaccine contamination. Almost 50,000 doses of flu vaccine were thrown away, which created a severe shortage for Americans just as the flu season began. In light of the current shortage, I have examined why America found itself unable to accommodate the public demand for the flu vaccine. As we have seen, once a vaccine shortage strikes, a rapid response is difficult and often impossible. Thirty years ago, more than a dozen American companies were in the flu vaccine business. Today only two companies make the vaccine for America, and only one in an America- based company. This is no coincidence. High liability costs, tedious production, price caps, and the complicated United States tax code have kept the market bare. In October, President Bush signed the JOBS bill, which curbed the billion-dollar lawsuits that have crippled the flu vaccine industry. By adding flu vaccine to the list of vaccines protected by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, VICP, a no-fault alternative must be used for resolving vaccine injury claims. I am encouraged with this progress, but more can be done to prevent a shortage in the future. My bill supports allocating a greater percentage of the National Institutes of Health budget to develop faster and safer vaccine production technology. The ever-changing nature of the flu virus results in a complicated production process. The dominant strain of the flu virus mutates each year, requiring a different vaccine for every flu season. Because harvesting the flu vaccine currently takes at least six months and requires tens of thousands of fertilized eggs susceptible to contamination, this process must begin nearly a year before the flu season begins. Research should be focused on developing new technologies to allow us to produce more vaccine--in the same season--when we encounter a shortage. A company in Connecticut is developing a flu vaccine relying on cell lines from silk moths. This type of innovative research promises to shave at least one month off of production time and significantly reduce cost. My bill includes a sense of the Senate on the importance of allocating a greater percentage of the National Institutes of Health, NIH, research dollars to developing new technology in flu vaccine production. The encouragement of safer and faster flu vaccine production technology is a prudent use of existing Federal research dollars through the National Institutes of Health. Furthermore, my bill removes the suffocating price controls that have discouraged companies from producing the flu vaccine. The Vaccines For Children program, VFC, enacted under the Clinton administration, imposed a price cap on all vaccines purchased through Federal contracts. From a shortsighted perspective, these regulated prices may expand access to vaccines. However, in the long run this policy devastates the vaccine production industry and decreases the availability of vaccines. This occurred in 1998 when manufacturers of tetanus diphtheria vaccine refused to bid on Government contracts. Consequently, this vaccine is no longer available to children through the VFC program. Similarly, the CDC purchased nearly 12 percent of the flu vaccine this season, and significant quantities were purchased through the Department of Defense, the Veteran's Administration and Medicare. The price controls imposed from Federal government purchasing create a high-risk, low-reward business market. Price controls destroy any profit incentive. Manufacturers avoid this artificial environment and will continue to as long as the government over steps its bounds. The harmful effect of government price controls is especially pronounced in the flu vaccine market because the vaccine has a single- season shelf life. The difficulty of predicting the demand for vaccines each year exposes companies great risk. A slight drop in demand can force them out of the market. Financial losses--from 7 million extra doses in 2002 and 4.5 million extra in 2003--compelled Wyeth Pharmaceutical Company to end its flu vaccine manufacturing. In addition to lifting price controls, the government can loosen its grip on the flu vaccine market by reforming its complicated tax code. Fortunately, the JOBS bill made headway in simplifying the current United States international tax rules. To further offset the heavy penalties within the United States tax code, my bill gives a tax credit to companies, new and old, that construct facilities to manufacture flu vaccine. Currently, ten American companies produce the 47 FDA-approved vaccines. An investment tax credit will encourage these existing companies to expand their production to cover the flu vaccine and will invite start-up companies to join the industry. This will better equip the United States market to prevent and deal with a shortage in the future. Scientific experts consider vaccination to be the most effective medical intervention, and we live in an age of unprecedented vaccine development and implementation. We cannot continue to overregulate the flu vaccine industry and hope companies will hang on and produce vaccines regardless of profit. The current national flu vaccine shortage reveals the need to act. My bill would steer NIH research dollars towards cutting-edge technology, remove suffocating price controls, and free American companies to enter the flu vaccine industry with an investment tax credit. I urge my colleagues to stand with me in supporting this vital legislation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S. 2997 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, let me address some of the things that have been talked about today. We have had a drawdown in the military, starting with the Cold War. When it was over, all of us heard so many people say the Cold War is over, we have no need to have the strength we had before. Then after the 1991 gulf war, the drawdown continued. The Army is on the right track right now to regain the manpower they lost during that drawdown. I agree with the Senator from Rhode Island, who has been concerned about the end strength. I have joined him in that, and feel the same way. But I agree the drawdown in force that took place at the end of the Cold War went too far. We cut 365,000 troops, too many for the force we had. We should have stayed with the original number provided by General Powell during the first Bush administration. During the Clinton administration, we took a procurement holiday that cost us dearly. Budgets were woefully inadequate to sustain our force. Readiness suffered. The euphoria was around the fact that ``the Cold War is over,'' we no longer need this much military. We found out we were wrong. From fiscal year 1994 to 2001, we did not keep up with inflation. Defense spending lost $430.2 billion in constant 2002 dollars. This was an average of $53.8 billion a year. We are talking about a loss of that amount. The deterioration would have been $53.2 billion greater if not for the Congress plus-up of the Clinton budget from fiscal year 1996 onward. The Republicans gained control of both the House and the Senate in 1994. To turn this positive from fiscal year 1996 onward, it would have been $58.1 billion or $9.7 billion a year average. The Democratic Congress had even reduced the Clinton request from 1994 to 1996 by $4.8 billion, or $2.4 billion a year average, and reduced the last fiscal 1993 year Bush budget request by a whopping $8.1 billion. The Republican Congress was able to flatten this trend by fiscal year 1997 and turn the trend upward from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2004 but never recovered the shortfall. When George W. Bush took office, the military readiness was in decline. We had not made the proper investment in modernization, readiness, and standard of living for our soldiers. I know it is true. I chaired the readiness subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee during that timeframe. We desperately needed to reorganize the military to cope with this post-world war era. Just short of 9 months after taking office, George W. Bush was faced with 9/11. He was faced with mobilizing the military to protect the United States in a new kind of war, a new kind of war we never experienced before, one not properly dealt with by previous administrations, and one the military had not been funded to cope with. We are now paying for that mistake. We have been playing catchup. We need to put the Army back on the right track. And General Shoomaker and Acting Secretary Brownlee have done just that. We are reorganizing the Army to retrain soldiers from skills needed in today's threatened environment to skills more appropriate to those threats. We are adding 30,000 soldiers to the force and turning many noncombat jobs being performed by soldiers today into civilian positions. We are stabilizing families and rotating units rather than individual soldiers through Iraq and Afghanistan. We are accelerating equipment fielding to incorporate the latest innovations to defend against EIDs, the threat that we really didn't know about in years past. We are committed to providing the Army with anything and everything they need, but we can't waste resources by throwing money at the problem. We have to respond to the requests of our leaders in the field. I think we have done that, and I am committed to making sure we continue to do that. I am confident that Secretary Harvey, as has been said by so many people, will also continue to do that. I am confident he will be successful because he understands industry. Today, we need industry to give their best and as fast and as affordable as possible. It is important to have someone of Dr. Harvey's character and ability to provide the guiding hand and make this partnership between Government and industry work for the maximum benefit of our soldiers. You have to keep in mind that is one of the serious problems we face right now. The number of defense contractors is about one-fifth of what it was 20 years ago. It is important that we have someone who understands industry, and certainly Dr. Harvey will be such a person. We are playing catchup in the world. It is changing daily before our eyes. The Army must reorganize and modernize. How many people in America know we are sending our troops out many times with equipment that is not as good as that of our potential adversaries? In the area of artillery, five countries make a better artillery piece than we have, including South Africa. We found out from a very courageous general back in 1998 that in fact our best strike vehicles--F-15 and F-16--are not as good as some of the SU series being sold by Russia to many of our potential adversaries in the future. We must mobilize our Guard and Reserve in ways we haven't seen since World War II to fight this world war. We have a great team to accomplish all of that. General Shoomaker and Dr. Harvey and Les Brownlee and the brave men and women of our Army, both uniformed and civilian. What a task they have and what a team we have. Senator Akaka and I are both veterans of the Army. We started the Army Caucus. Up to that time they had not been given the proper attention as to how we are reliant on our Army for our ability to sustain this war against terrorism. I look forward to the confirmation of Dr. Harvey as the next Secretary of the Army, and support the Army's advice to end this war. We want to give, I believe, 10 minutes for the Senator from South Carolina. Is there more than 10 minutes remaining at this time?

Mr. INHOFE. I will take only maybe 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. INHOFE. That is agreeable.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a lot of things have been said about the condition of the soldiers in Iraq and about their attitudes. I can tell you that I don't think there is any Member of this body who has spent more time in Iraq and Afghanistan than I have. I hear statements of individuals. They are proud of the mission. They are proud of what they are doing. They have a spirit I have never seen before. I would like to quote Secretary Brownlee. He said: Some in this country have charged that the situation in Iraq is getting progressively worse. You who have been there know the truth, and so do the people of Iraq. Things are getting better, not worse. Though the insurgents have caused immense pain and suffering and delayed reconstruction efforts in some parts of Iraq, most Iraqis are looking at the future with hope, hope they lacked under the former regime. These successes constitute significant milestones of which the people of our Nation should be proud and hopeful. But the fight is by no means over to ensure that Afghanistan and Iraq attain stability and success and the transition into the democracies is very key. I think we have seen this with the election in Afghanistan. I personally was there when officials turned over to the Iraqis the training of the Iraqi National Army. I see the successes over there. The media has not done a good job and I feel they need to spend more time congratulating and talking about the great job we are doing. As Mr. Brownlee said, the Army is decisively engaged in fighting terrorism. But our soldiers are also building alliances, training other militaries with tenets of democracy and civilian control, executing counter drug operations and providing disaster relief and humanitarian assistance. These missions are equally important to our national security. They help to increase mobile stability to prevent the development of serious crises and to demonstrate the goodwill of the American people. In light of the potential for terrorism to spread, the Army remains committed to participate. That is exactly what they are doing. I just got back from eight countries in Africa. There is a concern there. There is terrorism. As the squeeze comes in, terrorism is now infiltrating into the continent of Africa, and we are in the process of doing something with four brigades or five African brigades. So we will have them trained to face this when that time comes. I see other Senators waiting. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, if there is 10 minutes, I would like to have that. If not, I will downgrade that.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have previously addressed the Senate to discuss the issue of so-called global warming. I have taken a special interest in this issue because the gravity of what is at stake demands it. I have taken a simple, yet profound approach to dealing with environmental issues, working to ensure that the laws we pass represent sound public policy. Of my three guiding principles for all committee work, the first principle is that Government should rely on the most objective science. Unfortunately, a commitment to drawing conclusions based on science is not a popular approach. What has most galled my critics is that I do not ``spin the science'' to make it something it is not. Good science is and should remain the product of well designed and reproducible studies and research. All too often, however, the studies that are touted by my critics are tainted by political and ideological agendas and cannot be reproduced because the authors will not release the data that supposedly supports their conclusions--all of which raises the eyebrows of credible scientists. Such science has no place in our system of government and should not be used to drive major U.S. policy. When I led the congressional delegation to Milan last December, I was greeted by posters that quoted me as saying global warming is ``the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.'' I thanked the green activists for uncharacteristically quoting me correctly. Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. It was true when I said it before, and it remains true today. Perhaps what has made this hoax so effective is that we hear over and over that the science is settled and that there is consensus that, unless we fundamentally change our way of life by limiting greenhouse gas emissions, we will cause catastrophic global warming. This is simply a false statement. Mr. President, 4,000 scientists, 70 of whom are Nobel Prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal, which says that no compelling evidence exists to justify controls of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Over 17,000 scientists signed another document that directly contradicts the false claims of consensus. The Oregon Petition, compiled by Dr. Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences and a professor emeritus at Rockefeller University, reads as follows: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. What a powerful, unequivocal statement that is. So powerful, in fact, that ideologues fraudulently sent in made-up names and belittled legitimate scientists on the Petition, such as Dr. Perry Mason, simply because he and a few others shared their names with famous fictional characters. Such immature acts belong on a grade school playground, but are simply shameful in a serious policy debate. Yet we have heard these baseless charges repeatedly. But these distortions only serve to underscore the fragileness of the myth that there is consensus. If there truly is consensus, why would so many renowned scientists sign such statements? If there truly is consensus, why would these environmental activists be so threatened by these documents that they would make fraudulent submissions? In short, if there is such controversy over whether there is consensus, how can there possibly be consensus? The controversy over its existence is itself proof that no consensus exists. This point was made succinctly by former Carter administration Energy Secretary James Schlesinger, who wrote in the Washington Post: ``There is an idea among the public that the science is settled. That remains far from the truth.'' He also wrote that the global warming theory has hardened into orthodoxy that searches out heretics and seeks to punish them. And that was James Schlesinger, Energy Secretary in a Democrat administration. Thankfully, despite the efforts to ``punish them,'' credible scientists continue to conduct well-designed, reproducible studies, and I will list some of them here today. Last year, I spoke at length to describe the great number of uncertainties surrounding claims of global warming. I described real science that contradicts the alarmists, who, wracked by fear, see a future plagued by catastrophic flooding, war, terrorism, economic dislocations, droughts, crop failures, mosquito- borne diseases, and harsh weather--all caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot afford to forget that climate change alarmists' visions have been with us for decades. In 1972, the National Science Board, the governing body of the National Science Foundation, observed: Judging from the record of the past inter-glacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age. In 1974, Time magazine in an article entitled ``Another Ice Age?'' warned: However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when metrologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. These fears became the motivation of a drumbeat from environmentalists that we must fundamentally alter our way of living to avoid a cataclysmic ice age. Of course, these fears proved baseless. And when this 30-year cooling cycle ceased, these same alarmists again proclaimed we must fundamentally alter our way of living to avoid cataclysmic global warming. From the scientific literature, I believe these fears are equally baseless. I believe it would be unconscionable to heed the alarmists' cries for economic disarmament without subjecting these claims of doom to the scrutiny they deserve. Predictably, those who peddle fear do not want discussions of science. Hiding behind claims of ``the science is settled,'' they conjure ever more creative ways to market the myth. The most recent example is the movie, ``The Day After Tomorrow,'' in which the laws of physics are repeatedly violated to create fear of an ice age caused by global warming. First it was an ice age. Then it was global warming. Now it is an ice age caused within days because of global warming. Seems they can't make up their minds what they are afraid of--but their solution is always the same, restrict the economy and outsource American jobs overseas. Of course, the movie was widely panned, not simply as a ``bad'' movie, but a ``stupid'' movie. Even some environmentalists had to admit there was no science to support the movie. For instance, Dan Schrag, a paleoclimatologist, said: My first reaction was, ``Oh my God, this is a disaster because it is such a distortion of science. What disturbed me was not the movie, which after all is simply the vision of a German film producer with a dislike for Americans who says, ``My secret dream is that this film moves politicians to act.'' No, what disturbed me was he may get his wish. Former Vice President Gore teamed up with the activist group, MoveOn.org, to use the movie as an opportunity to market their alarmist views and economy-capping solutions. This is exactly what is wrong with how alarmists discuss this issue. Rather than joining me and those like me in a commitment to using the best, nonpoliticized science--whatever it finds--politically motivated groups, such as MoveOn.org, pander to our worst fears to drive their political agenda. I would rather discuss what real science is showing. I said last July that: After studying the issue over the last several years, I believe that the balance of the evidence offers strong proof that natural variability is the overwhelming factor influencing climate. After continuing to study the science over the last year, that belief has been strengthened. I submit, furthermore, that the scientific debate is shifting away from those who subscribe to global warming alarmism. IPPC incorrectly attributes ground station temperature rise to climate change instead of local activity. One of the areas that has caused global warming advocates the most heartburn has been the inconvenient, yet inescapable, fact that records from satellites using highly reliable microwave sounding units show little warming, on a globally averaged basis, in comparison to ground station records. This important discrepancy on its face would suggest the ground-based data is contaminated. It is now widely recognized that ground-based measurements are affected by such things as the ``heat island'' effect, large-scale land-use changes and problems with maintaining ground-stations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, report published in 2001 is claimed to be the most authoritative source for claims that temperatures are rising due to climate change. The IPCC has become increasingly alarmist in its three successive reports. In its summary referring to globally averaged temperature data, it says only that ``These numbers take into account various adjustments, including heat island effects.'' The discussion within the body of the report to this important issue, which must be thoroughly explained if ground- based data is to be considered of more importance than highly reliable satellite data, is disappointingly brief and uninformative as well. Moreover, it leaves the impression that everything except for temperature changes due to climate has been factored out. Thus, the entire validity of the conclusions from ground-station temperature data rests on the claim that these temperature bias effects in the data from such things as growing cities, construction, agricultural practices and other economic activities which potentially could impact temperature measurements have been completely subtracted out from the conclusions. But this may not be true. A new study by Drs. Ross McKitrick and Patrick Michaels that was presented in an article published in the May 25 issue of ``Climate Research,'' throws these assurances of the IPCC into serious doubt. The study examined temperature records for 218 individual stations located in 93 countries since 1979, when satellite data first began being collected. The study then compared these to the IPCC grid cells containing these 218 stations. The study concluded that the differences between the satellite data and the ground station data were almost completely explained by local economic and social factors, and data quality control. Moreover, it found that: outside the dry/cold regions the measured temperature change is primarily explained by economic and social variables. In short, the IPCC's claims of increasing temperatures based on ground-based data appear to be greatly overstated. As the article puts it, non-climate-related variables ``add up to a significant net warming bias at the global level.'' This finding is of tremendous importance, seriously eroding the foundation for the house of cards upon which the global warming hysteria is built. Moreover, the study is well-designed and reproducible. Mann's hockey stick is flawed and irreproducible. That study's design and reproducibility stands in stark contrast to another study heavily relied upon by global warming advocates--the famous, or perhaps I should say, infamous hockey stick chart published by Dr. Michael Mann. The conclusions of this study have become a rallying cry for alarmists who would have us believe this is final proof that 20th century temperatures have spiked up dramatically. These results are routinely used in presentations to corporate officers to demonstrate that they had better restructure their companies' operations and annual reports. But Mann's conclusions have come under intense criticism recently, as other researchers have challenged both the methodology he used and the reliability of the results. A team of scientists led by Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Sally Baliunas, who are astrophysicists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center, surveyed 240 articles concerning local and regional-scale climate reconstructions over the last 1,000 years. The proxy record they examined was far more extensive than that used by Mann. While Mann's analysis relied mostly on tree-ring data from the Northern Hemisphere, the researchers offer a detailed look at climate changes that occurred in different regions around the world over the last 1000 years using over 20 different proxies. As a result of this extensive survey, Drs. Soon and Baliunas concluded that: the 20th century does not contain the warmest anomaly of the past millennium in most proxy records, which have been sampled world-wide. Past researchers implied that unusual 20th century warming means a global human impact. However, the proxies show that the 20th century is not unusually warm or extreme. Other studies that are devastating to Mann's conclusion focus not on its inconsistency with the results of work of a multitude of other researchers, but on his extremely questionable and improper methods. In an attempt last year to perform an audit of Mann's unique conclusions, Drs. McIntyre and McKitrick found that Mann's work was irreproducible without resorting to the use of flawed data sets, inappropriate data manipulation, or ill-advised statistical procedures. To quote the researchers, ``the dataset used to make [the Mann reconstruction] contained collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect [methodological] calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects.'' When the researchers corrected for these data and methodological flaws, they conclude that temperatures in the early 1400s rivaled those of today, indicating that human influences have not taken the climate to unprecedented territory. Dr. Esper, a paleoclimate researcher, and his colleagues published a paper that suggests that the tree-ring histories heavily relied upon by Mann in his temperature reconstructions were manipulated in such a way as to have most of the long term variability removed, making the 20th century temperatures appear much more unusual than they in fact were. Esper and his colleagues produced temperature reconstructions for the past 1,000 years using a more scientifically defensible approach to handling tree-ring records that preserves long-term variability. The study concludes that the past 1,000 years have been characterized by periods of warm and cold, and that as far back as about 1,000 years ago, temperatures were as warm or warmer than in the late 20th century. Of course, these studies show that the ``shaft'' of the hockey stick created by Mann is wrong. And it is intuitively true that the shaft is wrong. We have known for years about the Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1400 A.D. We have known for years about what has been called the Little Ice Age from 1600 to 1850 A.D. And the new studies I've just described confirm these well-established naturally occurring climatic events. In other words, in creating his so-called hockey stick, Mann deliberately eliminated the first blade of the hockey stick. By eliminating the blade he left the false conclusion that the 20th century temperatures are unprecedented. They are not. The fact is that the real temperatures spike far higher during the period he portrays as a straight shaft than current temperatures--despite that his extraordinarily flawed results indicate we are living in the hottest period in the last 1,000 years. Ironically, the often-criticized IPCC report itself contradicts Mann's findings. As I described earlier, a new reproducible study indicates the IPCC's estimates of temperature rise themselves appear to mistakenly attribute socioeconomic and data quality factors that affect temperature readings to climate change. Yet even so, the IPCC shows a far smaller temperature increase than Mann. The IPCC shows an increase of 0.6 degrees Celsius over the last 100 years, but the ``blade'' of the Mann hockey stick shows an increase of 0.95 Celsius--more than a 50 percent larger increase. Moreover, the so-called hockey stick ``blade'' does not appear to be explained by the statistical techniques Mann claims he used. In a recent letter published in Geophysical Research Letters, Drs. Soon, Baliunas, and Legates closely examined the ``blade'' and found that it could not be reproduced using either the technique Mann says he used, or other common statistical techniques. Once again, this key requirement of reproducibility seems missing from the flagship study of those crying that the sky is falling. Most recently, Dr. Chapman and his colleagues commented on a comparison of borehole temperature measurements with Dr. Mann's proxy records and questioned Dr. Mann's analysis techniques, concluding they are ``just bad science'' and that Dr. Mann had undertaken a ``selective and inappropriate presentation'' of results. Thus, as Dr. Legates concluded in testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee, this so-called flagship study: certainly does not conform to the requirements of open access and reproducibility, required by the Data Quality Act, nor does it meet even minimal quality standards. Dr. Legates went on to say in respect to the many problems inherent in Mann's study: This leads me to reject Dr. Mann's . . . conclusions . . . that anthropogenic factors provide the overwhelming influence on global and hemispheric temperatures in the last 1800 years and that the 1990s are the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, of the last 1800 years. Some may try to defend the Mann conclusions, and believe his work is unimpeachable. But a recent article published in the July 1st, 2004 issue of Nature magazine repudiates that belief. In a brief ``corrigendum,'' Mann makes a clear admission that the disclosure of data and other methods supporting the hockey stick was materially inaccurate. This corrigendum was ordered by the Editorial Board after two other scientists, Dr. McIntyre and Dr. McKitrick filed a ``Materials Complaint.'' According to these scientists, the on-line supplemental information accompanying Mann's correction notice essentially concedes for the first time that key steps in the computations behind his conclusions were left out of and conflict with the description of methods in the original paper. Despite this, Mann continues to assert that these errors do not affect his results, saying: None of these errors affect our previously published results. But as McIntyre and McKitrick point out: if this were true, then a simple constructive proof could have been provided, showing before and after calculations. This is conspicuously missing . . . We have done the calculations and can assert categorically that the claim is false. We have made a journal submission to this effect and will explain the matter fully when that paper is published. While this sad spectacle clearly is not yet over, three things are clear. Mann's hockey stick has never been reproduced, efforts to do so showed that the study was replete with errors and miscalculations, and despite his continuing faith in his hockey stick conclusions, Mann has yet to offer any proof whatsoever that they are correct. And yet the alarmists continue to claim we should unilaterally disarm America's economy based on Mann's unbelievable--literally unbelievable--results. Another controversial claim is that sea level is rising, and that this is due to climate change. It has been claimed for years that sea level was rising rapidly, yet again fueling the call for action. Based on modeling, the IPCC estimates that sea level will rise 1.8 millimeters annually, or about one-fourteenth of an inch. 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 old observational records, but satellite altimetry as well, he concluded that: there is a total absence of any recent ``acceleration in sea level rise'' as often claimed by IPCC and related groups. Morner's findings go to the heart of the debate--the reliance by global warming advocates on faulty models that conflict with observational records instead of observational records themselves. According to Morner, the: IPCC made an estimate of all variables and their possible contribution to sea level rise. They arrived at a mean value of 0.9 millimeters per year. This value is in harmony with the records of the present and near-past . . . Still--and this is remarkable, [says Morner,]--IPCC compared their own value with a model value of 1.8 millimeters per year and discarded their own estimate as unrealistic. Morner has blunt words for the IPCC approach, saying that he ``discard[s] the model output of IPCC as untenable, not to say impossible.'' Using satellite altimetry and other observational data, Morner finds that the late 20th century lacks any sign of acceleration of sea rise, including the last decade. He concludes that, based on long-term observational data as well as the newest technology, sea level in a century can be expected to be within the range of a 10 centimeter sea level decline to a 20 centimeter sea level rise, which translates to about a four inch sea level decline to an eight inch sea level increase. Yet, remarkably, we still hear fears that the world will become flooded due to global warming. Such claims are, to be blunt, completely out of touch with most comprehensive science. As Sweden's Morner puts it, ``there is no fear of massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.'' Something else I am told is that there has been an increase in the number and intensity of severe weather events. Typically these doomsayers point to the droughts in the Southwest or point to more violent hurricanes to prove that global warming is occurring. In response to the current 5-year drought in the southwest, the New York Times proclaimed on May 10 that ``Drought may be normal, but there may be nothing normal about this drought.'' Of course, the paper inserted a weasel word to avoid actually describing how it was abnormal. This is one of those claims that makes me want to utter the old insult, ``You are so wrong, I don't know where to begin.'' If an increased number of severe droughts is to prove global warming, it would have to be true that the number and severity of these droughts are, in fact, increasing. But nothing could be farther from the truth. Drought is a serious and damaging climate-related hazard. But this fact should not obscure the fact that carbon dioxide is not the cause of this recurring disaster that plagued even the Ancient Egyptians. The two worst droughts to hit this country in the last century occurred in the 1930s--known as the Great Dustbowl--and the 1950s. But they were neither the longest droughts to afflict this country, nor the most severe. According to an article published in the December 1998 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Dr. Connie Woodhouse and Dr. Jonathan Overpeck conducted tree-ring reconstructions in the Southwest that suggest the lengths and severity of droughts of the 1930s and 50s have been equaled or, in some regions, surpassed by droughts in the past several centuries. They further concluded that it is clear that major multi-year Great Plains droughts have occurred naturally once or twice a century over the last 400 years. And there is evidence that during the 13th and 16th centuries, there were two megadroughts that exceeded the severity, length and spatial extent of 20th century droughts. Of course, this study was published before the onset of the most recent 5-year drought in the Southwest. More recent studies published just last year, however, confirm its findings. In a 2003 article in Geophysical Research Letters, Dr. Stephen Gray and his colleagues stated that: like the 1950s drought, the late 16th century megadrought was followed by a wet period, and both events were associated with intense La Nina episodes typical of southwestern U.S. and Great Plains droughts. In an article in the July 2003 issue of the American Meteorological Society, Dr. Falko Fye and his colleagues found that: There appear to have been at least 12 droughts since 1500AD that were analogous to the 1950s drought in terms of location, intensity, and duration. . . . [and] the 16th century megadrought lasted some 18 years and the tree-ring data indicate it was the most severe sustained drought to impact North America in the past 500 to perhaps 1000 years. What is also worth noting is that the global temperature record doesn't provide any useful information concerning drought conditions. In the wake of this year's successive hurricanes hitting Southeast and Gulf States, some have even had the gall to claim it is due to global warming. Credible meteorologists have been quick to dismiss such claims. As Hugh Willoughby, senior scientist at the International Hurricane Research Center of Florida International University stated in the plain language we non-scientists can understand: This isn't a global-warming sort of thing. . . . It's a natural cycle. Benjamin Preston, senior research fellow at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change--a green activist organization that promotes the global warming theory echoed his sentiments, saying about the link between hurricanes and global warming: The general consensus is that it's unlikely. . . . We can actually explain an active hurricane season using natural variability. If even the Pew Center has said that, it seems pretty obvious that the activists and writers who have been quick to implicate global warming should be dismissed as the opportunists they are. Weather simply changes. In the words of Professor Perry Samson, associate chair of the Department of the Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences at the University of Michigan: Abnormal weather is normal. When it comes to the argument that hurricanes are getting worse, it is typical to hear statistics about increasing costs due to hurricane damage. Of course, we can expect monetary damage from hurricanes to increase in the future, ``not as a result of anthropogenic climate change, but from natural climate cycles, and . . . increasingly expensive properties along the coast.'' These are not my words, but of a top U.S. Government scientist named Dr. Christopher Landsea. Science simply doesn't support the claims that there is a link between hurricanes and global warming. A team led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Dr. Landsea concluded that the relationship of global temperatures to the number of intense landfalling hurricanes is either not present, or is very weak. In fact, if we examine hurricane records for which we have good data going back to the 1800s, there is much evidence supporting the conclusion that we have had more hurricane activity historically than in the last few decades, so an increase the last several years should perhaps be expected as part of natural variability. 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. Hopefully, we can finally put to rest the unsubstantiated claim that global warming is leading to more severe and unpredictable weather. What is certain is that the drought record in the Southwest over the last 1,000 years and the hurricane record flatly refutes that claim. Global warming advocates will often recite statistics that glaciers are in retreat. For instance, it is said that the number of glaciers in Glacier National Park has dwindled from 150 more than a century ago to about 35 today and that the part of the Arctic Ocean that remains frozen year-round has been shrinking. But what do these examples really say about global warming? Scientists know very little about glacial activity, but what they do know suggests there are as many expanding glaciers as there are shrinking ones--this even happens with two glaciers within a few miles of each other--and that there is no universal trend either way. There are more than 160,000 glaciers on the planet. Scientists have good, long-term mass balance measurements on a comparative handful of them. So how can someone assert that glaciers are shrinking? Dr. Roger Braithwaite last year looked at mass balance trends in 246 glaciers worldwide from 1946 to 1995. He found that ``there are several regions with highly negative mass balances in agreement with a public perception of ``the glaciers are melting,' but there are also regions with positive balances.'' This holds true even within continents. In Europe, ``Alpine glaciers are generally shrinking, Scandinavian glaciers are growing, and glaciers in the Caucasus are close to equilibrium for 1980-95.'' Globally, adding all the results together, ``there is no obvious common or global trend of increasing glacier melt in recent years.'' Indeed, the observed variability of Arctic sea ice thickness, which shows that the sea ice mass can change by up to 16 percent within one year, contrasts with the concept of a slowly dwindling ice pack, produced by global warming. But if global warming is not the cause, what is? In 2002, work done by Dr. Greg Holloway and Dr. Tessa Sou, showed that the decadal-scale wind pattern changes were responsible for rearranging the ice, giving some regions thinner and others thicker amount of ice. Research by Dr. Ignatius Rigor in 2002 confirmed this, finding much of the so-called Arctic ice thinning is caused by decadal variations in wind patterns over the Arctic. Alarmists also speak eloquently about Kilimanjaro, and like to show two pictures--one from the early 1990s with a modest snow cap on it, and another from 2000 showing the snow caps had shrunk. Of course, those are just two pictures. Let me tell you about three. Yes, Kilimanjaro's snows were smaller in the late 90s than the 80s, but they were bigger in the 80s than in the 70s. In fact, the snows of Kilimanjaro in 1997 appear to resemble the snows of Kilimanjaro in 1976. This makes a simple point. If you are given only partial facts, you can easily be misled into thinking you see something when in fact you are seeing a very different thing indeed. The pictures you have been shown are simply transient snows and are meaningless. To quote an April white paper from the Center for Science and Public Policy entitled The Consensus on Kilimanjaro is Wrong, ``though a photograph may be worth a thousand sound bytes, those words and photos do not go together.'' Of course, the real question is what does the issue of melting glaciers on Kilimanjaro have to do with man-induced global warming? Not much. On November 26, the New York Times had some interesting insights into Kilimanjaro and global warming. Here's what the Times had to say: The glaciers on Kilimanjaro have been in retreat for at least a century, shrinking by 80 percent between 1912 and 2000. Although it is tempting to blame global warming, the most likely culprit is deforestation. As explained in Nature's Science update, with forest present, the natural updraft from the slopes carried moist air to the summit and helped reinforce and sustain the ice cap. Without those forests, the updrafts are dry and fail to replenish the ravages of the sun on the summit ice cap. And since the equatorial sun is extremely hot, deforestation also means the updrafts are warmer than they were when Kilamanjaro's forests were abundant. Conjuring up fears of global warming because of Kilimanjaro's glaciers--to my mind--represents exactly the kind of misuse of science that leads to increased misunderstanding instead of understanding. If the problem is deforestation and there is public will to fix the problem, fix it. Don't try to mislead people into thinking the problem is something else simply because that fits your agenda. This is a point I have made repeatedly. I believe it is extremely important for the future of this country that the facts and the science get a fair hearing. Without proper knowledge and understanding, alarmists will scare the country into enacting its ultimate goal: making energy suppression, in the form of harmful mandatory restrictions on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse emissions, the official policy of the United States. While the science underlying hysterical claims of catastrophic global warming is thin, the analyses showing the costs of capping our economy are not. Perhaps the most well known study examining the Kyoto Protocol came from Wharton Econometric Forecasing Associates, or WEFA. According to WEFA economists, Kyoto would cost 2.4 million American jobs and reduce GDP by 3.2 percent, or about $300 billion annually, an amount greater than the total annual expenditure on primary and secondary education. It is hard to imagine such huge amounts, so I will put the findings in context. Because of Kyoto, American consumers would pay 11 percent more for food, 14 percent more for medicine, and 7 percent more for housing. Electricity prices would nearly double and gasoline prices would go up an additional 65 cents per gallon. New studies that have come out since my last speech on global warming examining the consequences of unilaterally putting a cap on the economy through carbon restrictions are also revealing. Using perhaps the most sophisticated model to assess the issue--what is known as a dynamic model that incorporates future changes in behavior--the renowned economic forecasting firm of Charles River Associates has concluded that under the McCain-Lieberman bill, S. 139, economic growth would slow. The Nation would lose up to a quarter million jobs by 2010, increasing to up to 610,000 jobs by 2020. Energy-intensive industries would be the hardest sector hit. Natural gas prices would increase by up to 82 percent, driving thousands of companies overseas, as we have already seen happen to fertilizer manufacturers, who cannot afford to make their product at even today's natural gas prices. Production from these energy-intensive industries alone would decline annually by up to $160 billion. The bill would hit specific state economies harder. For instance, Ohio and West Virginia, both with economies that rely on coal production, would see their industries decimated, with production decreasing by as much as 73 percent. Average households in the United States would incur a financial cost up to $1,300 in the year 2010, with the annual cost rising up to $2,300 by 2020. Families' direct costs in the form of higher electricity and gasoline prices would increase dramatically. Within 6 years, residential electricity prices would rise by up to 30 percent, dramatically increasing families' monthly electricity bills. By 2020, those prices would rise by up to 43 percent due to carbon restrictions. Regardless of which study one looks at, gasoline price increases will be substantial. According to the Energy Information Administration, gas prices will increase by 27 percent, or 40 cents. The more sophisticated Charles River Associates assessment puts the cost even higher, with gasoline prices increasing by up to 50 cents. Of course, for many wealthier people, these may seem like trivial costs. Rich people don't think about their electric bills or the cost of gasoline at the pump. But average Americans do. And the elderly living on fixed income, and the poor, pay attention to these costs even more. What is worse, these costs are regressive, which means that poor people will bear a bigger burden because they spend a larger share of their income on energy, such as gasoline and electricity. When the costs go up, they must give up something else important to them. And what do we buy for costs? As even James Hansen, the NASA scientist who popularized the global warming theory, admits, it would take massive reductions in carbon emissions to have any appreciable impact on climate change. And, of course, his views are based on the assumption it even exists. Calculating what affect implementing the Kyoto Protocol would have, Martin Parry and other researchers concluded in Nature that Kyoto would only reduce global surface temperatures by 0.06 Celsius by 2050. Coming to a nearly identical conclusion, U.S. Global Change Research Program researcher Tom Wigley estimated in Geophysical Research Letters that implementing the Kyoto Protocol would reduce global surface temperatures by 0.07 Celsius by 2050. The temperature differences within this room exceed such a minuscule amount. Despite these studies which increasingly suggest that precipitous action to combat global warming is unjustified, alarmists often trot out a concept known as the precautionary principle--which is that it is better to be safe than sorry. But they misunderstand or at least, misapply this concept. From all I have learned about the subject of global warming, I believe that the safest course is to reject the hypothetical claims of those who fear planetary doom is around the corner and are willing to doom the economy to avert it. The science of global warming is uncertain, the costs of capping our economy with carbon restriction are high, and even if the doomsayers were correct, it would do little to nothing to reduce the temperature increases. But there is more to the story. Taking precipitous action will actually do more harm than good. A 2003 study by Indur Goklany of the Department of Interior examined this question in some depth. In the study, which did not challenge the validity of global warming's existence and its consequences in its assumptions, Goklany examined the benefits and opportunity costs of taking action to mitigate global warming. In essence, the study examined whether humanity would be better off if we tried to avert or otherwise mitigate global warming or whether humanity would better off adapting to it. What the study concluded was remarkable. Even if global warming were real, money spent to combat global warming would do comparatively little--as a percentage of the problem to reduce the afflictions of hunger, malaria, and water shortages versus if no action were taken at all. Yet it went farther--it then examined the benefits of diverting the money spent on global warming and using the monies to directly fight these afflictions through such activities as agricultural research and development and investments in treatment and prevention in combating malaria. The final results? Fewer people would go hungry, fewer would suffer from malaria, and fewer would lack access to adequate supplies of water if we simply adapted rather than attempted to combat global warming. And at far less cost, meaning those resources can be invested productively. So rationing our energy supply would make the world not safe, but sorry. And that is assuming global warming is happening. How much sorrier will we be if it isn't? British Prime Minister Tony Blair's goal of serious investment in public health and infrastructure for energy and water, and delivering real progress on African development is in conflict with his aims on global warming. His Science Advisor, Sir David King, has stated that choices won't have to be made as to how to spend resources. But that flies in the face of basic economics. If resources are spent in one way, they are not available to be spent another. In short, even a wealthy future world will have constraints on the resources it can devote to disease and other problems. How much more will those constraints be in a poorer world. The point is clear. Back in the earlier part of the last century, when Asia was far poorer than it is today, deaths from climate events were far higher than now, when the region is wealthier. And let's look at the hurricanes from this hurricane season. Unfortunately, 100 Americans died during four naturally occurring hurricanes to hit land. But compare the fate of this wealthy country to that of Haiti, where in that small, terribly poor country 2,000 people died and 300,000 become homeless from a single hurricane--Hurricane Jeanne. It is not simply common sense, its backed up by data. Capping carbon will cap the economy. There is an incredibly strong relationship between a country's GDP growth rate and its carbon dioxide growth rate. Because carbon is synonymous with economic activity. While we can and should increase our energy efficiency because its good business, we must realize that we are tied to carbon. Fossil fuel is the energy base of this country. And while some may claim we can simply and easily move to a non-carbon based society, they are not being honest. We have an enormous infrastructure reliant on fossil energy that will be with us for many, many decades to come. And for those few alternatives that could replace older units such as building wind-farms off Nantucket or building new dams or new nuclear plants, green activists bring efforts to a grinding halt. As the chart shows, technology will not quickly restructure our energy infrastructure. Unfortunately, despite the many studies, facts and figures I have shared with you today demonstrating that the science does not support catastrophic global warming claims, well-designed, reproducible studies are not the driving force behind today's climate science debate. Rather, ideology is. This point was made by Dr. Richard Lindzen in regards to his contributions to the preparation of the United Nations IPCC report. Lindzen stated: I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their `green' credentials in defense of their statements. But Lindzen's words are tame compared to those spoken earlier this year in Russia. At a press conference on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, Russian Presidential Economic Advisor Andrei Illarionov made some comments about ideology that are nothing short of remarkable. Let me share with you what he says is driving the global warming debate. Illarionov stated: There have been examples in our fairly recent history of how a considerable portion of Europe was flooded with the brown Nazi ideology, the red Commie ideology that caused severe casualties and consequences for Europe and the entire world. Now there is a big likelihood that a considerable part of Europe has been flooded with another type, another color of ideology--[and he is speaking of global warming here--again, another type, another color of ideology]--but with very similar implications for European societies and human societies the world over. He also said that imposition of the Kyoto Protocol ``would deal a powerful blow on the whole humanity similar to the one humanity experienced when Nazism and communism flourished.'' And that was the chief economic advisor to Russian President Putin. The world has certainly turned on its head that we Americans must look to Russians for speaking out strongly against irrational authoritarian ideologies. Putin's economic advisor's words are underscored by the conclusion of the Russian Academy of Science which this last May concluded that there is a high degree of uncertainty that global warming is caused by anthropogenic factors, that the Kyoto Protocol does not have a scientific basis and it would not be effective in achieving the IPCC's aims. And while the Russia legislature may well indeed ratify the Kyoto Protocol, Illarionov has stated that it would occur for political considerations, not scientific or economic. Last May, it was reported that the European Union had promised to help Russia enter the World Trade Organization and would smooth over WTO requirements in exchange for signing the Kyoto Protocol. Additionally, there is speculation within Russia that the Kyoto Protocol will fail of its own weight since only two European countries will meet their carbon emission targets. So, clearly, Russia is playing politics with the issue for its purposes just as others have for their own. That much of this debate is about world governance and not science is not news. At the Hague in November 2002, French President Jacques Chirac stated that Kyoto represents ``the first component of an authentic global governance.'' Those are his words, not my characterization of his words. To summarize my remarks today, it makes no sense to take action on climate change when the costs are so profound and the benefits are non- existent. Last year, I spent two hours addressing the Senate about the state of science regarding the global warming debate. And today, I have spent another two hours providing the latest, most up-to-date information on the science about global warming--or more to the point--the lack of credible science supporting it. I have been told many times that the science is irrelevant--that we have moved beyond the science, and that we must now concentrate on what to do to stop global warming from happening. I, for one, would hope that we never abandon the science. Those who are afraid of the newest and best science are usually the same people who are afraid that the more the public actually knows, the more it will interfere with their grand geopolitical plans to ration America's energy. I believe we should be held accountable for the actions we take, and not bet the American economy on something unless it is firmly rooted in science, and our actions can have some beneficial effect. Global warming ideology has no place in policy debates regarding scientific issues. Credible, reproducible studies should be our gold standard--our minimum standard. By that standard, carbon restrictions fail the test. Unfortunately, we are in a political season and some legislators believe that they can score political points with this issue. Last year, when Senator John Kerry was focusing on the liberal base in his primary, he criticized President George Bush on his campaign website for rejecting the global warming treaty, stating: Dropping out of international implementation of the Kyoto Protocol was foolhardy then, and it is even more obviously foolhardy today. But now that John Kerry is trying to be more mainstream he has removed that statement from his website and replaced it with the following: John Kerry and John Edwards believe that the Kyoto Protocol is not the answer. The near-term emission reductions it would require of the United States are infeasible, while the long- term obligations imposed on all nations are too little to solve the problem. Yet in the September 30 presidential debate, he criticized President Bush when he said: You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations. I am trying to figure out what he means by those statements. And unless he is simply doing another of his all-too-familiar flip- flops, I can only conclude that while he does not believe the Kyoto Protocol is the answer, he would support it anyway. If I lived in the Midwest, I would find his shifting stances worrisome. I have laid out my case today for why capping our economy with carbon restrictions is wrong-headed and rash. And I believe that the future health of our great Nation and the world is too important to have an issue as vital as this one relegated to the status of a political football. My hope is that the legislators who have moved beyond the science will, once again, develop a healthy respect for what it has to say in guiding our actions.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the passage of HR 5294--the ``John F. Kennedy Center Reauthorization Act of 2004.'' As Chairman of the Senate Committee with jurisdiction over the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, I am pleased that, working closely with the Kennedy Center, we were able to reach an agreement with the House of Representatives. This legislation authorizes funding for the maintenance, repair and security, as well as capital projects through Fiscal Year 2007. Additionally, the legislation revises the John F. Kennedy Center Plaza Authorization Act of 2002 to direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a Center Plaza Project Team consisting of the Secretary, the Administrator of General Services, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, or their designees, and other individuals the Project Team considers appropriate. The Board is required to consult with the Project Team on specified matters, including construction of buildings. I wish to recognize Marty Hall and Andrew Wheeler of my Committee staff for their work on this legislation. I also wish thank Michael Kaiser, President of the Kennedy Center for his support for this bill. Mr. Kaiser has done an outstanding job of making the Kennedy Center a world class operation and center for the performing arts. Mr. Kaiser is responsible not only for the artistic programming, he is also the person charged with ensuring its financial health. By any measure, he has been very successful in both ventures. I would also like to express my appreciation to Kennedy Center staff, specifically Jared Barlage and Ann Stock, who have worked very closely with my staff in developing this legislation. From its very beginnings, the Kennedy Center has represented a unique public/private partnership. Because the Center is the Nation's living memorial to President Kennedy, it receives federal funding each year to pay for maintenance and operation of the building, a federal facility. However, the Center's artistic programs and education and outreach initiatives are paid for almost entirely through ticket sales and gifts from individuals, corporations, and private foundations. I am pleased that we can send this legislation to President Bush and continue the good work of this valued institution.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, like all of my colleagues I have been watching the presidential campaign with great interest, and I have noticed that the Democratic nominee has been making comments, particularly in the Midwest, which can not be reconciled with his record here in the Senate. The Democratic nominee says coal should play an important role in America's energy future. He wants to ``forge new ways to draw cleaner power from coal.'' But his record tells a different story--his votes and policies are aggressively anti-coal. On every issue of importance to coal and coal miners, he has sided with environmental extremists, who, like the Democratic nominee, view coal as a ``dirty energy source'' that must be eradicated. Last year, the Democratic nominee voted for the Climate Stewardship Act, S. 139, a bill very similar to the Kyoto Protocol, which would destroy the coal industry. Unions for Jobs and the Environment, a group that includes the United Mine Workers, called S. 139 ``a bad idea,'' and believe that passage of S. 139 ``would be tantamount to adoption of the Kyoto Protocol.'' According to the Energy Information Administration, the bill causes steep declines in coal use and production and eliminates thousands of coal jobs. S. 139 would: cut coal-fired electricity by 80 percent; cut bituminous coal production by 69 percent; destroy 56,000 coal industry jobs; and cause existing coal plants in West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to shut down. ``In the S.139 case, a large proportion of existing coal capacity is projected to be retired. It is simply not economical to continue operating these plants.'' Along with running mate John Edwards, the Democratic nominee is a cosponsor of the Clean Power Act. This legislation would impose heavy burdens on coal, forcing many plants to switch to natural gas or shut down. This bill is so hostile to coal that the Ohio legislature, by an overwhelming bipartisan margin, passed a resolution condemning it. The resolution states: The carbon dioxide emissions cap in the bill needlessly eliminates a significant component of electric generation in the United States by effectively removing coal as a fuel source. The bill will cause electric utilities to switch from coal to natural gas because the electric utilities would no longer have the option to economically generate electricity from coal. . . The United Mine Workers, the Utility Workers, the Boilermakers, and other labor unions oppose the bill. In testimony before the committee I chair, the Environment and Public Works Committee, Eugene Trisko of the United Mine Workers stated: The union is strongly opposed to efforts to use the Clean Air Act as a vehicle for regulating greenhouse gas emissions . . . Limits on carbon emissions would require switching from coal to natural gas or other higher-cost energy sources, with potentially devastating impacts on the economies of coal- producing states. Further, according to independent analysis, the bill: cuts coal-fired electric generation by 55 percent and coal production by 50 percent, EIA analysis of the Clean Power Act; destroys 32,000 coal jobs; and forces many coal-fired power plants to shut down, ``resulting in substantial economic impacts.'' The Democratic nominee has routinely criticized President Bush for rejecting Kyoto. As he said last year, ``Instead of renegotiating the Kyoto Treaty to improve it, he simply repudiated it.'' And the Vice Presidential nominee, when asked in February by the San Francisco Chronicle whether he would support Kyoto, responded with a direct, ``Yes,'' and said his running mate agreed with him. The Democratic nominee says the U.S. should ``reengage with the international community'' to forge a new global warming agreement, but the question remains: What would the agreement look like? And how could any agreement calling for strict reductions in C02 emissions not harm coal? Now they say they oppose Kyoto, describing its timetables and mandates as ``infeasible.'' ``The Democratic nominees believe that the Kyoto Protocol is not the answer. The near-term emission reductions it would require of the United States are infeasible, while the long-term obligations imposed on all nations are too little to solve the problem.'' But the Democratic nominee's environmental group supporters know where he stands on Kyoto. ``We don't have doubts that this issue is at the top of his to-do list when elected, or his re-do list,'' said Betsy Loyless of the League of Conservation Voters, which endorsed him for president. Saying, ``there is no doubt in our mind that he will re- engage in Kyoto.'' Further, the Democratic nominee tried to save Kyoto in 2000 during negotiations with the EU. Quoting from a UPI article at the time: Instead, one senator who accompanied him to Vietnam, John Kerry (D-MA), entered the fray. Senator Kerry, an aggressive promoter of the United States, was ubiquitously huddled over notepads and scribbling aides, attempting to develop U.S. offers on certain mechanisms that its counterparts would accept. Not only did he try to save Kyoto, but he opposed efforts by the Clinton administration to ease U.S. compliance with the treaty. According to an AP article: U.S. Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who has been involved in environmental legislation, said he also had problems with the U.S. position. Instead of cutting its emissions by 7 percent as agreed at Kyoto, he said, the sinks proposal would allow the United States to pump at least 1 percent more greenhouse gases than it did in 1990. ``Some sinks clearly must be counted, but they should be in line with the spirit of the Kyoto agreement,'' he said. ``Any retrenchment diminishes our credibility on other proposals'' and raises ``understandable suspicion that they are mere loopholes.'' According to a Grist Magazine article this year: The Democratic nominee is no casual Kyoto detractor--he has attended a number of Kyoto conferences over the years and tried to push negotiations forward, and he has a long record of consistently voting in favor of policy measures to curb global warming, from stricter CAFE standards to mandatory greenhouse-gas regulations. I want everyone to understand, Kyoto would eliminate coal use. ``Under the Kyoto Protocol, coal consumption would be phased out over the period 2010 to 2020. The result would be massive dislocations in coal producing areas. . .'' Kyoto would eliminate nearly 50,000 jobs in Ohio; 40,000 jobs in Pennsylvania; and 22,000 jobs in Michigan. Kyoto would be disastrous for West Virginia coal. According to a study by West Virginia University, Kyoto would cause a 25.5 percent decline in coal mining; destroy 42,800 jobs; reduce state GDP by over $3 billion; and reduce per capita income by $393. The West Virginia and Ohio legislatures passed resolutions rejecting Kyoto and preventing State agencies from implementing any part of the treaty. According to his website, the Democratic nominee says he will spend $10 billion over the next decade on clean coal technologies. But as the above demonstrates, you can't have clean coal without coal. Moreover, his policies would obstruct installation of clean coal technologies, placing further burdens on the industry in meeting new Clean Air Act requirements. The Democratic nominee opposes President Bush's New Source Review reforms that allow utilities to upgrade their facilities with clean, energy efficient technologies, avoiding the complex, burdensome, and environmentally counterproductive permitting process unleashed by the Clinton EPA. He supports lawsuits filed by environmental groups now blocking President Bush's NSR reforms. He even joined in the junior Senator from New York's anti-NSR reform legal brief. He voted last year for his running mate's amendment to delay President Bush's reforms and vows to ``immediately reverse the Bush- Cheney rollbacks of the Nation's Clean Air Program.'' Most critically, returning to the Clinton NSR program would thwart installation of clean coal technologies. According to the National Coal Council, uncertainty over the Clinton NSR policy ``has had a direct and chilling effect on all maintenance and efficiency improvements and clean coal technology installations at existing power plants.'' The Democratic nominee also missed the vote on last year's energy bill, and later said that had he been present, he would have voted against it. Yet the bill included several provisions and substantial funding for clean coal technologies: Authorizes $200 million annually for fiscal years 2004 through 2012 for clean coal research and coal- based gasification technologies; authorizes funding to the Secretary of Energy for loans, and authorizes the Secretary to make loan guarantees for a variety of clean coal projects around the country; directs the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program to facilitate production and generation of coal-based power and the installation of pollution- control equipment; and creates an investment tax credit for facilities retrofitted, repowered or replaced with clean coal technology. ``Where we see a beautiful mountaintop, George Bush sees a strip mine.'' This is the Democratic nominee's view of mountaintop mining, which employs 15,000 people and provides $21.8 million in revenue for education in West Virginia, according to a study by Marshall University. In 1999, he voted against the senior Senator from West Virginia's amendment to overturn a Federal court decision that threatened to end mountaintop mining in West Virginia. According to the senior Senator from West Virginia said the goal of his amendment was ``to allow for the continuation of our coal industry and the jobs it provides while better protecting the mountains and hollows of the state we love.'' I would point out that the United Mine Workers of America strongly supported the amendment. He even joined forces with then Vice President Al Gore, who, after initially supporting the amendment, threatened to veto any appropriations bill that included it. A recent Federal court decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin a Clinton appointee, halted 11 mountaintop mining projects in southern West Virginia. The economic impacts, according to West Virginia economists, could be devastating. The question is: where does the Democratic nominee stand on this decision? Economist Michael Hicks and Cal Kent, former dean of Marshall University's business college, said the ruling could slow the permitting process for mountaintop mining by 2 years, resulting in a 40 percent decline in coal production. ``That decline the economists predicted, could lead to layoffs, stunted investment in West Virginia--particularly in the southern Coalfields region--and less revenue for the state. And the impact could be felt as soon as this fiscal year,'' they said. The Democratic nominee has a unique view of the Clean Air Act. According to him, when the act was passed in 1970, there was a consensus that existing coal-fired power plants had a remaining life- span of 10 to 15 years. Beyond that time, according to this view, they would be forced to install costly new pollution controls or simply shut down. Nearly 46 percent of coal-fired capacity in Ohio was built before 1970. In West Virginia, nearly one-third of capacity was built prior to 1970. Additionally, over 75 percent of coal-fired capacity in Ohio and West Virginia was built between 1970 and 1974. According to the Democratic nominee, these plants must install exorbitantly expensive pollution controls, which would force many plants to close, or simply shut down altogether, causing massive economic dislocations, job losses, and higher energy costs in Ohio and West Virginia. According to the NSR legal brief, which the Democratic nominee joined, the Clean Air Act ``created a limited and qualified grace period within which existing plants could continue to operate. Accordingly, the 1970 CAA set up a simple choice for existing sources: either upgrade to new source standards or shut down.'' In conclusion, Kerry-Edwards is the most anti-coal presidential ticket in American history. Yes, even worse than Clinton-Gore. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Greater Tulsa Area Hispanic Affairs Commission was established in 1979 by law by the city of Tulsa and Tulsa County. The commission was established due to the leadership and commitment of its founding members who include Mrs. Aurora Ramierez Helton, Mr. Jack Helton, Rev. Victor Orta, Dr. Luis Reinoso, Dr. Chris Romero, Mr. Joe Rodriguez and Mr. Carlos Vargas. The commission also was established thanks to the unconditional support of the then mayor of the city of Tulsa, James M. Inhofe, his chief of staff, Richard Soudriette, and the members of the Tulsa County Commission. This year the Greater Tulsa Hispanic Affairs Commission celebrates its 25th anniversary. On this occasion it is important to recognize the accomplishments of the commission such as it was only the second commission of its type to be established in the U.S.A. The commission has helped countless people in the Hispanic community in Tulsa to find help in the areas of health, education and economic development. Also, the commission has played a fundamental role in promoting the values and cultural richness of the Hispanic community in Tulsa. The commission has organized numerous community festivals and cultural programs and has actively promoted teaching of Spanish, as well as English. Finally, the commission aided in the establishment of the sister city program between Tulsa, OK, and San Luis Potosi, Mexico, that to this day promotes friendship and understanding between the people of the United States of America and Mexico. Today, I, James M. Inhofe, United States Senator (R-OK) on behalf of my colleagues, do hereby congratulate the members of the Greater Tulsa Hispanic Affairs Commission on the occasion of their 25th anniversary. Also, I wish the commission well in its important work to promote greater understanding and appreciation of Hispanic heritage. Furthermore, I want to recognize the work of the commission to promote the cultural diversity of our Hispanic community, which plays such a vital part of the history of the city of Tulsa, the State of Oklahoma, and the United States of America.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office to accompany Senate Report 108-314, the committee report to S. 2773, the Water Resources Development Act of 2004, be printed in the Record. The estimate was not available when the report was filed by the Committee on Environment and Public Works on August 25, 2004.

Mr. INHOFE. I would also like to take this opportunity to note for the record that I believe there are several unrealistic sections of the CBO score that appear to be based on several unconventional interpretations of the Committee reported bill. CBO estimates that the recreation fee program will result in $27 million in estimated outlays for 2005 and $13 million in estimated outlays for 2006, at which point CBO assumes that the outlays become a $7 million annual revenue. The recreation user fee program established in the bill, creates a program to directly fund the operation and maintenance needs associated with recreation at Corps reservoirs. The committee reported bill amends section 225 of WRDA 1999. That particular section of WRDA 99 provides the Secretary of the Army a temporary authority under the Land and Water Conservation Fund, to withhold a limited portion of recreation user fees and provides authority to spend those revenues on the operation and maintenance of recreation facilities at Corps reservoirs. The committee bill further amended this authority to allow the Corps to withhold 100 percent of the recreation fees, on a permanent basis and directed the Corps to establish a progrm to facilitate the efficient collection of revenues. The CBO interpretation of this section assumes that the Corps will withhold the recreation fees it currently collects and spend them directly on O&M. However, when the Corps implements the program for fees CBO assumes that the agaency's authority for withholding such fees disappears, and the agency will blithely turn them over to the General Treasury leaving their O&M budget in shambles. Such an outcome is in direct contravention of the obvious purpose of the entire section. And while such an interpretation of the section is possible, I have yet to encounter a situation where an agency turned funds over to the Treasury when they were authorized to withhold and spend them directly. Section 1006 authorizes the Corps to deposit revenues collected in conjunction with operations at Corps reservoirs. With respect to the generation of hydro-power, the Corps does not currently collect any fees from the Power Marketing Administrations, PMAs. In the case of PMA revenue, the PMAs send a portion of their revenue to the Treasury. In order to provide direct funding for the Corps, the committee bill provides for a 0.22 cent charge per kilowatt of electricity produced. Bonneville Power Administration is specifically exempt from the 0.22 cent per kilowat hour fee. Despite this exemption, CBO assumes that Bonneville Power will ignore it's other authorizing statutes and turn over more than $800 million a year to the Corps. I would point out that the 0.22 cent per kilowatt fee, was the committee's best estimate at the size of a fee that would be required to directly fund $150 million for O&M, which was the amount recommended in the president's budget. Excluding Bonneville Power Administration, CBO estimated that the 0.22 cent per kilowatt hour would result in $173 million in direct O&M outlays. I believe that CBO erroneous included Bonneville Power Administration in the estimate of direct spending. Bonneville Power Administration receipts, if collected by the Corps, would total $7.1 billion over a 10-year period. While CBO erroneously overestimates, the direct spending associated with O&M at Corps reservoirs, it completely underestimates the direct spending that will likely be required should the Fish and Wildlife mitigation provision become enacted. Section 1011 establishes a new standard for fish and wildlife mitigation for Corps of Engineers projects. Because the standard specifically amends WRDA 1986 with changing the dates specified in WRDA 86 with respect to the applicability of the standard to completed and on going projects, a strict reading of the new standard makes it applicable to all projects authorized after November 17, 1986. Moreover, the standard sets a very high bar by requiring the Corps to ``acquire and restore the same number of acres of habitat'' to fully replace the hydrologic and ecological functions of ``each acre of habitat adversely affected.'' While on its face such a requirement may seem innocuous, there is no deminimus level for the determination of an adverse effect. Strictly speaking, even relatively minor changes to land use or hydrology would trigger the requirement for the Corps to acquire an equal number of acres as those that are modified, and restore all of those acres. The liability that this imposes on the Corps for mitigation of projects to this standard for everything since 1986 is likely substantial. Given that most non-Federal sponsors are local and State governments, this potentially represents a significant unfunded mandate as well.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in Oklahoma, we know the importance of predicting and tracking severe weather. Each spring, during tornado season, people in Oklahoma brace themselves for dangerous storms. However, instead of hiding in the dark, like they used to do, today, they can depend on a stellar source for up-to-date, real-time information. The National Severe Storms Labs NSSL has played a vital role in providing research for predicting and tracking this harmful weather. In light of this, I rise today to recognize the 40th anniversary of the vital office of the NSSL within the Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmoheric Administration, in Norman, Oklahoma. The National Severe Storms Laboratory was established in 1964 and leads the way in investigations of all aspects of severe and hazardous weather. NSSL is a vital part of NOAA Research and the only federally supported laboratory focused on severe weather. The lab's scientists and staff constantly explore new ways to improve understanding of the causes of severe weather and ways to use weather information to assist National Weather Service, NWS, forecasters, as well as Federal, uiversity and private sector partners. These scientists are working on ways to improve short-term weather forecasting computer models for the National Weather Service's basic tornado research to understand how tornadoes form, as well as real-time delivery of radar data to the meteorological community and interested partners. Research at NSSL has led to greater knowledge and improved forecasts of tornadoes, flash floods, damaging winds, hail, lightning, heavy snow, ice and freezing rain. Early on, NSSL researchers recognized the potential of Doppler radar to improve the detection and warning of severe weather. NSSL built the first real-time displays of Doppler velocity data, which led to discoveries of tornado-related radar ``signatures.'' The successful demonstration that Doppler radar could help forecasters provide much improved severe thunderstorm and tornado warnings led to the deployment of the Next Generation Weather Radar, NEXRAD, WSR-88D, network of Doppler radars throughout the United States. This important contribution to the Nation was recognized by a Department of Commerce gold medal award, and was the only NOAA research laboratory so recognized. NSSL continues to be a pioneer in the development of weather radar. The lab is working with the NWS to deploy dual polarization, a planned upgrade to the current NEXRAD Doppler radar hardware that provides more information about precipitation in clouds to better distinguish between rain, ice, hail and mixtures. Such information will help forecasters provide better forecasts and warnings for flash floods, the number one severe weather threat to human life. In addition, NSSL researchers are adapting state-of-the-art radar technology currently deployed on Navy ships for use in tracking severe weather. Phased array radar reduces the scan or data collection time from 5 or 6 minutes to less than 1 minute, potentially extending the lead time for tornado warnings beyond the current average of 12 minutes. When combined with other technology being developed at NSSL, warning lead times may be extended even farther. Recently, NSSL collaborated with the University of Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Texas A&M University to build two new 5-cm mobile Doppler radars. These SMART-Radars--Shared Mobile Atmospheric Research and Teaching Radars--are capable of scanning and penetrating an entire tornadic storm or hurricane, providing critical data needed to understand the mysteries of how tornadoes form and for eventually improving severe storm forecasts and warnings. During the past few years, scientists from NSSL completed several field experiments to study severe and hazardous weather. In 2003 and 2004, researchers launched weather balloons loaded with instruments into thunderstorms during the Thunderstorm Electrification and Lightning Experiment, or TELEX. The lightning observations they made will be used to improve forecasts and warnings of hazardous weather. In 2002, NSSL hosted the International H2O Project or IHOP, one of the largest weather-related studies ever conducted in the U.S. NSSL has a research partnership with the Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, a cooperative institute between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Oklahoma. Additionally, NSSL conducts collaborative research with other NOAH laboratories including the Forecast Systems Laboratory, the Environmental Technologies Laboratory, and the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, as well as the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Army, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Texas A&M, Texas Tech University, Lockheed Martin, Basic Commerce and Industries, Weather Decision Technologies, WeatherNews International, Inc., WeatherData, Inc., and Salt River Project. I congratulate the National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, OK, on their first 40 years. Based on their performance since 1964, I believe we can expect many more years of pioneering scientific research from this outstanding institution, their academic, government and private sector partners, and their many scientists and technicians.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss S. 1134, the Economic Development Administration reauthorization bill, that was approved by the Senate today. This is an important piece of legislation for our Nation's economically distressed communities. These areas count on EDA to help create favorable environments for long-term economic growth. Studies have shown that EDA uses Federal dollars efficiently and effectively--creating and retaining long-term jobs at an average cost that is among the lowest in government. The bill emphasizes coordination, flexibility and performance. These tools will allow the Secretary to continue and even improve and increase the good work done by the agency. In particular, I would like to highlight the performance award program and the reforms to the revolving loan fund, RLF, program included in the bill. The performance award program will allow the Secretary to reward those grant recipients who meet or exceed expectations regarding performance measures such as jobs created and private sector investment. The reforms to the RLF program are needed to ensure the agency can continue to capitalize new and recapitalize existing RLFs. The current administrative burden of these funds is large. This bill will allow the Secretary to reduce that burden, both for the agency and for the local RLF managers, while providing appropriate oversight. Enactment of this legislation will be good for my home State of Oklahoma in several ways as well. First, it will ensure that the communities of Elgin and Durant are able to move forward with infrastructure improvements that will support the attraction of private sector investment and the creation of jobs. Enactment will also result in much needed investment in Ottawa County, providing funding for the city of Miami--a city that has suffered economic hardship due to its proximity to a Superfund site. Additionally, the bill preserves the ability of Economic Development Districts to use planning funds to provide technical assistance and cover administrative costs. This is especially important for the small, rural communities of Oklahoma that do not have the resources to maintain the professional and technical capacity needed to develop and implement comprehensive economic development strategies. Economic Development Districts work to fill this hole and should not be prevented from doing so. I would like to thank my colleagues here in the Senate, in the House of Representatives and in the administration for working so diligently and cooperatively with me to complete work on this very important legislation. I would also like to thank the staff for their hard work-- from my staff: Angie Giancarlo and Frank Fannon; from Senator Jeffords' staff: Geoff Brown and Malcolm Woolf; from Senator Bond's staff: Nick Karellas and Ellen Stein; from Senator Reid's staff: David Montes; and from EDA: Nat Wienecke, Paul Pisano, Ben Erulkar and Dennis Alvord.