Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Marianne Lamont Horinko who currently serves as the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at the Environmental Protection Agency. Marianne has served our Nation in that post since October 1, 2001, and just a few weeks from now will return to private life and to spend more time with her family. As Assistant Administrator of OSWER, Marianne demonstrated outstanding leadership and has met the unprecedented challenges of a post September 11th America. Ms. Horinko realized the incredible challenges that lay before her just one month after the horrific attacks of that day. Immediately upon assuming office, Marianne refocused the traditional missions of OSWER from waste management and related reclamation work of contaminated sites to emergency response of historic proportions. She led the clean-up effort at Ground Zero in New York City and the Pentagon, a mission that no one could have contemplated before then and still haunts us today. While managing the emergency response of the September 11th destruction, Congress itself was the victim of a cowardly anthrax biological attack. Facing yet another unprecedented event, Marianne led the emergency response and clean up effort not of a Superfund site, but of the Senate office buildings, and ensured that the Capitol community was safe from harm and helping Congress return to doing the work for the Nation. In 2003, as National Program manager, Ms. Horinko oversaw EPA's response to the Columbia Space Shuttle Disaster. Again, Marianne charted a new course for OSWER and crafted the groundbreaking National Approach to Response. Marianne has accepted challenge after challenge head on as Assistant Administrator of OSWER, and assumed responsibility when called upon. Not only did she exceed expectation in that role, but she also performed as acting administrator of the entire Environmental Protection Agency after the resignation of Governor Whitman. Marianne has brought dynamic new approaches to environmental protection using partnerships, flexibility and innovation to create environmental improvements rather than the old command and control systems of the past. The Brownfields program, signed into law by President Bush in 2002, is just one of the many ways that Marianne's results-based leadership led to environmental protection. Marianne Lamont Horinko proved to be one of the most diligent, dynamic, and outstanding leaders in the history of the Environmental Protection Agency. We thank her for her service to our Nation, and wish her all the best in her future pursuits.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Is the Senator aware in the committee that I chair, the Environment and Public Works Committee, we have held several hearings: one on natural gas and the prices being spiked, one on fuel that we burn in our automobiles. We have had witnesses who have documented that we have two primary causes. One is all of these unreasonable environmental regulations these refiners are exposed to, and it directly relates to the cost of energy in this case. And the other is the Energy bill. I say to the Senator, as you point out, we had a good energy bill. The House has a good energy bill. In that energy bill we had the ability to drill for oil in places where we cannot right now that would open up ANWR. If you look at the production in States, such as my State of Oklahoma and your State of New Mexico, the marginal wells--those are wells that produce 15 barrels a day or less--the statistic has never been refuted that if we had all of the marginal wells that have been plugged in the last 10 years flowing today, that would equal more than we are currently importing from Saudi Arabia. So we have a solution to the problem. With all those people crying about the high prices, those are the major reasons we have high prices. I say to the Senator, you are right, we are going to have to have an energy bill to correct this situation. Do you agree?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. All right. Mr. President, I ask that time not be taken away from my time because I feel very awkward about this. The Senator from Alabama talked about spending time with General Jones, which I did over there. I have spent quite a bit of time, and I think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on. I have actually been to Bulgaria and Romania and Ukraine, looking at how we are going to restructure and bring home our troops who are stationed for these 2- and 3-year periods with their families, so we could actually get out there and have short deployments so they would not have to take their families with them. I think General Jones is right on target. That is going to have a tremendous effect on what we do in terms of base closures. I answered a whip check, and I want to correct it right now, so everyone knows that whip check was not worded properly. It said: Would you support defeating a 2-year delay? I would support defeating a 2- year delay for the very reasons that have been outlined here, that we do not want our communities to have to continue to go through that. But if you will remember the debate we had when I vigorously opposed having this fifth round, I used the argument that we are going to be changing our force structure, that we are going to be making changes that might make us relook as to what we are going to do in our installations here in the United States. I was elected to the House in 1986, so I was there during the formulation of the BRAC process. I was a staunch supporter for the first three rounds. For the last one, I did not like the way it went. It became political. I have had the fear that would happen again. We closed some 97 installations in the last four rounds, and that is not only low-hanging fruit; a lot of great installations that were closed. I believe, if this amendment kills it, and it would have to be reauthorized after such time that we know what the restructuring looks like, that I will support this amendment. I am going to find out between now and when the vote takes place if I am correct. But I believe my understanding now is correct. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. This kills it, and it has to be reauthorized; is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. That I realize.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish the Senator from Alabama would stay on the floor for a minute. First of all, I direct this statement to my chairman, whom I deeply respect. There are three amendments floating around right now. There is a lot of confusion as to which one we are voting on now. I say to the Senator, your statement, the statement from the Senator from Virginia, and the Senator from Alabama, if, in fact, this is a 2- year delay, I would agree wholeheartedly. For all the lobbyists in there--and I have five major installations in my State of Oklahoma--if this is a 2-year delay, as I have said publicly before, and as I said as recently as our policy meeting, I would say let's go ahead and do it, and do it now. It is my understanding--and I would certainly yield to anyone who disagrees with this--this is killing this BRAC round; that if it should become necessary to have it, you would have to reauthorize it in 2007. That is now my understanding. It is not a delay. This is not the House language. I would like to ask if there is anyone who would correct me. If I am wrong, I need to know it. Apparently, I am not. Let me ask the author of the amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak after the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, under a unanimous consent agreement, I am to be recognized, so I do have the floor now, but I will yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. INHOFE. No. That is fine. I want to be sure I keep my UC in place. I do not want to lose it.

Mr. INHOFE. I will be glad to let you go first.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent our Air Force fellow, Mr. Lee Erickson, be given floor privileges during consideration of the bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio and I know something about unfunded mandates, as does the Chair. It keeps creeping up, and we are making every effort in the committee that I chair and the subcommittee the Senator from Ohio chairs to try to resolve that problem. I think maybe we will because we have the right people in line to do it. I may not agree with the Senator from Ohio on this particular issue, but I certainly do on unfunded mandates. I just found out that the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, has filed an amendment that is a slimmed-down version of the Energy bill. I just have to stake out a position early because it is my understanding that the safe harbor language that was in H.R. 6 that is so fair and so necessary is not a part of the slimmed-down version. If it is not in the bill, I am not going to be able to support the bill. I will do everything I can for the Senator from New Mexico, but this is very serious. The bill should permit that manufacturers, producers, marketers, traders and distributors of gasoline containing federally approved oxygenate MTBE cannot be sued under a claim that it is a defective product. The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 created the reformulated gas. The reformulated gas program said they had to use oxygenates. The most prevalent oxygenate to be used in these reformulated gases is MTBE. In fact, EPA specifically approved MTBE for this purpose. Here is the situation we have: We have the Government coming along and saying, You are going to have to use MTBE. For all practical purposes, they have said this, they have mandated it. Then they turn around and say, We are going to let the trial lawyers in to sue you because maybe this substance which we approved, which we endorsed, is causing harm to someone. It is very important to understand that the safe harbor provision is necessary to prevent the trial lawyers from using the court system to punish companies for simply complying with the Federal law by using a federally approved additive. The safe harbor is narrowly targeted and does not affect any claim against any person or any company actually responsible for spilling gasoline containing MTBE. That is very important because I keep hearing on this Senate floor: You let all these people off the hook who are spilling and polluting. That is not true at all. It is very narrowly defined. Since September 30, 2003, in anticipation of the Energy bill, trial lawyers, including many known for the work they have done and the wealth they have accumulated in asbestos litigation, have as of March 25 brought over 60 groundwater contamination lawsuits in 17 States seeking damages from over 169 different named companies that allegedly manufactured, sold, or transported gasoline containing the federally approved fuel additive called MTBE. One of those companies is Frontier Oil. They have been sued. They have never produced MTBE. They have never used it. They blended MTBE. But they are one of the companies being sued. The lawsuits do not allege defendants actually leaked or spilled gasoline containing MTBE that allegedly contaminated their groundwater. The lawsuits do not even name the actual polluters. Instead, the cases target any company that at any time may have distributed or sold gasoline containing MTBE or even some, as I just cited, that did not. Defendants are vigorously defending these cases and will incur millions of dollars in legal fees and expenses simply for having made or sold gasoline containing a fuel additive specifically approved for use by Congress and the EPA. I believe it is necessary to stake out this position. I cannot think of a fairness issue with which we have dealt that is more significantly addressed than this one. Government comes along and says you have to use this stuff; then they come along later and say there is something wrong with it and we are not going to offer you any defense at all--any defense. We are talking about huge multimillion-dollar lawsuits. In the event this language does not end up in the legislation of the slimmed-down bill, I will have to oppose it. I cannot conscientiously support an energy bill that leaves everybody out to dry, particularly in the MTBE case. That is my position. I think there are many others who share that position of fairness in dealing with this bill. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Members of Congress, it is not often we have an opportunity to recognize a senior executive in the United States Government as a leader, loyal soldier and a patriot. Ben H. Bell III epitomizes these traits after dedicating his adult life to serving this great country in several impressive capacities. Ben protected and defended our Nation during his 21 years as an officer and leader in the Marine Corps. He safeguarded our borders for 9 years, holding his last position as Assistant Commissioner for Intelligence with the Department of Immigration and Naturalization Services. For the next 2 years, Ben helped design the Foreign Terrorism Tracking Task Force just after 9/11 under Presidential directive and direction from the Attorney General. Soon after, Secretary Mineta and Deputy Secretary ADM James Loy recruited Mr. Bell to establish and lead this Nation's first Office of National Risk Assessment, ONRA. This congressionally mandated office and its mission define our Nation's newly emerging need to manage and mitigate extreme risk for the protection of our homeland from terrorism. It is through great dedication, unconditional loyalty, leadership, and passion that Ben H. Bell III has protected and defended our way of life every day without ever giving it a second thought. On behalf of my colleagues in Congress and myself, we thank you, congratulate you, and salute you on such an accomplished and dynamic career.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. A couple years ago, I read a series of articles in the Sacramento Bee highlighting the facade of many environmental groups. The article made the point that today's environmental groups, like NRDC, are more about their own prosperity than environmental protection. I still have those articles in my office. I thought one particular quote was especially fitting. The author wrote of environmental groups: Competition for money and members is keen. Litigation is blood sport. Crises, real or not, is a commodity, and slogans and sound bites masquerade as scientific fact. That quote was written in 2001. It is still more true today in 2004. But it is not something new. That quote captures the way NRDC and its cohorts have been doing business for years. They should be responsible. They should be truthful. This type of activity goes beyond what the NRDC does with Federal tax dollars, but I intend to explore what NRDC and groups like it are also publishing and the extent of the rampant false claims made by these groups the American taxpayers help to fund each year. We are not going to allow this to continue. They are getting into the types of discretionary grants we are dealing with through the EPA and other agencies. It is shameful that it is going on. We are now in a position, with the committee I chair, to do something about it. We intend to do that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have to admit that I do not read the New York Times cover to cover each day. But from time to time, items in that paper do catch my attention. For instance, when a group runs a full- page advertisement, one cannot help but at least glance at the ad. A couple weeks ago, one such advertisement caught my attention. It was a full-page advertisement placed in the New York Times by two special interest groups: the Natural Resources Defense Council and Moveon.org. These two special interest groups are especially vocal and devoted solely to disparaging the environmental record of the Bush administration. I have an enlarged version of that advertisement that ran in the New York Times. It is chart 1. As you can see, it states, in large print: ``First Arsenic, Now Mercury.'' It has pictures of President Bush alongside a powerplant billowing with smoke. The ad makes such claims as: the President's policies are the source for mercury contamination in fish and that the President is simply following the wishes of industry contributors. The ad makes direct statements such as: ``So why is President Bush trying to weaken controls on mercury pollution?'' I am chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, so this ad was of particular interest to me for at least a couple reasons. To anyone reading this advertisement, the reader would naturally assume there must be some already existing controls on mercury emissions from powerplants because the ad explicitly claims that President Bush is trying to weaken those controls. How can you weaken controls if there are no controls to start with? So it is assuming there are controls existing. This claim is completely false. I believe this chart demonstrates that. The NRDC's lobbying claim is that the President is weakening controls on mercury emissions from powerplants. The facts, however, are very different. On December 15, 2003, this President proposed the first ever controls on mercury emissions from utilities. Now, keep in mind, there were no controls before, none whatsoever. How can you weaken controls if there are no controls there? The Clinton administration had 8 years to propose such controls and did not. In nearly 3,000 days as EPA Administrator, how many mercury regulations on powerplants did former EPA Administrator Carol Browner issue? Zero. Instead, in the last month of the eighth year of the Clinton administration, Carol Browner deftly handed a regulatory lemon to the Bush administration that she was unwilling to impose during the Clinton administration. What a courageous move. I am very proud that President Bush and his EPA Administrator, Mike Leavitt, have shown leadership where President Clinton and Carol Browner fumbled and failed. In fact, Administrator Leavitt testified before the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air in a hearing on April 1, 2004. In questioning, the Administrator ably drew the line between fact and fiction regarding the President's proposals regulating mercury from powerplants. I want to read to you one of his quotes. The Administrator explained: One fiction is that the EPA does not view mercury as a toxin. The fact is mercury is a toxin and it needs to be reduced. Another fiction is that somehow the agency is seeking the Administration to roll back standards. The fact is there has never been a standard, this will be the first time that we will have regulated mercury from power plants in our Nation's history and we want to do it right. Now, that is what Administrator Leavitt said, reemphasizing there has been no regulation on mercury. Why shouldn't we propose the right mercury rule based on sound science? There are no existing control standards for utility mercury emissions, so how can President Bush weaken a control standard for mercury that does not exist? That simply does not make sense. The NRDC has been a prominent national special interest group for many years. So why would the NRDC run such an ad that is completely false? I believe the answer to that question leads me to the second reason this ad was of particular interest to me. I had this advertisement enlarged to highlight one particular part of it. Keep in mind, this was a full-page ad that cost, as I understand it, around $110,000 for 1 day. This is what was on the bottom, if you will notice the perforated block at the end of the full-page ad circled in red. I especially wanted to highlight this portion of the ad pictured on the chart because this block is the reason why this ad ran. This perforated block is a contribution form. The contribution form states: Yes, I want to join the Natural Resources Defense Council and help thwart President Bush's plan to weaken controls on toxic mercury. This is the most important part: Here is my tax deductible gift of $ [blank]. The form further states to ``make your check payable to the NRDC and mail it to the NRDC mercury campaign.'' I believe it is bad enough to run a false advertisement, but to solicit charitable contributions based on that false advertisement is especially troubling. The New York Times is widely distributed in my home State of Oklahoma, as it is throughout the rest of the country. It would be very disturbing to learn that based on a false ad, people are scared into contributing. For the past several years, my State of Oklahoma has been rated in the top 25 percent of States for charitable contributions per gross income. It would greatly trouble me if even one of these contributors was misled by any charitable solicitation. The Council for Better Business Bureaus, a national organization, compiles a Wise Giving Alliance report authorizing a seal of approval to charities that meet the organization's standards. One of the standards the council has established to measure charities deals with solicitations by those charities. Part C of those standards states the following: 1. Solicitations and informational materials, distributed by any means, shall be accurate, truthful and not misleading, both in whole and in part. 2. Soliciting organizations shall substantiate on request that solicitations and informational materials, distributed by any means, are accurate, truthful and not misleading in whole or in part. The NRDC, describing itself as a charity, should substantiate this false advertisement. The President has proposed the first controls on mercury emissions from powerplants, the first ever. The Better Business Bureau should hold the NRDC accountable for their purposefully misleading statements. However, NRDC's irresponsibility is sanctionable in other manners as well. Solicitations by charitable organizations are regulated in part by Federal statutes and case law. However, the solicitation of charitable contributions is mainly regulated by individual State law, and violations of solicitation statutes can be prosecuted under state law. Solicitation by charitable organizations is strictly regulated against fraud and misleading advertisement under the Oklahoma statutes. Oklahoma State law reads in relevant part: Any person [or organization] who attempts to solicit any contribution as a charitable organization by means of knowingly false or misleading advertisement shall lose its status as a tax exempt organization and upon conviction be guilty of a felony. This criminal liability extends to all officers and agents of the charity involved in the solicitation. We take this very seriously in Oklahoma. At least 40 other States have just as strict statutes against soliciting contributions by misleading advertising. Arguably this ad by NRDC may be unlawful in as many as 40 other States that also have charitable solicitation statutes. This advertisement by the NRDC and MoveOn.org explicitly states the President is weakening mercury standards while they are trying to swindle contributions from people all across the country who may see this advertisement. I don't know what else this ad represents, but specifically NRDC, which describes itself as a charitable organization on its Web site, soliciting contributions by making knowingly false statements to cheat people out of contributions--in Oklahoma, that could make you a felon. The most shocking part of this is not even that NRDC is running a completely false ad or NRDC is running a completely false ad simply to fleece people for contributions; the most shocking part is the American taxpayer subsidizes the NRDC hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to conduct this type of activity. Public IRS records for the last several years demonstrate NRDC regularly receives thousands of Federal grant dollars each year. In 2002, the NRDC received more than a half million dollars in government grants. In 2003, the NRDC was additionally awarded more than half a million dollars again in government grants. The cycle continues year after year after year. The Environment and Public Works Committee has oversight jurisdiction over several Federal agencies. I believe my committee has the obligation to ensure Federal funds allocated to these agencies are used responsibly. One agency in particular under the jurisdiction of the committee I chair, the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, is the Environmental Protection Agency. The committee has the responsibility to assure American taxpayers their money is going toward accomplishing the EPA's mission of protecting human health and the environment. On March 3, my committee held its first hearing into the matter in which EPA allocates grants each year. The EPA is a granting agency, allocating more than half of its $8 billion annual budget in grants to State, local, tribal governments, educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, and a variety of other recipients. I announced at the hearing the committee was going to take its oversight responsibilities seriously in regard to grants management, and I intend to take this responsibility seriously until real changes are made in grants management. The committee heard testimony of problems with grants management. I am confident we will begin to make real changes with the leadership of the Bush administration and Administrator Leavitt. However, the NRDC, for example, has made it a matter of doing business to apply for Federal grant awards that I believe help subsidize it to run ads such as this one. It costs more than $110,000 a day to run a full-page ad in the New York Times. The NRDC and MoveOn.org are spending thousands of dollars to purposely misrepresent the Bush environmental record and scare people into contributing based on those false representations. I am announcing that I am sending letters today to the two largest judicial jurisdictions in Oklahoma and requesting those district attorneys to investigate the legality of this advertisement in Oklahoma. I am also sending a letter to the Better Business Bureau requesting that organization to more carefully consider this false advertisement in their rating of the NRDC in awarding their Wise Giving Alliance seal and ask that it formally request NRDC to substantiate its baseless claim. I ask unanimous consent that all three letters be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today as consumers in America-- businesses and farmers and families--are facing gasoline prices at a record high. Prices for natural gas, which is used to heat our homes and workplaces, have gone through the roof. In fact, I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee, and we had a hearing this week on the crisis we are facing, and that is our farmers are having to pay twice as much as they did 6 months ago because of the skyrocketing costs of natural gas. And all of this is due to the fact we have a lot of the far-left environmental groups trying to keep us from being able to produce more oil and gas, and it is a crisis. It is a crisis, as we pointed out in this committee hearing. Unfortunately, due to obstructionist tactics led by the radical environmental groups, bipartisan energy policy legislation continues to just be out of grasp of passage in the Congress. Yesterday, those who are against domestic energy production and in favor of higher costing energy prices plaguing us today were given a boost by the presumptive Democrat for President who said in a speech in San Diego, CA: We need a new direction on energy policy. And went on to lay blame for the high cost of gas on the Bush administration, while attempting to put forth an energy plan of his own. Rather than advance a policy actually related to our Nation's energy needs and supplies, the Senator consistently suggested policies that would increase cost to consumers, that would consistently increase cost to businesses, that would consistently undermine our economy and force high-paying manufacturing jobs overseas. We have seen this taking place. It is taking place today. I heard our very eloquent junior Senator from Ohio talk about the number of jobs they have lost in the State of Ohio just for this reason. His statements about the Bush administration are incorrect. One of the first proposals the Bush administration made was a comprehensive energy plan in 2001 that would increase domestic energy supplies and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy. Congress took up legislation and incorporated many aspects of the President's plan, and I note that the Senator who finds it easier to criticize than do was nowhere to be found when the bipartisan Energy bill, H.R. 6, was debated and passed by the Senate by a vote of 84 to 14 on July 13, 2003. It intrigues me that this issue is important enough for the Member to take time to discuss it out of his busy campaign schedule, but not important enough for him to be present and vote on the bipartisan legislation that was brought before this body. In fact, to my recollection, the junior Senator from Massachusetts, prior to yesterday, never once proposed comprehensive energy legislation during his 19 years in the Senate. What we heard from San Diego yesterday was really less of an energy policy for the Nation and more of a checklist of how to increase energy costs to consumers. I am not surprised at that fact since it is clear from his voting record over the last many Congresses that affordable domestically produced energy was far from a priority of the Senator. His claim yesterday to aggressively develop domestic oil and gas supplies does not seem genuine to me as he has no specific plan to do so and has spent a lot of his time stopping us and this country from being able to explore such areas as ANWR and offshore that would allow us to be energy independent. Let me be perfectly fair. This goes back a number of years. I can remember even back during the Reagan administration making talks about the fact at that time we were 35 percent dependent on foreign countries for our ability to fight a war. And yet now it is closer to 60 percent. So there we are only 2,000 acres of ANWR's Coastal Plain, about the size of Dulles Airport, for oil exploration and development; 2,000 acres that could provide the United States with enough oil to replace imports from Saudi Arabia for the next 30 years. But actually, as the junior Senator from Massachusetts proposes to solve the energy crisis, for one he is going against his own advice and now calling for President Bush to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a move that would threaten our national security without any benefit. We know from recent history that releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would have no impact on gasoline prices. On September 22, 2000, former President Clinton released 30 million barrels of oil from our strategic stockpiles. The effect, according to Energy Information Administration, was 1 penny savings per gallon of gasoline. So that does not work. It makes good conversation, it sounds good, but we know it does not work, and he knows it, too. During that time, the junior Senator from Massachusetts stated himself that a release is not relevant. It would take months for the oil to get to the market, he said. Now he has flip-flopped and it is the cornerstone of an energy plan more about politics than meeting the real needs for American families and businesses. Even experts such as the Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former Carter Energy Secretary James Schlesinger, and other top energy officials have warned for years that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve should not be used as a market management scheme. It is there for national security. I think we all understand that. Further, it is important to note while we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we do not release our strategically held resources to fit political whims but should only do it to address a major supply disruption, such as political instability from a source nation, which is highly likely, and I think we understand that situation. The relative instability of supply nations is well known. Our Strategic Petroleum Reserve is our Nation's buffer, a safety net. The junior Senator from Massachusetts would have us squander our Nation's strategic reserves for his political gain, forcing our country into a far weaker position. The presumptive Democrat nominee's call to release oil from our strategic reserves is also surprising to me because what he is really calling for is to increase our domestic supplies. Experts agree that one of the principal reasons that our Nation was able to weather the oil embargo of the 1970s was largely because new supplies were coming online from Prudhoe Bay, AK. Yet, as I said before, the Senator staunchly opposes developing oil from the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. The policy of the junior Senator from Massachusetts seems to be: Let us use our strategic reserves but not have any more oil to replenish them. The Senator is also quick to praise himself for his foreign policy experience. Yet that experience must not have translated to the energy sector. Oil is a global commodity; therefore, the world market must be considered. What has happened in the global market? China's increased demand for oil has constrained world oil supplies which have only been exacerbated by OPEC's recent reduction restrictions. We should also note that another key component of the Senator's plan to address our Nation's high gasoline prices is for the administration to get tough with or jawbone OPEC, the implication being that President Bush is not advocating America's interest, that he is too soft. The foreign policy of the junior Senator from Massachusetts is interesting on this point. On one hand he criticized the President for not kowtowing to the United Nations and countries such as France in the war on terrorism and on the other hand suggests that the administration is too soft on oil-producing nations. You cannot have it both ways. In addition, the Senator has been a supporter of drastic climate change legislation that would cripple our economy and legislation that would literally shut down powerplants in the United States, the outcome of which would send hundreds of thousands of American jobs overseas and seriously stress our supply of energy. It was the Wharton Econometrics Survey that came out with the conclusion that if we signed on to the Kyoto Treaty, it would cost 1.4 million jobs--that is what we are talking about today: jobs--it would double the price of energy, it would cost an increase of 65 cents a gallon on gasoline, and it would cost the average family of four $2,700 a year. That is not Jim Inhofe talking; that is what came from the Wharton School of Economics. In addition, the Senator has been a supporter of drastic climate change legislation that we have talked about that would be disastrous for this country. Again, since the Senator has not developed an energy policy before and failed to show up for the Energy bill vote, I must look to his words and not his actions to determine what is the intent of his energy policy. The Senator's recommended energy and environmental policy seems to be tainted with an overriding intent to impose his utopian view of the future without any consideration on present reality at any cost. The junior Senator from Massachusetts makes nonhydropower renewable energy a cornerstone of his energy policy. Again, however, we must look to the Senator's words on the matter and not his deeds. Last year's energy bill renewed a tax credit for wind and solar energy, a credit that expired on December 31. The Senator failed to show up for the crucial vote and the tax credit died. Prior to that vote, Randall Swisher of the American Wind Energy Association said: If the energy bill dies, extension of the wind production tax credit will also die for any time in the foreseeable future. Swisher and many in the industry contend the credit is essential to maintaining their businesses. He said: If we weren't in the bill, the credit that is the foundation of our industry was going to expire and with it our industry would expire. So, yes, it was important for them to see the energy bill move forward. President Bush recognizes the valuable contribution renewables can play in our Nation's energy mix. The President dedicated $1.7 billion over 5 years to develop hydrogen fuel cells and related technologies. In 2005, in his budget, it includes $228 million for a hydrogen fuel initiative, an increase of $69 million, or 43 percent, over the 2004 funding to develop the technologies to produce, store, and distribute hydrogen for the use of fuel cell vehicles, electricity generation, and other applications. The 2005 budget proposes tax incentives totaling $4.1 billion through 2009 to spur the use of clean, renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies. President Bush's plan invests in the future. He wisely recognizes nonhydropower renewable energy represents only about 1 percent of our Nation's energy mix. The Senator, on the other hand, would mandate 20 percent of our Nation's electricity be generated with those very same renewable sources by 2020. In 2003, DOE's Energy Information Administration concluded a 10- percent mandate could cost Americans more than $100 billion. However, the effect would likely be far more severe in certain regions of the country where ``not in my backyard'' and the risks seem to drive policy without regard to fixed and low-income residents. The fact is wind energy, the most cost-effective renewable, is only effective when the wind blows. We already know where the rich elite stand on developing wind turbines off the coast of Cape Code in the Senator's home State of Massachusetts. The presumptive Democrat nominee also supports legislation that would cap carbon dioxide under pollution-reducing bills as well as under the auspices of global climate change. Again, the Senator seeks to impose his utopian world view on people without bothering to consider our Nation's energy makeup, or more likely he is but does not seem to care. Drastic carbon dioxide reduction strategies the Senator supports would effectively force coal out of use. I think we all understand that. Coal right now, whether the junior Senator from Massachusetts and his special interest radical supporters like it or not, makes up one- quarter of our country's energy mix. Recently, it has been reported the junior Senator from Massachusetts supported a 50-cent per gallon tax on gasoline. The effects of such a tax on our country are obvious. However, I think it is important to note such a tax is another example of the Senator's overriding opposition to fossil fuels and his blind and unwavering support for nonhydropower renewables without regard to the state of our Nation's actual energy mix. Nonhydropower renewable energy is a wonderful concept and with the administration's investments in developing technology, I am confident its use will increase considerably. However, today it is too costly, which leads me back to the Senator's overriding intent behind his suggested energy policies. The presumptive Democrat nominee and his radical environmental group supporters also recognize renewables are not cost competitive compared with traditional energy sources today. Their answer: Embark on a strategy to make fossil fuel use so expensive and burdened with regulations that nonhydropower renewables suddenly become more cost effective by comparison. Let's recap a few of the highlights of the recommendations of the junior Senator from Massachusetts. No. 1, empty the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. No. 2, do not produce domestic oil. No. 3, impose a tax on gasoline, some 50 cents a gallon. No. 4, impose a mandate increasing nonhydropower renewable energies from 1 percent to 20 percent in 15 years. No. 5, restrict carbon dioxide emissions, which translates to reducing U.S. economic production. The Senator's energy policy is certainly bold, if nothing else. It is just that the Senator's utopian view of the future ignores our very real present. Like his radical special interest supporters, the Senator's energy policies would increase costs on American consumers, disproportionately affect the low and fixed-income taxpayers, and drastically undermine the ability to compete in the global market. If this were not a Presidential election year and we were asked to judge a man not on his words but on his actions, we would in large measure know what the Senator's energy policy would be: Do nothing but make speeches. Some may scoff at what I am saying. We all know the Senator was too busy campaigning to do the job his constituents elected him to do and the job American taxpayers have paid him to do. Instead of actually doing some work and crafting an energy policy, the junior Senator from Massachusetts chooses to make outrageous allegations from the comfort of multimillion-dollar mansions in Beverly Hills. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I was asked a question, and I would like to answer the question.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Collison be given floor privileges for the remainder of this day.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. May I respond? There is no cost to this program, because no public dollars are involved. It is where someone goes in and finds ways to save energy and, if they are successful in doing that, they merely pay the money back. The Government doesn't get involved at all in the program. So there is no cost.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, several analyses of the water infrastructure funding gap have been released. The analyses show gaps ranging from $3 billion a year to $23 billion a year. Regardless of which number one chooses, the evidence is mounting that we as a nation are not investing enough in the infrastructure that provides Americans with clean and safe water. Much of that gap is due to the rising cost municipalities must incur to meet ever-growing Federal regulations. Regulations that are kicking in at a time when many treatment plants are exceeding their expected life time. Clearly, if the Federal Government is going to continue imposing insurmountable costs on our towns, it must be willing to put forth a fair share of the money. As the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am working with two of the sponsors of this amendment, Senator Jeffords and Crapo, to craft a water infrastructure bill. One thing that we have had in common throughout these negotiations is a belief that more money is needed. I was very pleased to see that the budget committee restored the funding cut to the clear water SRF. However, cutting or even level funding the program is not the answer. We simply must find a way to provide more resources to these programs, fulfill our obligations and then allow the States to run their programs without further Federal contributions, as Congress always intended. While I very much support my colleagues' efforts to get more money for these programs, I have not yet settled on what I believe is the appropriate level. I am supporting this amendment in concept and urge my colleagues to also vote yes. As chairman of the EPW Committee, I assure my colleagues that we are on the verge of a true crisis. I support the Crapo-Jeffords amendment.