Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I compliment the senior Senator from Oklahoma. He is doing a great job in handling this most difficult issue. We go through this every year, and I believe we are going to finally get something done tonight. I certainly hope we will and that we will have what we all will be proud of. I can't help but comment. I happened to come in when my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, was leaving the Chamber. It seems as if the argument you hear from the liberal side of this body is the fact that all of this came about as a result of the tax cuts of this administration. I feel compelled to remind this body of the history of these tax cuts. It was not a Republican idea. Ironically, one of the truly great Democrat Presidents of this country, John Kennedy, was the guy who came up with the concept. He said--and this is an exact quote-- We need more revenues to run these programs that we have and the best way to increase revenues is to reduce marginal rates. That was back in the 1960s, and it worked. There is a recognition of the problem we have right now. This administration inherited a recession, and they are coming out of it by having the very tax reductions to add to the amount of revenues coming in. This is going to work. It is working today. If you do not think it does, let us remember what happened back in the 1980s. In the 1980s, the total amount of money that was raised from marginal rates was $244 billion. In the 1990s, it was $466 billion. That was the 10-year period of the largest tax reductions on marginal rates in the history of America. It had the result of increasing--not decreasing-- the amount of revenue. The formula used was for each 1-percent increase in economic activity, it creates $46 billion of new revenues. John F. Kennedy knew that, Ronald Reagan knew that, and we ought to know that today, but we ignore history. Now my friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, is coming up with another one of his favorite tax increases. I have never seen a tax increase he didn't like. But this seems to be one of his favorite ones. We are going to have a big tax increase to vote on in just a few minutes. It is called the Superfund tax. There is a lot of doubletalk. On the one hand, they blame the administration for U.S. job loss and lack of competitiveness. At the same time, they want to impose a tax that expired in 1995 on some of the most fragile industries that are not going to make it. People say reinstating the Superfund tax will be a deficit-reduction- reducing measure. I am not sure that is necessarily true. What you are going to do is drive a lot of people out of business who are already overtaxed. I think if I could single out one argument I find the most offensive--and I hear it as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee over and over and over--every time we have a committee hearing, they talk about ``polluter pay.'' Polluters are paying today. That is the whole concept. When a polluter pollutes, that polluter pays. In fact, historically, PRPs--potentially responsible parties--since Superfund started, the average of all cleanups has been 70 percent in the average year of those cleanups which are cleaned up by industries that have polluted. This is interesting because in 2003, that 70 percent jumped to 80 percent. In other words, all but 13 percent of the cleanups took place and were paid for by the polluters. The antijobs and the protax supporters also ignore the fact that the Superfund tax, on its face, is unfair. It has nothing to do with taxing companies and industries that pollute. If an industry falls into a certain category--say you are going to have your taxes go up. It has nothing to do with whether or not they have ever polluted. In fact, oil and petroleum companies have paid more than 50 percent of the Superfund taxes but were responsible for less than 10 percent of the liability on Superfund sites. That is historically accurate. I would defy anyone to challenge it. As a result, this is an especially unfair tax to American families who have to pay more at the pump. Furthermore, Superfund tax supporters argue that cleanups have slowed down as a result of the amount of money lost from the trust fund. That isn't true at all. In fact, we had testimony in our hearings this last week that there is not a correlation between the amount of money in the Superfund reserve and the amount of cleanup. In 1996, the tax fund was at its highest level. Yet the amount spent by the Clinton administration in 1996 for Superfund cleanup was at a 10-year low. This year's Superfund budget request is around $1.4 billion. But wait a minute. Let us look at what they are proposing. In this amendment, they propose an $8.5 billion tax increase. This is the same thing we went through, by the way, last year. There has never been a correlation between the amount of money raised by a tax and the amount of money that has been spent. For those who are responsible for contamination, they are already being held liable for cleanup costs under Superfund. No one is getting let off the hook, and I will challenge right now the other side to name one viable polluter who is not being held accountable for the Superfund contamination they caused. Here we are again with the same amendment. We have had it several times before. Senator Lautenberg danced this thing out again. We beat it the last time 57 to 43. I will be down here to remind people how they voted before. They will forget. I honestly believe the only issue here is if you want to increase taxes on the American people by $8.5 billion in one vote, this is your opportunity to do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Senator Bingaman and I have an amendment that has been agreed to on both sides. I call up amendment No. 2823 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this amendment addresses the Energy Savings Performance Contract Program. It is a program that costs no money. It is all paid for by the savings that are accumulated. This has been cleared on both sides. Everyone is for it. I can't find anyone who is against it. The problem arose when CBO started scoring this after not having scored it. By its very nature, it will not cost any money.

Mr. INHOFE. There is no cost to it. This is the Energy Savings Performance Contract Program that allows a company to go into an Air Force base to show them how they can, through energy savings, save $2 or $3 million a year. Then they are compensated from the savings, and from that point forward it goes back to the recipient. There is no cost.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is very important everyone knows this is nothing but a huge tax increase on businesses, on industries. Many of them are very frail at this time. They have nothing to do with pollution. Polluters-pay is happening right now. Since the inception of this program, 70 percent of the sites have been cleaned up and paid for by people who polluted. Last year, it was 87 percent. Where there is a polluter that can be found, that polluter pays. That system is working. If you have to have an $8.5 billion tax increase on various businesses--and right now we have businesses going out of business-- then this is your opportunity to do it. This is a huge tax increase, $8.5 billion. We do not need it, and it is unfair. By the way, we resoundingly defeated this amendment several times before. The last vote was 57 to 43. Many Democrats voted with us in voting against this tax increase. I encourage them to do the same now.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Life at Conception Act. This bill is of utmost importance to future generations in America. Quite simply, it implements equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution for every born and pre-born person. It protects Americans' right to life by defining the term ``human person'' as an individual at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of conception. The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment grants that no ``state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'' Furthermore, it grants ``Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.'' It is time that we, the Congress, start enforcing this provision, start defending the Constitution, and start defending American lives. Even the Justices in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision conceded this point by making the admission: ``If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [Roe], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.'' Our Constitution is designed to protect the rights of all Americans, and give them the right to live and succeed. Right now, significant portions of Americans, who have no voice, are being killed, despite the explicit protections in the Fourteenth Amendment. Since 1973, more than 44 million babies have been sentenced to death without trial. We cannot tolerate this atrocity. Additionally, a 1999 Wirthlin poll found that 62 percent of Americans support legal abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger. How can we stand by and let so many children die even when public opinion is on our side? It is our role as legislators to uphold and enforce the Constitution, and it is our role as humans to defend those who cannot defend themselves. I urge my colleagues to follow their conscience, support this bill, and do what is right for America and for humanity.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I think everything I would have said has been said by our chairman, Senator Warner. We have 325,000 troops scattered around 120 different countries. I chaired the Subcommittee on Readiness for a number of years. That was during the 1990s when we were making cuts in our defense across the board in terms of end strength, in terms of numbers of divisions and numbers of tactical air wings, in terms of the numbers of ships, in terms of modernization, and in terms of readiness. It was very disturbing during that time. I was outspoken at that time that we might be going too far. Recently we went through this thing of not having adequate body armor. Of course, the Army, in this case, responded with our help and we are able to say now they are taken care of adequately. In modernization, we are going into the future combat system. We were delayed in the 1990s. Now things are getting back on track. However, we often say we want our troops, our men and women in uniform, to have the very best of equipment and the best support. Quite frankly, we don't have as good equipment as some of our potential adversaries in the case of our artillery. We are still dealing with World War II technologies when there are five countries that have made a better case than we have. I don't think the American people want our young people going into combat with anything except the best. That is what this is about. We are in a rebuilding mode right now. We are talking about transforming all branches. We are talking about changing the way our troops are stationed around the world. This is going to be expensive. We are in the middle of a war. I strongly support the increases recommended by the chairman, Senator Warner. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Life at Conception Act. This bill is of utmost importance to future generations in America. Quite simply, it implements equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution for every born and pre-born person. It protects Americans' right to life by defining the term ``human person'' as an individual at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of conception. The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment grants that no ``state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'' Furthermore, it grants ``Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.'' It is time that we, the Congress, start enforcing this provision, start defending the Constitution, and start defending American lives. Even the Justices in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision conceded this point by making the admission: ``If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [Roe], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.'' Our Constitution is designed to protect the rights of all Americans, and give them the right to live and succeed. Right now, significant portions of Americans, who have no voice, are being killed, despite the explicit protections in the Fourteenth Amendment. Since 1973, more than 44 million babies have been sentenced to death without trial. We cannot tolerate this atrocity. Additionally, a 1999 Wirthlin poll found that 62 percent of Americans support legal abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger. How can we stand by and let so many children die even when public opinion is on our side? It is our role as legislators to uphold and enforce the Constitution, and it is our role as humans to defend those who cannot defend themselves. I urge my colleagues to follow their conscience, support this bill, and do what is right for America and for humanity.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Let me respond briefly. I did mention the Hartford Courier newspaper that has been aggressive. I knew the Senator was aware of this and actively concerned because his State of Connecticut, which probably is suffering, is in the top three or four States in the United States with problems. I suggest there is a fourth leg of the stool and that is for trial lawyers to get this work out.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I applaud the Senator from Wyoming for recognizing what we need to do for jobs in this country. That is the very thing that turns this economy around. I say to my good friend from Connecticut that it was not a Republican idea; it was a Democratic idea when John Kennedy said the way to increase revenues is to reduce marginal tax rates. That works. That is what is happening now. With this President having inherited a recession which started back in March of 2000, we are now pulling out of it, and we are going to see a dramatic improvement. I have been listening to this talk on job loss and sending jobs overseas. I know my colleagues, Senators Hatch and Bond have spoken about the impact of asbestos litigation on our economy and the need to pass S. 1125 this year. I want to reiterate the enormous loss of jobs our country will suffer and the impact on economic growth if something is not done to resolve this problem. I also want to note a press release from the EPA that says on February 25, several members of Topor Contracting, a demolition and asbestos abatement business in Buffalo, NY, along with the owner of Payco, a pre-demolition asbestos firm in New York, pled guilty to State charges after their firms were involved in the demolition of two buildings in Buffalo, NY. They were charged with falsely stating that asbestos had been removed from the work area. If asbestos is not removed before demolition begins, those working in the area are susceptible to asbestos exposure. We know, when inhaled, asbestos can cause such fatal illnesses as lung cancer and mesothelioma. In another, related civil case, the owners of Topor and Payco were permanently barred from conducting asbestos abatement work in New York State. The New York Area Office of EPA's Criminal Investigation Division, the State of New York and the FBI are appropriately investigating this case. This example shows that asbestos can be controlled appropriately under reasonable law and legal procedures--making excessive lawsuits all the more outrageous. The U.S. Supreme Court has called asbestos litigation an ``elephantine mass . . . that defies customary judicial administration and calls for national legislation.'' Senior U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein has cautioned: If the acceleration of asbestos lawsuits continues unaddressed, it is not impossible that every company with even a remote connection to asbestos may be driven into bankruptcy. Many newspapers and publications have also commented on this crisis and its affects. The Hartford Courant has said: Congress must not let this opportunity pass. The alternative is more chaos, in which additional companies are driven into bankruptcy, thousands of workers lose their jobs and those who suffer from asbestos-related illnesses often wait many years for payments. Georgia Pacific is a company headquartered in Atlanta, and is one of the world's leading manufacturers of tissue, packaging, paper, building products, pulp, and related chemicals. It sells more than $23 billion in products annually and employs about 61,000 people at 400 locations in North America and Europe. It operates three facilities in Oklahoma, including a building products distribution center in Tulsa and a tissue and a paper production plant in Muskogee. It employs more than 1,600 people in Oklahoma. Its operations generate about $76 million in taxable wages each year in Oklahoma alone. Before 1977, the company manufactured gypsum products, which contained asbestos fibers. Since that year, it has not used asbestos in any of its products. Over time, the company as a whole has paid about $629 million to settle over 313,000 asbestos claims. A large portion of these payouts goes to attorneys and to many who aren't actually sick. In fact, about 60 percent of its asbestos claims have been paid to lawyers. Another 20 percent has been paid to people who were not sick. The remaining 20 percent was actually paid to sick people. At the end of 2003, it had over 64,000 pending claims nationally and its payments extended into 2013. Just yesterday I met with another nationwide company, McDermott International, whose power generation division, Babcock and Wilcox has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In the end, the company and its insurers will pay over $1.6 billion to claimants and lawyers. Other companies filing for bankruptcy include Weyerhauser--a national paper product manufacturing company with facilities in Oklahoma, Bethlehem Steel, Harbison Walker, North American Refractories, Owens Corning, W.R. Grace & Co., U.S. Gypsum Co., Kaiser Aluminum, and Halliburton's DII Industries unit. Overall, asbestos litigation has already forced at least 70 companies into bankruptcy--causing the loss of many jobs. According to a report by Joseph Stiglitz in 2002, as many as 60,000 jobs have been lost due to asbestos-related bankruptcies. Employees of these bankrupt companies have seen their 401k's drop by an average of 25 percent. According to a 2002 report from the RAND Institute for Civil Justice--a bipartisan group--in 1982, litigation cost American businesses $1 billion; in 2000, the total cost of litigation rose to $54 billion; in 2002, litigation costs jumped to over $70 billion. Forty-seven States--Hawaii, Rhode Island and North Dakota are the only States that do not have a facility affected by asbestos bankruptcy--have at least one facility affected by asbestos bankruptcy. Workers displaced by asbestos bankruptcies have lost $25,000 to $50,000 in wages. For every 10 jobs lost in asbestos bankruptcy, a community will lose as many as eight additional jobs. If we do not enact legislation this year, economic growth could be reduced by $2.4 billion per year which could prevent 800,000 jobs from being created and a loss of $64 billion in economic growth over a 27-year period. It could cost businesses up to $210 billion to respond to 500,000 to 2.4 million asbestos claims. This legislation will guarantee a fair and generous compensation for victims--those are the ones who are really hurt--and will replace the unpredictable court costs with certainty for victims and businesses. It will provide contingent money if the fund runs short or provide money upfront to get the fund running. It protects the claims if the fund runs dry, and it uses no taxpayers' money. I am not optimistic we will get it passed. There will have to be a wake-up call. Look at what happened a week or so ago. We had the Health for Mothers and Babies Access to Care Act. It was supposed to help get the money to the mothers and babies who need it so much. Trial lawyers won that in the Senate. They got amendments in there that totally destroyed what we were trying to do. The gun liability bill last week. Standing right next to me was the Senator from Idaho, Senator Larry Craig, who has been a hero in this area trying to do something to protect the second amendment rights and to have some type of legislation that would have an effect on reducing the magnitude of lawsuits against gun manufacturers or distributors and in many other areas. With the amendments the trial lawyers were able to get in to protect trial lawyers, it ended up being killed by the very people who introduced it. I am hoping there has been a wake-up call and this will not happen in the case of S. 1125 and we will be able to get this thing passed this year. Every month that goes by, every week that goes by, there are more and more lawsuits. Keep in mind, 60 percent of the money has gone to lawyers and 20 percent has gone to people who have not sustained any types of injuries themselves. With that, I encourage my colleagues to pass S. 1125 as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I understand the Senator's position. Unfortunately, we do not agree on his preferred solution which is why compromise language was developed and the amendment was modified. I will agree with the Senator that the modified amendment was indeed cleared by both the majority and minority sides of the committee. However, as the Senator notes, this modified amendment was inadvertently left out of the manager's package that was approved by the Senate. I commit to fixing this error at the earliest possible opportunity and will work in conference to protect the Senate position on this issue.

Mr. INHOFE. I say to Senator Murray, the agreed upon level for inclusion in the SAFETEA bill for the Ferry Boat Discretionary Program is $120 million per year of which $60 million is provided in contract authority and $60 million is authorized for appropriation.

Mr. INHOFE. I agree with my colleagues that we ought to fully offset the spending that will occur over the next 6 years as a result of the authorizations in the SAFETEA bill. I am committed to working with my colleagues to see that this goal is achieved.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to Bill Pardue, who until recently was the CEO of Lexis Nexis of Dayton, OH, which now owns Dolon Information of Oklahoma City, OK. I have had the privilege of working with Bill and Lexis Nexis on various initiatives to help secure the homeland, and wanted to say a sincere thank you, on behalf of all Americans to Bill, to Lexis-Nexis, and to the thousands of people who make up that fine company.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Nickles and Landrieu, in introducing this bill, which will profoundly impact generations to come. It will clarify who is eligible to become President of the United States of America. The term ``natural born citizen'' as used in the Constitution, would be defined as any person born in the United States, any person born outside the United States to citizen parents, and any foreign-born child adopted by citizen parents. In the absence of a judicial interpretation of constitutional language, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of constitutional terms. In the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress used this ability to define ``natural born'' to include children born abroad to citizen parents. Although this language was not kept in the naturalization laws, the ability of Congress to define this term was not challenged. This bill is intended to further describe the term ``natural born citizen'' as it relates to Presidential qualification. The Framers used this phrase to support the criteria that the President be loyal and faithful to the United States. Children born to military, or State Department parents living abroad have exceeding loyalty to the United States. They should not be punished for their parents' willingness to serve their country abroad. Furthermore, internationally adopted children should not bear this penalty either. In recent years, the number of children adopted by Americans from overseas has grown to more than 20,000. They are considered ``natural issue'' of their adoptive parents and share a similar loyalty to the United States. These children should have the same rights, duties, responsibilities, and privileges as biological children. They should be able to pursue their dreams. About two and a half years ago, my daughter adopted a little girl from Ethiopia. While my granddaughter shares most freedoms granted by the Constitution with her biologically born brothers, including the freedom of speech, the freedom to worship, and the freedom to pursue happiness, she does not have the freedom to pursue any job she wants. Without this interpretation she does not have the freedom to run for President of the United States. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this bill to allow all American citizens, no matter where they are born, an equal opportunity to pursue their dreams, including to run for President of the United States.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Nickles and Landrieu, in introducing this bill, which will profoundly impact generations to come. It will clarify who is eligible to become President of the United States of America. The term ``natural born citizen'' as used in the Constitution, would be defined as any person born in the United States, any person born outside the United States to citizen parents, and any foreign-born child adopted by citizen parents. In the absence of a judicial interpretation of constitutional language, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of constitutional terms. In the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress used this ability to define ``natural born'' to include children born abroad to citizen parents. Although this language was not kept in the naturalization laws, the ability of Congress to define this term was not challenged. This bill is intended to further describe the term ``natural born citizen'' as it relates to Presidential qualification. The Framers used this phrase to support the criteria that the President be loyal and faithful to the United States. Children born to military, or State Department parents living abroad have exceeding loyalty to the United States. They should not be punished for their parents' willingness to serve their country abroad. Furthermore, internationally adopted children should not bear this penalty either. In recent years, the number of children adopted by Americans from overseas has grown to more than 20,000. They are considered ``natural issue'' of their adoptive parents and share a similar loyalty to the United States. These children should have the same rights, duties, responsibilities, and privileges as biological children. They should be able to pursue their dreams. About two and a half years ago, my daughter adopted a little girl from Ethiopia. While my granddaughter shares most freedoms granted by the Constitution with her biologically born brothers, including the freedom of speech, the freedom to worship, and the freedom to pursue happiness, she does not have the freedom to pursue any job she wants. Without this interpretation she does not have the freedom to run for President of the United States. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this bill to allow all American citizens, no matter where they are born, an equal opportunity to pursue their dreams, including to run for President of the United States.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that a cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office to accompany Senate Report 108-222, the committee report to S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, be printed in the Record. The estimate was not available when the report was filed by the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I also agree with my colleagues from California and Nevada that the Golden Gate Bridge is very important for the State. I also support working with the Senator from California in conference to provide funding for the Golden Gate Bridge District.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I am familiar with the proposal and am pleased to be a sponsor of the bill of the senator from New Mexico to designate U.S. 54 as a high priority corridor.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, the Senator is correct. I am aware of the amendment and will do my best to consider including the SPIRIT corridor designation in the conference report on the highway bill.

Mr. INHOFE. I would also like to assure the Senator from Virginia that I concur with the explanation provided by the Senator from Ohio that it is our intent to retain the Overton Park standards as the fundamental legal standards to be applied in determining prudent and feasible alternatives.

Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am going to make this very brief, but I do want to make a comment. This bill that we passed is a good bill. We heard all kinds of criticism. It is always difficult when you are dealing with formulas, but this is the first time in the history of this process that we have done it without going into something such as a minimum guarantee program that is purely political. I would like to have had all the States get up to 95 percent sooner. We just could not make it happen. We have a safety portion of this bill that we never had before. We have environmental streamlining. I would have liked to have gone a lot further on that issue. Hopefully, we will be able to do it. Maybe we can do some good in conference. Nonetheless, we will get a lot more miles, literally, for the dollar than we ever have before. I thank, one more time, Senator Reid, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Bond. We worked very closely together. This certainly was not a partisan effort. I thank our staffs, too. I am going to name my staff: staff director, Andy Wheeler; Ruth Van Mark; Marty Hall; James O'Keeffe; Nathan Richmond; Greg Murrill; Mitch Surrett; Laura Berry; Genevieve Erny; Frank Fannon, Angie Giancarlo; Loyed Gill; Ryan Jackson; Michele Nellenbach; John Shanahan; Jonathan Tolman; Brydon Ross; and Cori Lucero. I say this very sincerely. I know it sounds mundane, but the public should know the hours people work up here on something like this. I am talking about all night long, several nights, and I just applaud them for doing it. I know other staff and Members have worked equally hard, so let me thank all of them for their dedication and the effort. I think we made history in terms of the length of time in which we were able to get a bill of this magnitude passed. I yield the floor.

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