Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, I reextend my appreciation to the Senator from Nevada for all the help he has been. His expertise is well known in this Chamber, and he has been on the opposite side of me probably more than on my side. I like it this way better. I would like to amplify a couple things Senator Reid talked about. I think it is significant, when you talk about where we are now relative to where we were in TEA-21, the last 6-year reauthorization. Our average is 35.6 percent higher. The average State is higher than it was in TEA-21. In the comments he made about a computer run, I know this is kind of complicated to explain to people because it is the only way I think you can come up with something that is very fair. Prior to this, in previous years under TEA-21, we had the 1104 table which was a minimum guarantee. That was a percentage that each State had that was a percentage of the total growth. It was purely politically driven. I don't like the way some of these things come out of the computer. But when this came out, I agreed with Senator Reid, there is not a better way of doing it. I will give an example. I was talking to one of the Senators from Pennsylvania who was complaining about perhaps not getting the share they should have gotten. So I did a comparison. My State of Oklahoma--I hope no one from Oklahoma is listening right now--is 70,000 square miles. Pennsylvania is 46,000 square miles. My State of Oklahoma has a population of 3.5 million. They have 12.2 million. The historic rate of return since we came in to the first bill, through Senator Moynihan, has been .87 percent. Pennsylvania has been 1.16 percent. This is the key: the total miles. Unfortunately, I don't have this less toll roads, but I will explain the difference. If you take the total amount of miles in my State of Oklahoma, it is 112,000 miles. The total number of miles in Pennsylvania is 119,500 miles, but that includes toll roads. We all know Pennsylvania has a lot of toll roads. So when you take them out, I am quite sure the number of miles we refer to in this legislation would be more than Pennsylvania. And yet if you look back historically, in 1998, Oklahoma received $351 million; Pennsylvania $1.16 billion. In 1999, Oklahoma received $413 million; $1.3 billion for Pennsylvania. It goes on consistent with that. What I am saying is, even under the formula we are looking at right now, Pennsylvania is getting back about three times the amount. Again, there are other factors. I am sure we will be talking about those from State to State. But it shows it is very difficult to come up with something that is fair. There is not one State that will not be able to go back to their people and say how well their State is doing under this. I don't sound like a conservative Republican when I am talking this way, but this is one area where conservatives believe Government has a function, a strong role, and that is to build infrastructure. We have not been doing a good job of it. I know this because I spent 8 years in the other body. During that time, I was on the committee called Public Works and Transportation. It is strictly transportation, not like EPW, which is environment, all the regulatory agencies, and transportation. So it is just about half the jurisdiction. But during that time, we watched what was going on, and I was right on top of it. When I came over to this body in 1994, I became chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee. I kind of left the transportation part. When we came back and I became chairman of the Transportation Infrastructure Subcommittee, all of a sudden I realized what had happened in the 4 years I had been detached from transportation. When you talk about the number of vehicles that are traveling, the number of trucks, the number of congestive stops, where you have to sit and idle your engine--we are handling all of these things in this bill. I think during that 4-year period we did a bad job. We didn't do what we should have done. Quite frankly, in 1998, I wasn't real happy that we weren't really meeting the problem. A computer run is tough. You have to consider that some States are fast growing States, such as Nevada, big States such as California, Florida, Texas, and some of them would be complaining that they are not doing too well. It is because you have to have a ceiling, a growth ceiling. If you have a growth ceiling and they are getting back an inordinate amount of money, it bumps into that ceiling. At the same time, you have donor and donee States. If you take Texas and Pennsylvania, both of which might argue they are not treated fairly, if you make a change in one, it is making an adverse change in the other. I think we have to say we have done a good job when you look at this. One thing I think is important to talk about is the public views. I think the general feeling is that we spend too much money in Washington, and I think we do. But when it comes to their views on transportation investment, it is totally different. In January, last month of this year, Zogby International conducted interviews of a thousand likely voters chosen at random nationwide. That is a pretty big sampling, as those of us know who read these polls. It is about twice the size of the average poll. Eighty-seven percent of those interviewed said the Nation's highway and public transit network is very important to the Nation's economy; 83 percent agreed that President Bush and Congress should do more to help create jobs for those Americans who want to work, even though the latest Government statistics suggest that the U.S. economy is rebounding; 69 percent favored boosting Federal spending on transportation projects during 2004, and that is significant--69 percent of the Americans favor boosting the amount of money of Federal spending on transportation projects during 2004 as part of the transportation or jobs creation initiative, as well as part of the transportation needs and infrastructure needs. I think that is very significant. According to the same pollster, that is how nearly 70 percent of American voters responded. In a survey they conducted a year before, they said they believe America is facing a transportation capacity crisis. That is what I was saying we were observing a year ago--that our Nation's roads, airports, and mass transit systems are struggling to handle a growing population economy. Fifty-six percent overall, and 79 percent of young women with children, said traffic congestion is depriving them of more time with their families or for leisure activities than it did just 5 years ago. That is significant. These are social problems that exist because we are not doing an adequate job. These answers should not surprise anyone. It says that, since 1982, the U.S. population has grown almost 19 percent, the number of registered motor vehicles has increased by 36 percent, and vehicle miles traveled has ballooned 72 percent. Surprise, over the past 20 years, we have added less than 5 percent to road capacity and even less than that to public transit. So we added even 5 percent less to road capacity in spite of the fact that the population has grown 19 percent and the motor vehicles have increased by 36 percent. Just take that as one statement, one statistic, and that justifies everything we are doing in trying to beef this up. It proves that what we are doing now is inadequate, but it is the best we can do under the circumstances. Forty-eight percent of those surveyed by Zogby described the condition of the roads in their local communities as either fair or poor. That was the assessment of 75 percent of Hispanic Americans. The survey polled a random sample of a thousand likely voters nationwide--the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percent--and highways and public transit are consistently important to Americans. They said in a commentary accompanying the survey that highway safety and efficient public transit are also high priorities. Overcrowded roads are not only a concern for commuters but also for Americans who are nervous about another terrorist attack. Other key findings: 80 percent think the Nation's highways and public transit network is extremely important or very important to the U.S. economy. The fact is, I commented in my opening remarks that this is by far the biggest jobs bill that we can be considering at any time. That is what 80 percent of Americans say. Nearly 8 in 10 also agree that an investment in highways, bridges, and public transit should be considered an important element in homeland security and national defense. We know this administration is very concerned about national security and homeland defense. I am glad they are. We are overdue in addressing these issues. The people agree with that, also. Nearly 90 percent feel it is important that their representatives in Congress fight to ensure sufficient Federal funding for transportation improvement projects in their local areas. That is interesting because this is at a time when people are complaining about the amount of money we are spending. Two-thirds of Americans say roads and public transit systems play a highly important role in their everyday lives. We are concerned about congestion. I am in my State of Oklahoma. I am sure it is the same problem in North Carolina and virtually in every State. One of the foremost authorities in putting together, consolidating the concerns has been the Texas Transport International; that is the Texas Aggies' group that put together something that they conduct annually--not just in Texas but throughout the country--as to what we are going to do about congestion. They said, less than a year ago, that 59 percent of the Nation's roadways today are experiencing significant traffic congestion compared to only 34 percent in 1982. Fully two-thirds of the major roads in the 75 U.S. urban areas are congested during peak travel periods, compared to only one-third in 1982. That is double. Both figures will increase without additional investment. The average number of hours per day with congestion that might be encountered on urban roads has risen from 4.5 hours in 1982 to about 7 hours in 2001. The average annual delays per peak road traveled in 75 urban areas is 60 hours. That is significant because, when you have delays, you are also talking about pollution and about leaving cars running and trucks running, polluting the air, using up the fuel. We have an energy crisis in this country to start with. Traffic congestion is now responsible for 5.7 billion gallons of wasted motor fuel. The total cost of traffic congestion to the U.S. economy and lost productivity and wasted motor fuel in 2001 was almost $69.5 billion, or putting it down so we understand it, that is $528 per person. I think sometimes we throw around figures of billions and trillions and it is difficult to understand, certainly, for people who are not spending this much time studying these things in Washington. That $69 billion equals $528 per person. Shortly, I am going to talk about some of the other areas of the bill specifically, section by section. At this point, I will yield the floor because I understand the senior Senator from Texas has comments she would like to make.

Mr. INHOFE. As we talked about before, there are always problems in formulas. There are so many things to consider, as we outlined, such as fast-growing States, large States, small States. I would have to say to the senior Senator from Texas, we in Oklahoma are kind of in the same situation as Texas. We have always been a donor State. We are just delighted to look down the road and see that there is a light at the end of the tunnel and that we are getting to the point where we will all have a minimum of 95 percent. I can remember when that number was at 77 percent and then 80 percent and then 90.5 percent and now up to 95 percent. This is one of the difficulties. The Senator from Texas is from one of the three largest States and it is a fast-growing State. In my opening remarks, I mentioned that to come up with a formula, as the Senator from Nevada has said, it is a very difficult thing, because there are fast-growing States. There has to be a ceiling but there also has to be a floor. There has to be consideration for donee and donor. I thought it was kind of interesting, during the remarks of the Senator from Texas, that the Senator from Nevada came over and said, I wish we were doing as well as Texas on percentages. Later on we are going to have full-size charts.

Mr. INHOFE. Later on we are hoping we are going to have larger charts to be able to show one for every State, but this one which I will hold up--I hope everyone will be able to see it--if we take under TEA-21 the average in the State of Texas was $2.1 billion. That is the average of each year for a 6-year period. Starting in 2004, they would go up to $2.6 billion; 2005, $2.8 billion; 2006, $2.9 billion; and going on up at the end of 2009, it would be $3.6 billion, almost $3.7 billion, which is a huge increase, of course, over previous years. I recognize there will be a lot of States that are not going to be happy with their formulas. It is those people who try to find a better formula, after we put all of our resources together and spent a year doing this, who have had a very difficult time coming up with something that is going to be any better. Quite frankly, I spent some time in Texas. I held a field hearing in Texas. I talked to them and hopefully they are going to be very pleased with the massive increases, the percentage increase. For the State of Texas under this bill over TEA-21, the previous 6-year authorization bill, is 42 percent. Now the average increase is 35.6 percent. So Texas is way above the average increase and way above the average amount of the average States. I recognize there are problems with any formula, but those are some facts we are dealing with and things we had to consider. It is always difficult when representing 50 States, as we were in the committee. I would like to have done a lot better for my State of Oklahoma. I know Senator Santorum talked to me about some of the problems in his State. When we look at the State of Texas and the State of Pennsylvania, where there is a donee State that is dissatisfied, the only way that can be improved would be to do something to lower the ceiling in the other States. So it is a difficult thing to deal with. I certainly will yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Reclaiming my time, there is a lot of truth to what the Senator says. One thing that needs to be clarified, and we have asked the staff to do it because it has not been done before, is to see--I mean, we are in the same situation. The State of Texas today is getting back 90.5 percent. We are getting back 90.5 percent. It is kind of an interesting study that is being conducted right now to determine how much of the money--when the Senator says Texans pay in so much and get back so much, a lot of the fuel that is being purchased, subject to excise tax, is not purchased by citizens of Texas, particularly talking about a corridor going through. I know when I am down there, I purchase a lot of fuel. That same I-35 goes through my State of Oklahoma. A lot of the NAFTA traffic is traffic that is not Texas traffic, but they are purchasing fuel there. It would be interesting to know whether or not the citizens of my State of Oklahoma or the citizens of State of Texas are actually getting back perhaps more than they are paying in in fuel revenues.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Texas. I do not see others waiting to be heard. As we all know, tonight, in about an hour and 25 minutes from now, we will be having a cloture vote. Is that correct, Madam President?

Mr. INHOFE. Between now and then, we will have a chance to hear from a lot of people, and as they come in I would be glad to have them heard on this subject. In the meantime, I will make a statement that I would otherwise be making after the cloture vote. I am hoping the cloture vote will be successful and we can move right on to this very significant vote. In the meantime, I am inclined to want to share a few things that are in this bill, which I would be glad to do at this time, and then yield to any Senator who comes in who may want to be heard. I ask the Chair to go ahead and recognize the Senator from Massachusetts now, if he wishes to be recognized. Mine is going to be a rather long statement. We will go ahead and move to that when the Senator from Massachusetts is through. Congratulating the New England Patriots

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today, National Adoption Day, to join my colleagues in introducing this bill to give children everyhwere around the world a greater chance to find a loving, permanent home. This bill, the Intercountry Adoption Reform Act (ICARE), will automatically make a child who is adopted from another country a citizen the minute the adoption is finalized. This legislation has a personal impact for me. My granddaughter was adopted from Ethiopia a few years ago. Even though she is a vital part of our family, she was not a citizen when she arrived. We now have to do work to make the law recognize her in the same light we do--as a legal member of our family and a lawful citizen of this country-- entitled to the same rights and privileges as all my other biological grandchildren. ICARE will ensure that foreign-born children, such as my granddaughter, will be treated the same as biological children born abroad to the same parent who is an American citizen. It will help streamline international adoptions and implement best practices for all adoptions. Situations such as one that happened in my State of Oklahoma would not have happened under this legislation. Anna Lynn Fincher was born in the Philippines and adopted by a U.S. military couple in the Philippines. Even though they adopted Anna Lynn in the Philippines, they never brought her to the United States. Sadly, both of Anna Lynn's American parents died while in the Philippines--before Anna Lynn was able to set foot on American soil and become a U.S. citizen. As a result, she had to be granted Humanitarian Parole, which is granted to people in extreme circumstances, so that she could come to the United States and be adopted by her adoptive sister. Under ICARE, Anna Lynn would have become a citizen as soon as her adoption was finalized--eliminating the need for Humanitarian Parole and another adoption. Providing children, such as my granddaughter and Anna Lynn, with a permanent, stable family is the most precious gift we can give a child. I am proud to lend my support to this important legislation that will help give these young people a home.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today, National Adoption Day, to join my colleagues in introducing this bill to give children everyhwere around the world a greater chance to find a loving, permanent home. This bill, the Intercountry Adoption Reform Act (ICARE), will automatically make a child who is adopted from another country a citizen the minute the adoption is finalized. This legislation has a personal impact for me. My granddaughter was adopted from Ethiopia a few years ago. Even though she is a vital part of our family, she was not a citizen when she arrived. We now have to do work to make the law recognize her in the same light we do--as a legal member of our family and a lawful citizen of this country-- entitled to the same rights and privileges as all my other biological grandchildren. ICARE will ensure that foreign-born children, such as my granddaughter, will be treated the same as biological children born abroad to the same parent who is an American citizen. It will help streamline international adoptions and implement best practices for all adoptions. Situations such as one that happened in my State of Oklahoma would not have happened under this legislation. Anna Lynn Fincher was born in the Philippines and adopted by a U.S. military couple in the Philippines. Even though they adopted Anna Lynn in the Philippines, they never brought her to the United States. Sadly, both of Anna Lynn's American parents died while in the Philippines--before Anna Lynn was able to set foot on American soil and become a U.S. citizen. As a result, she had to be granted Humanitarian Parole, which is granted to people in extreme circumstances, so that she could come to the United States and be adopted by her adoptive sister. Under ICARE, Anna Lynn would have become a citizen as soon as her adoption was finalized--eliminating the need for Humanitarian Parole and another adoption. Providing children, such as my granddaughter and Anna Lynn, with a permanent, stable family is the most precious gift we can give a child. I am proud to lend my support to this important legislation that will help give these young people a home.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing this bill to repeal the provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 that sunset the adoption tax credit and adoption assistance programs. Under the current legislation, families with adopted children are given a tax credit of up to $10,000 to cover their adoption expenses and families who adopt children with special needs are credited the full $10,000. Providing this type of assistance is important in easing the costs of the adoption process and helping families cover expenses incurred by adopting children with special needs. Currently, there are around 550,000 children in foster care. Of this number, 126,000 are up for adoption. In order to facilitate and expedite the adoption process, I have worked as a member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption to encourage and support families who are willing to provide a loving, stable, and permanent home for these children. The Coalition has been active in promoting adoption around the country through a number of programs, including the National Adoption Day, a day set aside to draw attention to expediting and finalizing adoptions. In fact, Oklahoma held 20 adoptions this week in celebration of the day. I strongly believe that it is critical to repeal the sunset provision of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act and continue to support those families who are making it possible for children to grow up in a loving and caring environment. As the grandfather of an adopted granddaughter, I can say through personal experience that providing a home where a child can be nurtured and given opportunities to become a contributing member of society is one of the greatest and most rewarding gifts we can ever give.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing this bill to repeal the provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 that sunset the adoption tax credit and adoption assistance programs. Under the current legislation, families with adopted children are given a tax credit of up to $10,000 to cover their adoption expenses and families who adopt children with special needs are credited the full $10,000. Providing this type of assistance is important in easing the costs of the adoption process and helping families cover expenses incurred by adopting children with special needs. Currently, there are around 550,000 children in foster care. Of this number, 126,000 are up for adoption. In order to facilitate and expedite the adoption process, I have worked as a member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption to encourage and support families who are willing to provide a loving, stable, and permanent home for these children. The Coalition has been active in promoting adoption around the country through a number of programs, including the National Adoption Day, a day set aside to draw attention to expediting and finalizing adoptions. In fact, Oklahoma held 20 adoptions this week in celebration of the day. I strongly believe that it is critical to repeal the sunset provision of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act and continue to support those families who are making it possible for children to grow up in a loving and caring environment. As the grandfather of an adopted granddaughter, I can say through personal experience that providing a home where a child can be nurtured and given opportunities to become a contributing member of society is one of the greatest and most rewarding gifts we can ever give.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of a courageous young Oklahoman who died while defending his Nation. Private Jason M. Ward grew up in the great State of Oklahoma, and was a 1997 graduate of Broken Arrow High School. Private Ward joined the military in April 2002, although he had been seriously considering military service for years. He married his high school sweetheart after graduating, and when Jason and Jordan welcomed their first son shortly thereafter, the duties of fatherhood took priority. After having another son 4 years later, Jason and Jordan began discussing Jason's longtime military aspirations and decided that it would be a good time for him to pursue a lifelong career in the military. Private Ward was a member of the 1st Armored Division, stationed at Fort Riley, KS. His unit was sent to the Middle East in March to protect the freedom of this fellow Americans, and he was highly involved in the outstanding and courageous work of that unit. Unfortunately, Private Ward fell ill, and was scheduled to return to the U.S. for treatment when he unexpectedly passed away. His sudden death has left his young family with questions that none of us can answer, but we can tell them with confidence that Private Ward was serving his Nation with honor until this tragedy took his life. Private Ward was only 25 years old when he died. I hope his friends and family know that he died a true hero, worthy of the respect and gratitude of every American because of his contribution to defending his country. His loved ones will miss him dearly, and our thoughts and prayers are with them today. And though we are all grieved by the loss of this man, we will never cease to be proud of him--Oklahoma's son and America's hero--Private Jason M. Ward. spec dustin k. mcgaugh

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise to pay homage to Sergeant Ross Pennanen, who, in the words of his father, ``gave the ultimate sacrifice for his country--his life.'' Sergeant Pennanen, or ``Penn'', as his friends called him, was a dedicated defender of America who learned the value of serving his country from his father's example in the United States Air Force. For his service and his sacrifice, I am proud to honor him on the Senate floor today. Sergeant Pennanen was assigned to C Battery, 2nd Battalion, 5th Field Artillery Regiment, III Corps Artillery at Fort Sill, OK. A native Oklahoman whose mother and father live in Ada and Midwest City, respectively, Sergeant Pennanen grew up in McLoud and joined the Army 2 years ago at the age of 34 in hopes of improving himself and emulating his father. He was himself a good father who spent a lot of time with his 7-year-old son, Gage. Sergeant Pennanen died tragically on November 2 when a CH-47 Chinook helicopter in which he was riding crashed in Fallujah, Iraq. He was a good soldier: he received the Army Commendation Medal two days before his death. Despite questions about his age, Sergeant Pennanen proved a ``gung-ho'' example for his fellow soldiers. According to his stepmother, ``He didn't keep up with them. He set the pace out in front of them.'' On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I ask that we pay tribute to Sergeant Pennanen and the men and women like him, who know the true meaning of service and sacrifice. These men and women have tasted freedom, and wish to ensure that freedom for those who have never experienced it. I honor the memory of our sons and daughters who have died for this noble cause. We could not have asked for a better soldier or diplomat of humanity than Sergeant Ross Pennanen. I am proud of him, and proud of the commitment he showed to winning the freedom of those he did not know. My prayers are with his family for the loss of such a special man.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I stand today to honor the memory of a brave young American who gave his life defending the Nation. He felt a call to serve his country, to be part of something bigger than himself, and ultimately, paid the highest price. SPEC Dustin K. McGaugh, of Derby, KS, was a firing specialist assigned to the Army's 17th Field Artillery Brigade stationed in Fort Sill, OK. His mother, Marina Hayes, lives in Tulsa, OK, where he graduated from high school in 2001. On September 30 in Balad, Iraq, he died tragically from a non-hostile gunshot wound. He gave his life for the freedom of millions of Americans, and also for the peace and prosperity of the Iraqi people crippled by a totalitarian regime. Specialist McGaugh had a heart for the less fortunate. According to his fellow soldiers, he would leave the safety of his Jeep and give candy to the Iraqi children. Imagine an American soldier who truly cared for the least among us, and performed simple acts of kindness to his fellow humans. Imagine an American soldier who represented America with a noble heart, and reminded us all of the freedoms we take for granted. Specialist McGaugh was that soldier. His compassion is a microcosm of the American spirit, the spirit that drives us to fight oppression around the world. The Iraqi people are an oppressed people, and Specialist McGaugh showed us how our inherent humanity can overcome even the broadest of differences. He refused to sit idly and watch the tyranny in Iraq take place any longer. It is for the sake of these broken, defeated people that Specialist McGaugh risked his life on a daily basis. It is for these people that he gave his life in the end. He was a true American hero. His twin sister Windy said that her ``kid brother'' became her hero. Specialist McGaugh should not only be his sister's hero, but the Nation's hero as well. He set a high example of what it means to be an American and what it means to be human. It is for men like Specialist McGaugh that I am proud to be a part of this great country. He was a special soldier, but more importantly, a special man.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I stand today to pay tribute to a great American and a great Oklahoman. Gene Boyt was a member of our Nation's ``Greatest Generation'' and served his country during World War II in the United States Army. He died at the age of eighty-six in Chickasha, OK. After being assigned to the Philippines as a lieutenant in the Engineering Corps, he was taken captive by the Japanese on April 9, 1942. As a prisoner, he was forced to march 90 miles in 6 days in what has become known as the Bataan Death March. The prisoners marched without food or water, and many were executed or died along the way from exhaustion and dehydration. After surviving the grueling journey, Lieutenant Boyt spent 3\1/2\ years in Japanese prisons. Gene Boyt knew what persecution meant. He knew what it meant to stand up for the cause of freedom, for the honor and integrity of the United States. Gene Boyt knew what it meant to defend this country from enemies determined to destroy it. He knew what it meant to suffer for what he believed. I stand today proud to be an American because men like Gene Boyt lived and died protecting that right. He was awarded the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star, three Presidential Citations, the Philippines's Presidential Citation Medal, and the Oklahoma Medal of Valor. He deserves to be honored once again today on the Senate floor. Today I stand in tribute to one of Oklahoma's favorite sons, a great American hero and devoted family man. Gene Boyt sacrificed everything for his country, and I am sure that his family is proud of this great man, and the legacy he left behind. The thoughts and prayers of a grateful Nation are with them during this difficult time.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have listened very carefully to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and his characterization of this legislation. I have to come to a different conclusion because I believe this legislation before us today is a first giant step. We have been talking about this now for not months but years. I can tell you right now that the problem we are having with energy in America is a very serious problem. I am from a State that is a production State. We have produced shallow and marginal wells for a long period of time. Sometimes people don't realize how significant this source of energy is. Statistically this is true: If we had all of the marginal wells that have been plugged in the last year flowing today, it would equal more than we are currently importing from Saudi Arabia. That is a huge amount. I started out, before most of the people in this Chamber were born, in the industry, in the oil business. I was a tool dresser on a cable tool rig. That is the way we used to go after oil, particularly shallow oil, where you would have to take a bit out. You would stand with it, white hot, and sledgehammers on both sides, sharpen it, and then go back and pound. We pulled a lot of oil out of the ground at that time. If you think about the economy that resulted from all that production, there were good jobs. In the Osage area of my State of Oklahoma, northeastern Oklahoma, we had a lot of shallow wells. I can remember going in to Pawhuska, OK, at noontime to eat lunch. You would have to wait in line 15 minutes to pay your bill. It was because this industry was so viable. Today it is almost a ghost town. With the passage of this bill, there are incentives in here. Nobody talks about them. There are some things I wish were in this bill. No one is more familiar with the necessity to get into some of the drilling at ANWR, and certainly we need to be doing that. But just look at some of the opportunities that are in the bill. This bill has an incentive to get back into marginal well production, and that could open up a huge domestic supply of oil and lessen our reliance upon foreign countries. That reminds me of something I often say: Our reliance upon foreign countries for our oil supply is not an energy issue. It is a national security issue. I remember back many years ago, during the Reagan administration, when Don Hodel was Secretary of Energy and later Secretary of the Interior. He and I had a little dog and pony show. We would go around the country and talk to them about how the outcome of every conflict, every war back to and including the First World War was dependent on who was in control of the energy supply. We talked about the Malay Peninsula. We talked about the submarines coming into the Caribbean to knock down the ships so we could not get to our refineries. This is something I thought surely people would understand. They didn't understand it. By the way, the fact that we are looking at an energy policy today, this should not really be a partisan issue. I kind of laugh when I hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying we don't need an energy policy. I tried to get Ronald Reagan to have an energy policy. He didn't do it. I tried with the first President Bush. I said: Let's get an energy policy. Let's have, as a cornerstone of that policy, a maximum amount that we are willing to depend on foreign countries for our ability to fight a war. He didn't do it. We didn't do it during the Clinton administration. But this President is. I talked to this President when he was running for office. I said: Will you commit to an energy policy so we can lessen our dependence on foreign countries for our ability to fight a war? Back when Don Hodel and I were going around, we were 38-percent dependent upon foreign countries. Now it is approaching 60 percent. So it is very serious. Why is it people wouldn't realize that after the Persian Gulf War in 1991, why wouldn't it be indelibly imprinted upon the hearts of every American that we could no longer be dependent upon the Middle East for our ability to fight a war? Yet it didn't seem to help. We picked up a few extra votes but not enough to get a real policy. I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. There are a lot of issues that are within the jurisdiction of my committee that are very significant and that are in this bill. One is, it allows hydraulic fracturing to be used by not just Oklahoma but by all States. This is a way of extracting oil out of tight formations. It is something we need to be addressing. It is addressed in this bill. This clarifies the exemption for oil and gas production from storm water discharge permits. Congress provided this exemption years ago, and a misinterpretation of the exemption had threatened to stop a lot of the small, local production. This clarifies that and will get us back into producing. This provides a 5 billion gallon ethanol requirement for motor fuel. If anyone ever says there is is not enough renewable energy in this bill, they have not really read this title of the bill. I started working on this issue over 5 years ago, and I am glad to see that a compromise was developed to increase the amount of renewables while ensuring that our Nation's refineries are not adversely affected. In my committee, we had the renewal of the Price-Anderson bill. We passed it. It is now a part of this bill. So a lot of the things that would otherwise have been on individual bills or have been on a comprehensive bill from my committee are in this bill. It is necessary to have reauthorization of Price-Anderson in order to provide the protections so we can go after the other sources of oil such as nuclear sources. This establishes a nuclear security program. I think we all, after 9/11, recognize that. In the committee I chair, we had all the security bills. We had a wastewater security bill. We had a nuclear security bill. We had a chemical security bill. They are all there for the purpose of protecting those vital elements of our economy from a potential terrorist attack. We went ahead and put the nuclear security bill in this. If we don't pass this, it is going to certainly heighten the risk that is out there on something happening to a nuclear plant. So after a lot of effort, we finally have that in here. This bill provides $300 million for the EPA's clean schoolbus program, another one that came out of my committee. I am saying there is a lot more to this bill. It doesn't go far enough. I can't look at the lovely acting President in the chair without thinking about ANWR and about going up there. I just wish people who are so concerned about disrupting the environment or something up there in those slopes would go up and look at it. It is not a pristine wilderness. It is a mud flat. All the local people want it. Here we are down here--we are a lot smarter here in Washington-- saying no, in spite of the fact it would alleviate some of our reliance upon foreign countries for our ability to fight a war. We are smarter than they are up in Alaska. We know what is good for them in spite of what they want. I am very proud of both Senators from the State of Alaska for understanding this, for explaining it. I feel sorry for them that we have such arrogance in this body that we feel we know more about their business than they do. Our Nation is at the point where access is prohibited to almost every major reserve of oil and gas on our Nation's shores. Furthermore, extremist environmentalists have declared war on oil and gas wells in the interior of our Nation. I have had occasion, as I am sure the manager of this bill, Senator Domenici, has had numerous occasions to debate people on the other side. We know we have a crisis in energy in this country. Yet there are those on the other side who say: We don't want nuclear energy. We don't want fossil fuels. We don't want oil. We don't want coal. Now they don't even want windmills because they will disturb some migratory bird path. We have to have it. Look at the flight of industry and business that is going overseas. Right now we have chemical companies that fear they are going to end up not being able to use coal as a source of energy, one that we are depending upon for more than 50 percent of our energy in America today. They have gone over into other countries such as western Europe where they have nuclear energy, where some of the countries, 80 percent of their energy comes from nuclear sources. This bill is a modest start. But if we don't do this, after being rejected since 1980 and before having an energy policy in America, this crisis we are facing right now is going to be even more serious. It is a modest beginning and one on which certainly, at the very least--I say this to the Republicans--we should at least have a chance procedurally to have an up-or-down vote. Let's remember what we went through last week for some 39 hours. The big debate there was, let's just get to the point where we can have an up-or-down vote. That is all we want on this, an up-or-down vote. I would hope that some of those individuals who may not be in support of this legislation will at least vote to allow us to have that up-or-down vote. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Let's say 15. It probably will be 10.

Mr. INHOFE. Let me make a request of the assistant minority leader. Since Senator Akaka is going to take 30 minutes, would it be possible, after the conclusion of the remarks by Senator Dorgan and Senator Collins, to have me go so we would have two at this point and then go to Senator Akaka for 30 minutes?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate. I have come to some conclusions. First of all, one of the things the Senator from Maine said that I agree with is this bill does little to reduce our reliance upon foreign countries for our ability to run this great machine called America. I would like to have had more provisions in there. I would have liked to have had some more generous nuclear generation provisions, maybe ANWR, and a few things that would more directly address this. I am hoping we will be able to do this in the future. The Senator from North Dakota, when he was talking about the bill, said there were several things in here that he didn't like, and many things in here that he would have liked to have had in here. I feel the same way. That is almost by definition the sign of a good bill because neither one of us is real happy with it. However, we both are going to support this bill. I think we could have gone further. I have been concerned for many years about our dependency, going all the way back to the Reagan administration when Don Hodel, who was the Energy Secretary at that time, and I used to go around the country to explain to people in consumption States that our reliance upon foreign countries for our ability to fight a war is not an energy issue but a national security issue. Finally, this is the first approach. I have to say President Reagan didn't really address this, the first President Bush didn't address it, President Clinton didn't address it. This President is addressing it. This may not be perfect, certainly it is far from perfect, but it is the first major step since 1980 to correct a problem we all agree is there. In deference to the time that we have here I am going to concentrate on one thing. There are a lot of things I would like to talk about because I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. There are a number of issues that are within my jurisdiction. I thank the manager of this bill, Senator Domenici, for his willingness to let me have input even though I am not on the conference over some of these issues that would have been in my committee. My concern right now, and what I want to address, is the whole idea of the ethanol and MTBE safe harbor provisions. It has been treated as a red herring. I would like to go over what it really is and what it is not. What we have heard on the floor is good rhetoric from the trial lawyers, but it is not factual. The premise of the ethanol and MTBE safe harbor is simple: If the Federal Government approves and mandates a product, such as it did with ethanol and MTBE, that product should not be considered ``a defective product by virtue of the fact that it is, or contains, such a renewable fuel or MTBE.'' So let's walk through this and see what the safe harbor provision does. The ethanol and MTBE safe harbor states: Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, no renewable fuel, as defined by section 211(o)(1) of the Clean Air Act . . . used or intended to be used as a motor vehicle fuel containing such renewable fuel or MTBE, shall be deemed a defective product by virtue of the fact that it is, or contains, such renewable fuel or MTBE. That stands to reason. That is perfectly legal. Yet that is the provision to which most of these people are objecting. How can it be reasonable if we mandate something by law and then turn around and say it is defective by definition? It is just not reasonable. We know that Congress is mandating renewable fuels in this conference report. The energy bill states: Not later than one year after the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator [of the EPA] shall promulgate regulations ensuring that motor vehicle fuel sold or dispensed in the United States . . . contains the applicable volume of renewable fuel. . . . That is in essence the language of the legislation that we are considering today. MTBE was also similarly mandated. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 signed into law by the first President Bush clearly states: [t]he oxygen content of gasoline shall equal or exceed 2.0 percent by weight. . . . At that time, Congress knew the only two additives that could be used were MTBE and ethanol. And the Record shows that. For example, on March 29, 1990, Senator Tom Daschle, the author of the floor amendment that established this 2-percent standard, stated during debate: The ethers, especially MTBE and ETBE, are expected to be major components of meeting a clean octane program. Under certain forms of an oxygenate mandate, Senator Daschle went as far as to note that: EPA predicts that the amendment will be met almost exclusively by MTBE, a methanol derivative. Senator Daschle recognized what we all know: There are substantial benefits to using MTBE as far as environmental protection is concerned. In the floor debate on the 2-percent standard, Senator Daschle cited evidence that: NOX, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide are dramatically reduced by adding the oxygenate MTBE to gasoline. So it is clear that Congress mandated ethanol and MTBE in 1990, and, in this conference report, is increasing the mandate on ethanol. Let me go on reading the ethanol and MTBE safe harbor. The safe harbor applies only: If it [ethanol or MTBE] does not violate a control or prohibition imposed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under section 211 of such Act, and the manufacturer is in compliance with all requests for information under subsection (b) of such section 211 of such Act. So the safe harbor in this conference report applies only if you are in compliance with all the tough fuel requirements of the Clean Air Act. So to review so far, if ethanol or MTBE is used as required by the Federal Government and is in full compliance of the Clean Air Act, it should not be found defective. Alternatively, if a party does not meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act, the safe harbor does not apply, stating that: the existence of a claim of defective product shall be determined under otherwise applicable law. It can still be exercised if they don't comply. Most importantly, the safe harbor does not impact numerous legal mechanisms available for cleanup and damages. Specifically, the safe harbor states that: Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect the liability of any person for environmental remediation costs, drinking water contamination, negligence for spills or other reasonably foreseeable events, public or private nuisance, trespass, breach of warranty, breach of contract, or any other liability other than liability based upon a claim of defective product. In all those other cases, it remains unchanged. The safe harbor does not apply to anything except liability based upon a claim of defective product, assuming they have complied with the Clean Air Act. It is as simple as that. As the energy conference report clearly states, the safe harbor does not affect liability under other tort theories. Tort law provides a remedy when there is a breach of a duty resulting in harm to a person, property, or intangible personal interests. The following types of actions have been used in environmental cases. These are actions where recovery took place: Trespass--interference with the plaintiff's possessory interest in his land. Is that affected by safe harbor? No. Nuisance--intereference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of his property--that is not affected by safe harbor. Negligence--may be a basis for product liability actions, as well as actions involving the release of allegedly toxic materials. negligence could be based on the design of manufacture of the product, or failure to give warnings necessary to make the product safe. Is this affected by safe harbor? No. It is not affected. Breach of implied warranty--similar to strict products-liability--is not affected by safe harbor. Under breach of express warranty--if a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer makes express promises regarding a product, the party is liable if the product fails to perform as promised and that failure leads to injury. It is not affected by safe harbor. The only thing that is affected is in the areas we have been discussing. Moreover, this safe harbor in no way shape or form impacts any environmental law. The safe harbor provision would not affect liability, and therefore response, remediation and clean-up, under Federal and State laws. The facts of a given situation would dictate which of the following statutes would be most appropriate for an action. Here are examples of environmental laws that could apply. The following are not impacted: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA; Clean Water Act; Oil Pollution Act--OPA; Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act--CERCLA or Superfund; not to mention natural resource damages available under OPA, CERCLA, and the Clean Water Act. They are not impacted. Furthermore, the leaking underground storage tanks provision in this energy conference report greatly enhances the amount of resources available to states and localities through the underground storage funds. If the language and the impact are so clear, why is the debate so muddy? The answer is because trial lawyers stand to lose billions. What is the positive affect of this safe harbor? Liability protection is consistent with environmental protection. Without some stability in liability risk, powerful disincentives will be created to continued manufacturing of clean-fuel additives. Why should we manufacture clean fuel additives if there is no protection? Clean fuel programs have saved thousands of lives across the country. Opposition to commonsense legislation may endanger those most susceptible to air pollution impacts by reducing the ready supply of clean fuel additives. Failure to limit liability endangers future energy security and clean air. Simply put, additive manufacturers will be extremely reluctant to invest in MTBE replacement additives without some sense of certainty that the Federal Government will not allow those investments to become the basis of undue liability. In other words, as additive manufacturers seek access to capital, demonstrating a responsible Federal role in liability limitation may be crucial to justify future investments in clean additive manufacturing. It is simply a supply and demand argument. In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to look at the facts. The fact is that the safe harbor is a fair and important provision in an important piece of legislation, which is critical to our national and economic security. The safe harbor only applies to defective products claims. I believe very strongly we need to have that clarification. I repeat one more time what is actually written into the law. It says if the Federal Government approves and mandates a product such as ethanol or MTBE, that product should not be considered a defective product by virtue of the fact that it is or contains such renewable fuel or MTBE which is mandated by law. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent Matthew Griles be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of this debate.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I apologize to our distinguished chairman for not having been down here during this discussion. As he well knows, I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am proud to say we were able to get a bill out, the reauthorization bill. I feel very good about that. It will be coming to the floor. It is a good compromise but it required my attendance. I want to be on record to say that our chairman and the ranking member have done a very good job. We have worked closely together during the development of the authorization bill. We are making great headway. We are turning in the right direction. I particularly applaud those who participated in the ultimate compromise that we agreed on having to do with the lease program, the 767s. We all understand we have a crisis in our tanker fleet. Our KC-135s are getting old and there is controversy over how much longer they can be used. Nonetheless, our pilots who are performing this significant mission of refueling need to have the very best. We are addressing that problem. In the area of TRICARE, we have made some advancements that are long overdue. I know in my State of Oklahoma, we probably have one of the highest populations of retired military, many of them in Lawton and scattered throughout the State. I know there are very serious concerns we have gone a long way to meet. Environmental issues bother me a great deal, and maybe I am more concerned about what has happened to our ability to train our troops, because I happen to also chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. So we deal with the environmental issues. But it is very disheartening when you go down to your part of the country and see what has happened in some of the endangered species programs and how we are addressing those. In Fort Bragg, in Camp Lejeune, for example, we are spending such an inordinate amount of money protecting the suspected habitat of the red- cockaded woodpecker that it is having a very deteriorating effect on our ability to train. This is something that does concern me greatly, and we are starting to address that, I know, in relation to the issue of endangered species. We have clarified the law that is going to perhaps, hopefully, stop some of the injunctions that have been taking place. I think we are making some progress there. I am glad we are addressing end strength--not as much as I would like to or our chairman would like to because this is a compromise situation, but we have to recognize that we allowed our end strength to deteriorate, in terms of numbers, to the point that we are OPTEMPO of our regular services, we are OPTEMPO for our Guard and the Reserves. It is at an unacceptably high rate. I do not think there is one Member of this Senate who does not go home and talk to his Guard and Reserve units, only to find out that critical MOS, military occupation specialties, are being lost because they are just overworked. You cannot expect someone who is in a citizens militia to have to be full time. Essentially, that is what is happening right now. So we are starting to address that, and I think we need to go much further in the future. When I see that we did have a problem all during the 1990s, that I articulated on this Senate floor, when we had a lowering in the amount of attention that was given to our military in terms of end strength, in terms of modernization, in terms of national missile defense, these things were very disturbing to me. I know we are now recognizing it. I hate to say it in this way, but I really think those who subscribe to the idea--or did subscribe to the idea prior to 9/11--that the cold war is over and we need not have the size military we once did are just dead wrong. I look wistfully back at those days when we knew what our enemies had. We had one major superforce out there, and that superforce was predictable. Now we have the proliferation of both weapons of mass destruction throughout the world and the delivery system. We know what countries have a delivery system that could reach us here in Washington, DC. We need to make up for what was lost during that period of time. Lastly, I would agree with Secretary Rumsfeld who at one of our earlier meetings suggested that throughout the entire 20th century, the percentage of our GDP that went to defense was about 5.7 percent, and that dropped down in the 1990s to about 2.7 percent. We are up to 3.4 percent approximately. I think we need to stop and rethink that as an overall picture of a plan for the future, perhaps it should be somewhere around 4, 4.5, or 5 percent because the nature of the threat that is out there is more expensive. I think we need to address it. So I think this bill goes a long way in that direction. I am very pleased with the product we have. We have a long way to go, and I hope we can join hands and do that in the future. Again, I applaud our chairman and the ranking member for the efforts they have put forth in making this legislation a reality.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question? I know his time is running out.

Mr. INHOFE. I have been observing this all night long and all of these legal scholars. I admire you so much, although I have to admit I have often said that perhaps one of my best qualifications for being a Senator is that I am not a lawyer. When I read the Constitution, I know what it says. It is very clear what it says. It says advise and consent. It is a very important process. The reason I wanted the Senator to yield is you have been justly talking about the qualities of Miguel Estrada. I have met him, too. He is such a humble man. When you hear the horrible things said about him, it makes you cry inside. There was one thing that all of these nominees the President nominated have in common, and that is they are also eminently qualified. You have talked about his qualifications. Besides that, he worked in both the Bush and Clinton administrations. Also, look at the rest of the nominees. William Pryor is the youngest attorney general at the time he was appointed and was nominated by the President. He has the highest ranking of the American Bar Association. Priscilla Owen has the highest ranking of the ABA. In 2000, she won 84 percent of the vote. She was supported by three former Democrat judges from the Texas Supreme Court. Judge Pickering--99.5 percent of his cases were affirmed and not appealed. I think we are talking about people who the President has done such a great job of singling out and finding, the most highly qualified people. I wanted to ask you that question. Isn't it true that everything you have said about Miguel Estrada and his qualifications is true about all these nominees?