Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Colorado for yielding to me. Mr. President, I want to share an experience I had at 5:30 this morning. One has lots of experiences at 5:30 in the morning on the Senate floor and in observing what went on during the night. There was something that occurred to me that I want to share, and I hope I can do it in this period of time. There are two reasons this has been taking place, that they do not want to confirm these judges. One is ideology, philosophy. I hate to say it but unless one is pro-abortion and unless they are anti-gun, they do not want that person on the bench. But there is another reason we have not talked about, and that reason is just a reason of obstruction. We have been watching obstruction in all forms, but I want to share something and I hope people understand that this directly relates to the nominees for the judicial vacancies. I want to get the point across that it is happening to other nominees as well. I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. We had a person who was a nominee of this President, Gov. Michael Leavitt from Utah, one of the most highly regarded individuals in this country and certainly one of the most highly qualified ever to be nominated to a position of Administrator of the EPA. We sat there and recognized how everybody loved this guy and yet they dragged it on and obstructed for days and weeks, just to drag it on out. So it is happening with many of the nominees. Now, Governor Leavitt is a very kind and decent person and I really believe the most qualified nominee to be Administrator of the EPA we have ever been able to act upon. The way he was treated was just absolutely shameful. It took 56 days to finally get the nomination, five times longer than those who preceded him as Administrator, even though he had overwhelming bipartisan support. I do not think anyone has questioned that the motivation of the delay was partisan Presidential politics. They set a new standard, new precedent, for an EPA Administrator. They really were not talking so much about him as they were trying to talk about the environmental policies of this President. If my colleagues will look at some of the people who supported him, we had many people, including my ranking member, Senator Jeffords. He said it has nothing to do with qualifications of the Governor. At this time, I would say that qualifications really do not seem to be an issue on judicial nominations. It has been said over and over again, and later if I have time within my timeframe I am going to get into that, but this goes on and talks about various Democrats praising Governor Leavitt for this nomination and yet they would not confirm him. Senator Nelson, who is a former Governor of Nebraska, served with him as Governor. He said: I believe nearly everyone, if not everyone, with whom Governor Leavitt worked in the NGA--that is the National Governors Association--would state that they had a favorable impression of him. I wholeheartedly support Mike Leavitt to serve as EPA Administrator. We heard the same thing from our old friend Bill Richardson with whom many of us served in the House of Representatives. He is currently Governor of New Mexico. He praises his virtues. He has worked effectively with other Governors regardless of party, and he went on to say he is probably the best nominee who has ever been put forth to be Administrator of the EPA. So he is highly qualified and nobody would deny that, and yet they turn this thing into trying to attack the President on his environmental record. I have to quote from one person, Gregg Easterbrook. I have not quoted him on this floor before. He is a liberal Democrat. He is a senior editor of the liberal New Republic. He says in an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times: The Democrats are not as interested in Bush's environmental record as they are attacking President Bush personally. He says: Most of the charges made against the White House are baloney-- these are his words--and made for the purposes of partisan political bashing and fundraising. He also contends that environmental lobbyists raise money better in an atmosphere of panic. He goes on to explain the real reason this issue was going on. This man was subjected to a lot of things, including 100 prehearing questions, and later 400 questions prior to the hearing. This has never been done before. Then we had an experience that has never happened in the history of this Senate. We went back as far as Jennings Randolph in the middle sixties. It never happened in the history of this committee. The Democrats boycotted the committee. They did not show up. We have 10 Republicans and Democrats. We have to have a majority there and two members of each party, at a minimum. So they boycotted and did not show up. Time went on and we started looking at how long it took from the time of the nomination, to the hearing, to the confirmation. In the case of William Riley, it was 13 days; the case of Carol Browner, 10 days; in the case of Governor Whitman, it was 13 days. Yet it took 56 days for this person to be confirmed. Finally, they did confirm and the vote was 88 to 8. I suggest today if we had the vote on Priscilla Owen, she would be sitting in the Fifth Circuit right now; and Miguel Estrada, the DC Court; William Pryor, the Eleventh Circuit; and Charles Pickering, the Fifth Circuit. For a minute I will dwell, if the manager will give me a couple extra minutes, on Miguel Estrada. I saw something happening that I thought was significant. I will refer to something that happened to me February 26, 2003, a year ago, when we were talking about the confirmation process.

Mr. INHOFE. We had a group in Oklahoma at that time that was there from San Luis Potosi, a sister city in Mexico. We have a sizable Hispanic community in Oklahoma. I was mayor of Tulsa, and I recall how excited the people were each year when they saw people striving to achieve, Hispanics in this country. I was standing before the crowd and said: Como acalde de la cuidad de Tulsa, yo quiero decir, ``Bien venidos, bien venidos a la cuidad. Creemos que la cuidad de San Luis Potosi es la cuidad mas hermosa de todas las cuidades del mundo.'' (Translation) As the mayor of the city of Tulsa, I want to say, ``Welcome, welcome to the city. We believe the city of San Luis Potosi is the most beautiful city of all the cities in the world.'' I saw the looks on their faces, realizing we were participating in their culture. They are looking at Miguel Estrada saying, Why won't they give him a chance to reach the top? Why is it that he does not get a chance for high office, he or any other Hispanic? I tried to answer. I believed there might be a way of garnering support to make this reality. I said: Muchos Hispanos estan escuchando ahora . . . y yo quiero decir. Por descracia, hay personas en el senado que no quieren escuchar a ni una palabra de la verdad. Yo invito a la communidad hispana para llama a sus senadores para insistir en los derechos de Miguel Estrada y en la confirmacion de jueces de los Estados Unidos. (Translation) Many Hispanic Americans are listening right now . . . and I want to say: Disgracefully, there are people in the Senate that don't want to listen to even one word of the truth. I invite the Hispanic community to call their senators to insist on the rights of Miguel Estrada and on the confirmation of the judges of the United States. People were calling in but it did not get the message across to the people on that side of the aisle that there must be some other reason that they do not want Miguel Estrada to be confirmed. Congress is a powerful institution and it is necessary to have the ability to collect and challenge much of what the President does, but when it comes to the courts and to interpreting laws and regulations, politics needs to get out of the way. Justice delayed is justice denied. I believe we are in a position to do some things and turn this around and get some of these people confirmed. My guess is residents of California, who had their constitution gutted by a three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit, only to have a larger panel of the same circuit reinstate their constitutionally authorized gubernatorial recall election, think it is pretty important who sits on the Ninth Circuit. I had an experience this morning debating one of our fine Senators, Mr. Lautenberg. I said at that time this is about ideology. I don't think anyone--after listening to all the debate that has gone on overnight--does not realize if you are not pro-abortion, if you are not anti-gun, you will be in opposition, and we will not get confirmation. It is wrong. All we want is an up-or-down vote on these fine nominees.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate one of Oklahoma's finest soldiers, LTC Michael E. Hogan, who is retiring after a distinguished career of over 20 years of exceptionally meritorious conduct in the United States Army. Lieutenant Colonel Hogan was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant, Field Artillery, after graduating from the United States Military Academy. His first assignment was as a Fire Support Team Chief, HHB, 2d Battalion, 6th Infantry Division, Fort Ord, CA. Demonstrating keen expertise and artillery skills, he moved through various positions in the unit, including Firing Battery Fire Direction Officer, Executive Officer, and Battalion Fire Direction Officer. After developing and mastering the required skills as an Artilleryman through an assignment in Camp Casey, Korea, Lieutenant Colonel Hogan was moved to Fort Sill, OK, where he assumed a role on the faculty of the Field Artillery School. In 1989, Lieutenant Colonel Hogan served as the Battery Commander for Bravo Battery, 2d Battalion, with 105mm Howitzers, for almost 2 years. Because of his expertise in artillery systems, he was moved to a position as a test officer with the U.S. Army Operational Test and Evaluation Center. After further refining his skills in artillery systems while performing as a test team chief, Lieutenant Colonel Hogan was moved to a position as an executive officer with the 6th FA Battalion, Fort Sill, OK. In 1997, while in the position on the Corps Artillery Staff, Lieutenant Colonel Hogan was deployed to Haiti where he served 6 months as the Joint Task Force Chief of Staff. Upon his return to Fort Sill, he was installed as the executive officer for the 212th Field Artillery Brigade. After serving in this position for approximately 1 year, Lieutenant Colonel Hogan was sent to the Pentagon as a representative of the regimental staff of the Field Artillery Center, with duty in the Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison. Lieutenant Colonel Hogan directly applied special talents and expertise as a Hardware Congressional Liaison Officer in the Office of the Secretary of the Army, Legislative Liaison Programs Division from March 2000 through February 2004. Lieutenant Colonel Hogan maintained a constant liaison with professional staff members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees on critical issues relating to army procurement programs such as the Crusader Field Artillery System, Stryker, and the Army's top priority, the Future Combat System. Throughout these assignments, Lieutenant Colonel Hogan has provided outstanding leadership, advice, and sound professional judgment on significant issues that affected both the Army and Congress. His actions and counsel were invaluable to Army leaders and Members of Congress as they considered the impact of important issues. Lieutenant Colonel Hogan's dedication to accomplishing the Army's legislative liaison mission has been extraordinary. He is truly an outstanding officer who displays superb professional leadership skills and is totally dedicated to mission accomplishment in the highest traditions of military service. I am proud to call him a constituent, and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I agree with this approach.

Mr. INHOFE. That is correct. Our staffs have been working for the past few months on this issue. The compromise we have reached would continue the FEMA program in the islands for the next 5 years, as recommended by the Energy Committee. In addition, the Secretary of State would be directed to immediately undertake negotiations, in consultation with FEMA, with the governments of the FSM and RMI regarding disaster assistance. Finally, if an agreement is not concluded and legislation is not enacted which reflects the new agreement within 5 years, then the administration's revised disaster assistance proposal would go into effect.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I believe, Mr. President, I have 1 second remaining.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me get back to something the Senator from Arizona said. He is not on the floor now. He mentioned some of the signatures were not verified. They keep using this same argument, which has been refuted over and over again. The Perry Mason he refers to happens to be a Ph.D. chemist. It is documented. Again, we are talking about some 17,000 scientists there. There are 4,000 scientists on the Heidelberg Petition. Of course, Richard Lindzen, I don't think anyone is going to question his credibility. These studies--particularly the Harvard-Smithsonian study--is a very significant one. I think the debate has been good. I do not question it when the Senator from Arizona--who I respect immensely--says we will be back. I am hoping it will be necessary to come back because I am hoping we will defeat this amendment. But it is very significant. Lastly, let me mention I do not know how so many of these groups could be wrong. We have almost every union in the country--the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Mine Workers, the United Steel Workers. We have all these jobs shown up here, some 3.6 million jobs, that would be lost. This analysis was done by a credible organization, Penn State University. I cannot imagine that any Member of this Senate would come up here and look at this chart and not realize that here we are--we have been going through a recession that began in March of 2000, and we are now pulling out of this recession. The jobs are looking good right now. For something such as this to pass would push us right back in a devastating position. So when you look at what we are talking about today, we are talking about something that would pass in America and that would not have anything to do with Mexico, anything to do with China, anything to do with India. I can assure you, right now people from those countries are sitting back with their fingers crossed, hoping this passes, because this would be the biggest jobs bill for Mexico and India and the other developing nations that we could pass. I say to Senator Lieberman, thank you very much for the spirited debate, as I also thank the Senator from Arizona. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, if there is any.

Mr. INHOFE. All right. I say to the Senator from Connecticut, if it is your wish, I will be very glad to defer to you to conclude debate on this matter.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, to draw to conclusion this debate, let me repeat a couple of things we did last night. I will briefly address the science issue. I know there are people out there thinking the science is settled. The science is not settled. Last night I went into detail and I will repeat a couple of significant points. First, Frederick Seitz, the past president of the National Academy of Sciences, compiled the Oregon petition which had 17,800 independently verified signatures--most of those holding degrees of Ph.D. They came to this conclusion: There is no convincing scientific evidence that the human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Again, the Heidelberg Appeal, over 4,000 scientists, 70 of whom are Nobel Prize winners, signed this Heidelberg Appeal that says there is no compelling evidence that is existing today to justify controls of anthropogenic--man made--greenhouse gas emissions. Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT scientist and member of the National Academy of Sciences, said--and I don't think anyone would question his credentials--said there is a definite disconnect between Kyoto and science. Should a catastrophic scenario prove correct, Kyoto would not prevent it. Lastly, the Harvard-Smithsonian study, the most exhaustive study out there, 240 peer-reviewed papers published by thousands of researchers over the last four decades, says the science is flawed. It is important people realize that is the situation. Probably the most significant item we should have been talking about all the time instead of this science--since it is a fact now, I think people understand there are scientists on both sides of this issue--is what is the effect. Last night we had a chance to talk about the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, how it would disproportionately hurt them in losing jobs. A study that no one has challenged concluded that Kyoto would cost 511,000 jobs of Hispanic workers and 864,000 jobs held by Black workers. Is this something we all understand? My chart is revealing if Members need statistics for their own State. The State of Illinois is losing 159,000 jobs; the State of Indiana loses 194,000. This is a study done by Penn State University. The other significant point is that we are voting on an amendment. This amendment is somewhat pared down. Everyone realizes that this amendment, as has been stated many times by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut as well as the Senator from Arizona, is just a first step. So everyone has to look at this. This is the Kyoto Treaty. It needs to be looked at in that respect. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while I appreciate the comments made by my good friend from Arizona, I would only say some of the things there--I know he doesn't intend to say things that aren't true. I would like to quote an article that was in this morning's USA Today. James Morison, who is a scientist with the University of Washington--this is a front page article in USA Today--said the temperature increases and the shifts in winds and ocean currents occurred early in the 1990s and have since ``relaxed.'' This is a recent discovery. These big changes ``are not related to (global) climate change.'' This was just in this morning's paper, speaking of the Arctic Circle. So if we have time, when I have a chance to wind up, I want to repeat some of the things I said about the flawed science on which all these things are based. Until then, I recognize the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, for a time not to exceed 12 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. I reserve that.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu. I hope we will look very carefully at the chart he has. It is probably the most significant chart, other than the jobs chart we have.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Voinovich for making his statement. I will be specific. The amount of jobs in his State alone, if this passes, would be 178,000. For any other Members who want to know how their States will be affected, we have that breakdown. It is a study by Penn State University. I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to probably the best informed Senator who was the chairman of the Governor's clean air committee.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to Senator Craig.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will yield in a minute to the Senator from Nebraska. Last night we went into a lot of detail in this debate and I used three groups of scientists, numbering over 20,000, who refute the science on which global warming is based. Only two criticisms did I get from the other side. One was comments I made about supposedly misquoting Professor Schneider. After looking at this, I find I did not misquote him at all. He is one who adheres to the MIT study that says there is far less than 1 percent chance temperatures would rise to 5.18 degrees or higher, while there is a 17 percent chance that temperatures would rise lower than 1.4 degrees. These are the guys who are for this. More significant--and this is setting the framework for this debate today. This is not about a pared-down bill McCain-Lieberman are coming up with now. They have both said this is just a start. I will quote Professor Wigley, one I was criticized for misquoting. We find out I did not. He said: Senator Inhofe quotes my 1998 publication . . . where I pointed out that adhering to the emissions reductions outlined in the Kyoto Protocol would have only a small effect on the system. What he fails to point out is this analysis assumed that Kyoto was followed to 2010, and there were no subsequent system climate mitigation policies. The point of the paper was to show that Kyoto was to be considered only the first step of a long and complex process of reducing our dependency on fossil fuels as a primary energy source. The chart of Senator Sununu shows how little change would be possible under this. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska for 8 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, thank you very much.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in my last second, I ask unanimous consent that the list of labor unions, agricultural organizations, and other organizations opposing S. 139 be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. We have just voted on the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the underlying bill be referred back to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have talked to our good friend, my brother, the Senator from Hawaii, and he has graciously agreed to let one of our Members go first before he is recognized. At this time, I yield to the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich. Before yielding to Senator Voinovich, I was honored to chair the Clean Air Subcommittee prior to the time I chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee. During that time, Senator Voinovich was Governor Voinovich. He was the chairman of the Governors Clean Air Committee. I don't believe there is anyone in this Senate who has a better knowledge of air problems or who has higher credentials than the Senator from Ohio. At this time, I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me just make a couple of comments, and then I will yield to the Senator from Missouri. I know it is so easy to stand up here and talk about ``the science is irrefutable,'' talk about how different groups are supporting S. 139. I know neither the distinguished Senator from Arizona nor the distinguished Senator from Connecticut would intentionally say something that is not true. However, some of the things they are saying are not true. They are not factual. A little bit later I am going to be going into detail on this science question. The science that has been reviewed since 1999 is overwhelmingly on the side that global warming, in fact, is not occurring and, if it is occurring, is not a result of manmade anthropogenic gases. I would also like to say, I will be talking about some of these groups that supposedly are supporting this bill who, in fact, are not supporting this bill. But I am going to save that for a few minutes because we have several Members who will be coming in on our side who will be wanting to address this issue. For that reason, I now yield to the Senator from Missouri 7 minutes.