Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, no one can truly put into words the magnitude of respect and admiration we feel for those who sacrifice their lives so that we might continue to live in freedom. However, I am honored today to try, since the young man whom I pay tribute to was a proud son of my home State the great State of Oklahoma. Petty Officer 3rd Class Doyle Wayne Bollinger grew up in the community of Poteau, OK. A member of the Poteau Valley Baptist Church, he was remembered by those who knew him best as one with a generous heart--never thinking of himself, but devoting his time to the service of others. Upon graduating from Poteau High School, Petty Officer Bollinger heard the call to serve his country. He joined the United States Navy, becoming a member of the Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133, based in Gulfport, MS. In January of 2003, he and his fellow patriots were sent to Iraq, and possibly into harm's way. On Friday, June 6, 2003 Petty Officer Bollinger was with his battalion, repairing a bridge across the Tigris River in Iraq. He was tragically killed when unexploded ordnance accidentally detonated nearby. At the age of 21 this man lost his life so that we might stand here today, without fear, and in freedom. I cannot fully describe to you the pain in the hearts of his loved ones as they sat at his funeral on the grounds of Poteau High School, where they had watched him graduate only a few years earlier. Our thoughts and prayers are with them now. And though we are all grieved at the loss of this man, we shall never cease to be proud of him-- Oklahoma's son--Petty Officer 3rd Class Doyle Wayne Bollinger. In Memory of Private First Class Jerod R. Dennis

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of a man who, at such a young age, displayed the courage and valor of a true American hero. Private First Class Jerod R. Dennis was a proud son of the great State of Oklahoma, growing up in the community of Antlers. Remembered as being energetic, outgoing, and humorous, he graduated in 2002 from Antlers High School, where he was a standout tennis player, twice making it to the State championships. Even before the attacks on America on 9/11, PVT Dennis knew that he wanted to dedicate himself to service in the United States Army. He enlisted prior to his graduation from high school, and arrived in boot camp merely 3 weeks after receiving his diploma. His parents, Jerry and Jane Dennis of Antlers, realized that their son was proud to be answering the call to serve his country. Despite their worry for his safety, they sent with him their support and love as he was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment based out of Fort Bragg, NC. As a part of the U.S. effort to stamp out the threat of terrorism, PVT Dennis, now an Army sharpshooter, along with the rest of his regiment, was sent to fight in Afghanistan. On April 25, 2003, PVT Dennis was on patrol in eastern Afghanistan with other soldiers when they drove into an ambush. A firefight with rebel fighters quickly followed. When his sergeant was shot, PVT Dennis made his way to a foxhole and provided cover fire as his comrades took the sergeant to safety. Tragically, PVT Dennis was mortally injured in the process. At just 19 years of age, PVT Dennis lay dying from his wounds, worrying more about the physical condition of his fellow soldiers than his own health and well being. PVT Dennis passed on to the next life that day, but no one could deny the bravery displayed by this young man from a small town in far southeastern Oklahoma. Hundreds gathered at the funeral for PVT Dennis, held at the First Baptist Church in Antlers. They will never forget this incredible young man who displayed such great love for his country. As Army Brigadier General Abe Turner stated so eloquently at the funeral ceremony, ``We will remember you. We will honor you, and you will always be a hero.'' He is Oklahoma's hero--Private First Class Jerod R. Dennis.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. We want something to happen. We know there are some plans out there that have been offered that take into consideration that we do not want one Government program that is going to end up being an entitlement program. If it ends up the way it is today, I am going to serve notice right now that after every effort we can make to pass amendments, if they do not work and we end up with what we have today, I am going to be opposing this plan, and hopefully there will be several others who will do the same thing. Exhibit 1 Medicare Drug Folly Runaway trains are hard to stop, but someone has to try and derail the bipartisan folly now moving ahead under the guise of Medicare ``reform.'' Permit us to put a few facts on the table, in the (probably fanciful) hope that somebody in the White House still cares more about the long-run policy than the short-term politics. Let's start with the amusing irony that the supporters of this giant new prescription drug benefit are many of the same folks who were only recently moaning that a $350 billion tax cut would break the budget. That tax cut will at least help the economy grow. But the new Medicare entitlement is nothing more than a wealth transfer (from younger workers to retirees) estimated to cost $400 billion over 10 years, and everyone knows even that is understated. The real pig in the Medicare python doesn't hit until the Baby Boomers retire. Social Security and Medicare Trustee Tom Saving told us last week that the ``present value'' of the Senate plan--the value of the entire future obligation in today's dollars--is something like two-thirds the size of the current $3.8 trillion in debt held by the public. Bill Clinton's Medicare administrator, Nancy-Ann DeParle, correctly calls it the ``biggest expansion of government health benefits since the Great Society.'' She's delighted to see it, but for the rest of us it is a recipe for tax increases as far as the eye can see. And these estimates are before Democrats ``improve'' the benefit, as they are already agitating to do. That's because the dirty secret of this bipartisan lovefest is that the proposed drug benefit isn't all that great. The bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee last week would cover just 50% of drug expenses between $276 and $4,500 annually, then zero up to $5,800, and 90% thereafter. That's nowhere near as good as many seniors currently have with employer-sponsored coverage. Most employers will drop or scale back that coverage once they realize that the feds are willing to pick up part of their tab. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 37% of those with employer coverage could lose it. A Goldman Sachs analyst last week called this bill the ``automaker enrichment act,'' saying companies like Ford and GM would see a 15% reduction in their annual drug spending and a huge decrease in unfunded liabilities. So unborn taxpayers will soon have to pick up the tab for sweetheart labor deals negotiated by carmakers and their unions a generation or two ago. Understood in these terms, a universal drug benefit is neither necessary nor morally justifiable. Some 76% of seniors already have some prescription drug coverage, as the nearby chart shows. The average Medicare beneficiary spends an affordable $999 a year out of pocket on prescription drugs, and less than 5% have out of pocket expenses over $4,000. Seniors already own 60% of all the wealth in this country, and are getting richer. A report in Health Affairs estimates that by 2030 about half will have incomes of $40,000 and about 60% will have assets of $200,000 or more. We're all for a prosperous old age, but it is hardly a step toward social justice for comfortable retirees to be further subsidized by working taxpayers with mortgages and kids. The problem of genuinely poor seniors can be handled with a drug discount card or a means-tested subsidy. We understand, of course, that these facts are unlikely to interfere with the political calculus driving this giant step toward Canadian health care. The Democrats want to expand the welfare state, while Republicans have convinced themselves that they'll get credit with seniors and be able to take health care off the table for 2004. The Republicans are fooling themselves in the long run, and perhaps even about next year. Republicans can never win an entitlement bidding war. They will spend the rest of their public lives sounding like Scrooge for not expanding benefits, or raising taxes on their own voters to pay for the subsidies, or imposing price controls on drug makers that will stifle innovation. This is how parties of the right became me-too socialists in Europe. The sheepish support for this from the likes of otherwise conservative Senators Rick Santorum and Mitch McConnell gives the game away. They're playing loyal spinners, but their heart doesn't seem to be in it. They're going along for the ride with a Republican White House that seems to have forgotten that it has an obligation to more than its own re- election.

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

Mr. INHOFE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am very concerned because what I see coming at us right now is a very fast train. And that train is a giant giveaway entitlement program. We might be in a position to do something about now, but if we wait, we will not be able to do anything about it. Medicare already accounts for roughly 12 percent of the Federal spending and will only grow as more and more baby boomers retire. When Medicare was proposed in 1965--and I am one of the few people around old enough to remember that--I can recall the estimate of Medicare Part A that would cost $2.9 billion in 1970. This was 1965. The actual expenditures in 1970 were $5.3 billion, roughly twice what they were estimating back in 1965. The estimate for 1980 was $5.5 billion. This is Medicare now. The actual expenditures that year totaled $25.6 billion. That is five times the estimated amount. The predicted expenditures for 1990 were $9.1 billion, but the actual expenses totaled $67 billion, nearly seven times the estimated amount. Currently, 76 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries already have some form of drug coverage. We have talked about the fact that something that is not broken does not need to be fixed. When we start looking at establishing an entitlement program today and go by the Medicare model, this is something that none of our kids and grandkids are going to be able to afford. So if we keep in mind that 67 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries already have some form of drug coverage--much of it is better than the proposal on the table now--many of these individuals could lose this coverage if a prescription drug benefit is added to Medicare. CBO estimates that 37 percent of the beneficiaries with employer- based prescription drug coverage would lose that coverage. This accounts for 11 percent of the total Medicare population. Many pharmaceutical companies already offer programs that give low- income seniors their prescription drugs for free or for reduced prices. If this bill is passes in this form, the companies may eliminate these programs, forcing more people into the Medicare rolls. One might say, well, we can legislate this and not allow them to do that. That solution is not going to work. That would be an attempt to micromanage the private sector, and that would not work. I do not think there is any Member of this Senate who, if they owned a company that was giving away free programs, then the Government came along and offered something, that they would continue that practice. That is exactly what would happen. The need to get this legislation to the floor and passed by the end of June, along with the need for bipartisan support, has led to a series of compromises that have resulted in a hodgepodge of a bill. There are elements of this bill that are not only bad policy but will have a detrimental effect on the system as a whole; for instance, the extension of instant Medicaid benefits to illegal aliens, placing an additional burden on Medicaid; loss of employer-based benefits, thus expanding an already large entitlement program. According to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Monday, seniors already own 60 percent of all the wealth of the country and their worth is only increasing. We cannot continue to finance entitlement programs on the backs of current American workers, which is what this bill does. The bill is not means tested. We are giving multimillionaires, even billionaires, the same benefit offered to seniors on fixed incomes. In other words, the Bill Gateses and Warren Buffetts would get the same benefit as a retired schoolteacher. There is a need for Medicare reform to ensure the solvency and stability of the program. However, the current version of this bill does not meet those needs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve this legislation through amendments designed to encourage employers to retain the drug coverage they currently offer, to allow seniors to take advantage of private plans and better options, and to keep the costs low. I will read a little bit of the editorial I read on the plane coming back to Washington. It says: The bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee last week would cover just 50 percent of the drug expenses between $276 and $4,500 annually, then zero up to $5,800, and 90 percent thereafter. That's nowhere near as good as many seniors currently have with employer-sponsored coverage. Most employers will drop or scale back that coverage once they realize that the feds are willing to pick up part of their tab. That is human nature. That is what we are talking about. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 37 percent of those with employer coverage could lose it. I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield back my time.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to say this is a noncontroversial amendment which everyone is for. That is not true. But it is a very old subject. I say that in two ways. It is a subject that has been around for a long time and one that needs to be addressed one way or another. Second, I am offering an amendment that passed out of the Commerce Committee last year. It does one very simple thing. Currently, the age limit for a commercial pilot is age 60. That was established some 40 years ago. The life expectancy since that time has increased by about 12 years. There is no medical reason that anyone has ever put forward why a pilot should have to stop flying at age 60. Quite frankly, I know pilots who are too old to fly at age 50. I am an exception. I am age 68, and I am a better pilot than I was 40 years ago. But age is arbitrary. There are no two people alike. For that reason, age 60 being an arbitrary number and having been around for some 40 years, my preference would be not to have any age limit at all. Frankly, I think we should have very strong, stringent medical requirements. That is in the law today. And we should have very strong proficiency requirements. That is in the law today. So long as a person is able to do that, that person should be able to continue. But, realistically, I believe people are going to say, well, that could lead up to very old ages--even my age. They do not want that to happen. So we are putting an arbitrary age limit of 65 so we can at least look at it for a period of time. There have been a lot of studies. Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene did a study as to what age someone would not have the proficiency in flying an airplane. They came back and said age has absolutely nothing to do with it. There are other predictors that are much more important. In fact, some studies have shown that airline pilots exceed population norms for physical health and mental ability. I believe that is true because they are required to take physicals on a regular basis. I am a commercially rated pilot. I have been for some 40 years. I can tell you from personal experience in my particular case. Some of you in this Chamber will remember this. I had an experience just a couple of years ago with a single-engine airplane where the front end of the airplane came off in flight. Normally, with that situation you are through. However, drawing upon experience, I was able to determine where the new stalling speed was, which was three times what the stalling speed normally would be for that aircraft, and come back and made somewhat of a crash landing, I guess, only because I didn't have any gears down there. But, nonetheless, quite frankly, I wonder if I would have been able to do that before. At this time, I would like to yield the floor so I can see what type of opposition is here today. I would like to tell you that everyone is for it. Quite frankly, ALPA, the Airline Pilots Association, is not for it. There is a very good reason. It is not a safety reason. It is not an age reason. It is a monetary reason. I have a great deal of respect for younger pilots who are commercial pilots working for the airlines. By getting rid of older pilots, that leaves more upward mobility. That is true. I think that is one of the reasons they are opposed to it. In fact, I think that is the only reason they are opposed to it. Many of the airlines are for it, and some are against it. Some of them are in opposition to my amendment as an economic issue. As a pilot becomes older, he is paid more money. Consequently, the payrolls in an ailing industry would go up. I am sensitive to that. I have weighed that carefully and have determined this is the best thing. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have two technical amendments. They have been agreed to.

Mr. INHOFE. In terms of proficiency tests, I am a flight instructor. I test people, and I think everybody doing that takes into consideration age, and they are more stringent with them as they get older. Again, a person could be more proficient at age 70 than at age 40. This happens to some people. That is why age should not be the determining factor; proficiency and health should be. Certainly, economic factors should not. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think we have responded to everything the Senator from North Dakota has said. I would only say that there are a lot of forces out there against it. But every argument that is against it, that is a legitimate argument, is an economic argument. I believe everyone in this Chamber has to understand that what was being age 60, 40 years ago, is not the same as being age 60 today. And everything else, every other schedule we have written into law, has changed more than this amount during that 40-year period.

Mr. INHOFE. Forty years ago.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from North Dakota, and some of the things he says certainly do make sense. I would have to say this, though. There is not a bureaucracy out there that, now and then, does not have to be prodded a little bit because it is the very nature of a bureaucracy not to change. They do not want to change. Not long ago, I had a bill, on which I believe the Senator from North Dakota supported me, called the emergency revocation bill. It took 3 years before we got the votes to pass it. It was something that should have been done, I believe, by the FAA; and I think most of them would agree. Many of them in the field have told me since then that it was something they should have done. They are very busy, they have their hands full, and probably the furthest thing from their minds is making a change. When it gets down to age, when you talk about 60, age 60, when this rule was put in, is the same as age 72 today. Everything that is tied to an index--whether it is retirement, Social Security--they all have increased in age, except this one issue. As far as safety is concerned, I do not think the FAA would tell you the arbitrary age of 60 or 65 is going to relate to safety. But what they relate to safety is the medical and proficiency requirements, which are very stringent. And the older you get, I suggested to my friend from North Dakota, the more stringent they become, because I have had to live through this myself. On the argument that there is not a shortage of pilots, now we are going through a temporary phase. I think, as everyone in this Chamber knows, we are going through a rebuilding process of our military, and the supply and demand of pilots is something that is going to change. I just hope that does not influence a person into making that decision on a vote. I say to the Senator, he is right, safety is the big issue. But we can show--and have testimony, a lot of which I have already talked about--that safety is not related to age; it is related to medical conditions and proficiency. With that, I yield the floor to see if there are those who want to be heard. If not, I will yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. It was actually a twin-engine plane.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the three arguments used by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi are, first, economic. The pilots' union is opposed to it. I said that in my opening statement. There is a justified reason for that. If I were a young pilot and a member of the union, I might feel the same way because they want more upward mobility. As far as the airlines are concerned, yes, they are going to have to pay a little more. The average older pilots have greater salaries and benefits. These are economic reasons. I think we should consider these reasons but I don't want anybody voting on this and believing in their heart that they are doing it for safety or because of the supply and demand of pilots. We all know that will change; we know that with the restructuring of our military. As I said, if it is a good age--first, it should not be an age at all. It ought to be based on medical tests and proficiency tests. If 40 years ago 60 was a good age, 65 would be better now. We will have a chance to look at this. I think there are a lot of people who would like to see a realistic approach to this. I think we used the same thing for 40 years and certainly it is justified to raise that at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from Arizona. I would suggest that this is exactly like the bill that came out of the Commerce Committee last year or the year before, the 107th Congress. I really believe it is time for us to do this. I know where the pressures are against it. If there is no one else on the other side who wants to be heard, I will yield back. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think it appropriate I make a few comments. My committee does have jurisdiction over any environmental aspects of the OCS. I consider this to be significant. I think it is very important for us. We hear all the stuff about the environment and we hear some extremist groups who are saying they don't want this to take place. There are some out there, maybe even some Senators, who might believe this somehow is going to authorize exploration or authorize drilling. Section 105 of the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an inventory and analysis of oil and natural gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. It does not in any way authorize any type of exploration; it doesn't authorize any kind of drilling. It will provide the American people, for the first time, using new technology-- and we have new technology--a comprehensive overview of the country's offshore oil and natural gas resources. This 3-D seismic technology--I have heard the chairman of the Energy Committee talk about this modern technology. It was developed in the 1990s and has allowed us to identify 100 trillion cubic feet more natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico than was previously found. We have surveys for the rest of the country's natural resources. We have surveys of how many forests we have, how many trees we have, how many fish we have, how much coal we have. Why is there so much resistance to knowing how many oil and gas resources or reserves are out there? How can we have a comprehensive national energy policy without knowing how much oil and gas the country has? That is really the key to this. I have criticized Republican and Democrat administrations alike for not having a comprehensive energy policy. I remember, during the Reagan administration, trying to get a comprehensive energy policy. We were not able to do it. During the first Bush administration, we were not able to do it. Consequently, back when I was so concerned about our dependence upon foreign oil for our ability to fight a war, during the Reagan administration, our dependence was only 36 percent. Now it is 57 percent. So it has just gotten worse and worse. Finally, I applaud the President for saying we are going to have a comprehensive energy policy, and I applaud the Senator, the chairman of the Energy Committee, for coming up with a well-thought-out plan. But, again, how can we have a comprehensive policy if we don't even know what resources the Nation has? Many colleagues are concerned that section 105 undermines the State's right to determine what happens in Federal waters off its shores. How can that happen? It is just a study. In fact, not knowing what oil and gas is off States' shores infringes upon a State's right to make an informed decision. Indeed. The liberal mantra here is the right to know. Given that, how can they oppose knowledge? No State has the right to infringe upon interstate commerce. That would be unconstitutional. If legislators are successful in prohibiting the access to the people's resources, then no amount of information about America's oil and natural gas reserves is going to change that protection. Secretary of the Interior Norton, in a recent letter to my colleagues, Senators Graham and Nelson, states: The language does not affect the moratoria. You have to understand that. I just hope the people of America are watching this because we are really just saying we don't want the knowledge. We are facing a natural gas crisis. I don't think anyone is going to stand up here and say that we are not. This crisis is universally acknowledged through widespread awareness. This crisis has really just begun in the past year or so. In a wonderfully bipartisan way, Congress has come together to try to reduce America's reliance on foreign sources of energy, including oil and natural gas. Limiting the American people's access to knowledge about the American people's resources, let alone the resources themselves, is a guaranteed way to increase dependence on foreign sources of energy. It is sort of an ``ignorance-is-bliss'' strategy. Also, many States are facing budget shortfalls. They turn to us for options for addressing these shortfalls. The ones I have talked with are appreciative of the fact that we need to know what resources are off our shores. Again, this amendment authorizes only a study and will allow us to make good and informed decisions about resources. I can't imagine anyone being against something which is merely shedding light on what we have and informing the people of America what the resources are so we can intelligently address those resources in the future. I certainly encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment which would strike the people's right to know what kinds of resources are out there. Again, I repeat that it has nothing to do with exploration. It has nothing to do with drilling oil. All it deals with is finding out what our resources are. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment. Nuclear power is a clean, reliable, stable, affordable, and domestic source of energy. It is an essential part of this Nation's energy mix. And if we care about energy stability and the environment, then nuclear power must play an important role in our energy future. I am a strong supporter of nuclear power and I want to commend Senator Domenici for his commitment to nuclear energy in this bill. His legislation provides incentives to enhance and expand our energy base and usher new advanced-design nuclear power technologies. It has been nearly 20 years since a new nuclear plant has been built. The safety and efficiency record of the industry over that time has been astounding. Through increased efficiency, nuclear plants have increased their clean generation of energy. The increased electricity generation from nuclear powerplants in the past 10 years was the equivalent of adding 22 new 1,000-megawatt plants in our Nation's electricity grid. But with energy demand increasing by at least 30 percent over the next 15 years, more generation will be necessary to meet our needs. As we look to the future, if we are to meet those needs, provide stability in the marketplace, and ensure clean air, then we will have to continue to expand our nuclear base load. Nuclear energy is America's only expandable large-scale source of emission-free electricity. The Environment & Public Works Committee--the committee of which I have the honor to serve as chairman--has jurisdiction over the Nuclear Regulatory Agency and I have been active in overseeing that agency, both as the nuclear subcommittee chairman, and now as chairman of the full committee. In 1998 I began a series of NRC oversight hearings. I did so with the goal of changing the bureaucratic atmosphere that had infected the NRC. By 1998, the NRC had become an agency of process, not results. I knew that if we were to have a robust nuclear energy sector, we needed a regulatory body that was both efficient and effective--and one in which the public could be sure that safety is the top priority. If the agency was to improve it had to employ a more results-oriented approach--one that was risk-based and science-based, not one mired in unnecessary process and paperwork. I am pleased that in the last 5 years, we have seen tremendous strides at the NRC. It has become a lean and more effective regulatory agency. I have the utmost confidence in the NRC ability to ensure that nuclear energy in this country is safe and reliable. We have all of the pieces in place to move to the next generation of nuclear power. If we are to meet the energy demands of the future and we are serious about reducing utility emissions, then we should get serious about the zero emissions energy production that nuclear power provides. And that means that we should not be discouraging the development of new, safe nuclear technologies. Quite the opposite, we should provide the incentives and the assurances in order to meet the energy needs of this country. The bill before us provides a sensible incentive for future nuclear power projects. Unfortunately, the Wyden/Sununu amendment will remove those incentives--it is a step backward--away from long-term stable and clean energy supplies.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is important that Congress make available all possible options for refiners to ensure compliance with the renewable fuels standard and decrease chances for gasoline price and supply volatility. One such option for meeting the renewable fuels standard that has shown promise is ethyl tertiary butyl ether ETBE. ETBE is a High-octane, low-vapor pressure, gasoline-blending component produced from a combination of ethanol and butane. Because both of these raw materials are produced in abundance domestically, ETBE will help expand US gasoline supplies, moderating possible gasoline price volatility. ETBE is fully fungible with gasoline. This allows ETBE to be blended into gasoline at any point in the gasoline logistical chain and transported in gasoline pipelines to regions of the country where it is more costly to transport and blend ethanol into gasoline. Moreover, ETBE does not have a negative impact on gasoline vapor pressure, making it easier and more cost-effective to blend ETBE into gasoline-- especially during the summertime ozone control season when gasoline vapor pressure is restricted. ETBE reduces more gasoline evaporative and tailpipe emissions, lowers air toxics and carbon monoxide, and provides 20-percent more carbon dioxide emission reduction than other gasoline-blending components. ETBE is 75 percent less water soluble than MTBE. This means use of ETBE substantially reduces the risks to ground water resources should gasoline leak from an underground storage tank. ETBE also has other physical properties which make it migrate slower and shorter distances--and easier to remediate--should a gasoline spill or leak occur. I support the development of ETBE because of the benefits it provides for cleaner air, enhanced gasoline supply, and the ability to transport the fuel in the current infrastructure. Congress, in enacting a RFS, should not do anything to preclude its use. The marketplace should be allowed to determine how it will meet the requirements of the RFS. Vote on Amendment No. 850

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, what we are doing here is not giving our stamp of approval on ethanol. We are not mandating. The vast majority of Members here feel more strongly about this than I do. I know the Senator from California would not deliberately mislead you. What she is saying is just flat wrong. I keep hearing it over and over again: If a safe harbor provision is enacted into law, No. 1, citizens will not be able to take refiners to court under our court system; and, No. 2, any possible ethanol contamination that happens in the future wouldn't get cleaned up. It just isn't true. Even with the enactment of the safe harbor provisions, if a plaintiff makes his case--that is a very significant part of this--there are just a few court theories that could be used in environmental cases: Trespass, not affected by safe harbor; nuisance, not affected by safe harbor; negligence, not affected by safe harbor; breach of implied warrant, not affected by safe harbor; breach of express warranty, not affected by safe harbor. As far as cleanups are concerned, if there were a spill, here are some examples of environmental laws that are on the books right now that would take care of the problem and are not affected by safe harbor: No. 1, Resource Conservation Recovery; No. 2, Clean Water Act; No. 3, Oil Pollution Act; No. 4, Superfund; and it goes on and on. Neither of these assertions is true. They would be able to have their day in court, and at the same time we have adequate laws in the court system and environmental laws to accommodate any cleanup that would take place.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment and recognize the brave men and women who flew and supported the mission of the B-2 bomber. The B-2 is a critical asset of our U.S. military and must be supported in the future. The B-2 can carry up to 40,000 pounds of munitions and can strike up to 16 targets in a single pass. The first night of the bombing in Baghdad, 6 B-2s destroyed 92 targets on the first night. B-2s flew nonstop, 36-hour missions from Whiteman AFB in Missouri to Iraq, unscathed. The B-2s targeted everything from airfields to surface-to-air missiles, sometimes changing targets while airborne enroute to Iraq. No other military has this capability with such accuracy and survivability. It is essential we fund the Global Air Traffic Management, GATM, system, the Secure Nuclear Communications and Broadband Connectivity capabililty, and the repair of the Aft Deck Durability issue for the B-2. We must ensure the B-2 is maintained and modified to keep its lethal edge.