Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for such time as I may consume.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we are having a lot of discussion, and people are lined up now talking about this event that is going to take place in the middle of December. It is going to be the 21st COP. It is a meeting that the United Nations puts on every year. It has been on for 21 years now. They are all saying: This is the time. This is what they say every time--for 21 years--that we are going to adopt something in this country. Prior to now they had been using legislation to reduce the emissions of CO2 and the devastation that will be on our economy. There is nothing different now--except everything. As time has gone by, it has not been their friend. We have the alarmists who really believe that the world is coming to an end because of global warming. Some of them actually believe that. For a lot of them, it is the thing to do. You have Tom Steyer with $75 million trying to resurrect this as an issue. There are some who really do believe it. The problem is, time is not doing them a favor because every time a week or a month goes by, somebody else comes out with some new information. A recent NASA study that was published in the Journal of Glaciology found that gains in the Antarctic ice sheets are much greater than the estimated losses. This runs counter to the IPCC 2013 report that suggests there was a net loss of ice on the continent. Let's look for a minute at what the IPCC is. The IPCC is an arm of the United Nations. They have put together these studies of people, and this has been going on now for more than 15 years. The only qualifications you need, I guess, to be one of the scientists is you have to believe in this. We have testimony from a lot of different members of the scientific community who have said that their position in opposition to the anthropogenic gases causing global warming, causing destruction of the Earth, has caused them not to be a part of this. There is no better evidence of that than in 2009 when they came out and made it very clear that the science they are dependent on was the IPCC, and it was totally discredited with what they call climategate. We have talked about this on the floor several times. I thought that would have ended it in 2009, but it didn't. I mentioned that background only because we have the Paris trip coming up, and there will be a lot of people going there to try to fortify their positions. Since the 1970s, the IPCC climate model historically predicted a significant increase in global temperatures, and we haven't really seen this. The frequent statements held up by the media showing each month that passes is the ``hottest month on record'' willfully ignore the margin of error contained within these datasets. Simply put, the 15- year hiatus--the hiatus, as it is called--is showing that, yes, we went through a period of time when there was warming. Then all of a sudden, some 15 years ago--16 years ago, it leveled off and it hasn't warmed since that time. This has been a problem for the individuals who believe this. Let me go back. This is from memory, but I am sure it is right because I have said it so many times. The first time they talked about global cooling was in 1895. In 1895, they came out and said that we are now worried about a new ice age. They coined that term. They said that it is going to be catastrophic. Then about 20 years later--it was in 2018--it changed. All of a sudden, there was global warming. There was a warming. This was the first time the term ``global warming'' had been used. At that stage, things were warming up from that point until 1945. In 1945, it was rather interesting because that was at the end of World War II, and another cold spell came in. The interesting thing about this is if you look back historically, the greatest surge in emissions of CO2 in America happened right after the Second World War in 1945. That precipitated not a warming but another cold spell. In fact, they used the term ``ice age.'' In the 1970s, it started warming. If you follow this, about every 30 years this changes. God is still up there. We are still going to have a change in climate. What disappointed them, on the other side, is that all the things they have been saying about global warming--it stopped 15 years ago, and it has leveled off. Despite the clear evidence that the science of global warming is not settled, environmental alarmists are pushing ahead with an economically devastating agenda that is more about ideological outcomes than combating global warming. These efforts will come to a head at the end of this year when the United Nations hosts the 21st Conference on Parties, COP, session in Paris. With this upcoming international spectacle, we should not only be questioning the science, but also the intentions and promises each country is making. Just last week, China was exposed for underreporting the amount of coal it burns by about 1 billion tons a year for the last 15 years. As the New York Times stated: Even for a country of China's size, the scale of correction is immense. . . . The increase alone is greater than the whole German economy emits annually from fossil fuels. They are talking about just the increase of what China has agreed to. They are saying they are reducing some of their emissions. The increase that they admit is going to come will still be far greater than the whole German economy emits annually for fossil fuels. Then there is India, a country whose climate pledge is based on the premise that developed countries, such as the United States, will pick up these costs to the tune of $2.5 trillion over the next 15 years-- just over $160 billion a year. India stands to gain from American taxpayer dollars. Keep in mind that each year for the last 21 years, we have had about 192 countries come in, and their job--in order to come in and join the big party--is to say, yes, we are going to do something about reducing CO2 emissions. I have a lot of activity in Africa, and there is someone I know very well who lives in a little country called Benin, West Africa. His name is Luke. He was an official in Benin, West Africa. I went up to him and I said: How come you are at this thing? You know better than to believe in this whole idea of global warming. He said: Well, look. We have an opportunity to share in something like $100 billion because we are a minority country. Besides that, this is the biggest party of all every year. So we have these things that are the motivations for people coming in. Even the United Nations bureaucrats have been very candid about what they hope to achieve through the international climate negotiations, which has nothing to do with saving the environment. The former French President, Jacques Chirac, when addressing the Kyoto Protocol, described it as the ``first component of an authentic global governance.'' Margot Wallstrom--I remember this because I was there at the time she said it--former EU minister, stated that international agreements are about the economy and ``leveling the playing field for big business worldwide.'' That has nothing to do with the environment. Most recently, Christiana Figueres, the U.N.'s top climate official when talking about the Paris climate conference said--she was running this thing for the United Nations--``This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.'' She is the person who is supposed to be making the case. Even the United States' global warming commitment to the international community is questionable. President Obama is committing the United States to cut its emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025. This promise is also just as questionable and hollow as what we are hearing from the countries I mentioned. The chart itself is self-explanatory. This is the gap that is in there. Not only does the President not have the backing of the Senate and the American people, but outside groups are finding that the President's method to achieve these reductions through climate regulations--primarily the Clean Power Plan--is faulty. According to a recent analysis by the U.S. Chamber, the President's intended national determination contributions, the INDC--that is what they used to say what commitments are being made--are about 33 percent short of meeting stated targets. On July 8, a former Sierra Club chief climate counsel testified before my committee--I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee--about his own analysis that has found an even greater gap. Right now, the Clean Power Plan is a regulation that is promoted by the President. Starting in 2002, they tried to pass legislation. After we analyzed this legislation, we discovered that it would have cost the American people somewhere between $300 and $400 billion a year. Whenever I hear a big number like that, what I always do is go back and get the latest figures from my State of Oklahoma as to how much this means to each family that files Federal income tax, and this legislation would cost each family about $3,000. That is a lot of money for the people in my State of Oklahoma. Yet, by their own admission, it is not going to accomplish anything. My colleagues might remember Lisa Jackson. Lisa Jackson was chosen by Barack Obama to be the first director of the EPA. I asked her a question right before the Copenhagen party in 2009. I said: Now, you are going to come out with an endangerment finding, and if you have this endangerment finding, who is going to be the scientist? She said: Well, the IPCC. I said: Well, assuming that you pass this legislation--they were trying to pass the cap-and-trade legislation that I just described, which would have cost between $300 and $400 billion at that time--will that reduce the CO2 emissions worldwide? Keep in mind, Obama chose her to be the director of the EPA. She said: No, it wouldn't do that because this isn't where the problem is. The problem is in China, India, and Mexico. In fact, you can carry it one step further. If you are going to have a reduction in it and then that chases our manufacturing base to other countries where they don't have restrictions, then those countries will be countries like China and India that don't have any controls on emissions, so it will end up costing even more. I mentioned that the President is going there in spite of where the American people are. This is very interesting because back in 2001 and 2002, major polling showed that the No. 1 concern at that time was global warming. And now that same poll--this is the Gallup poll that came out in March--said it is No. 15, and that is dead last as far as Americans are concerned. The American people have caught on. The President is setting up the American economy to suffer great pain for no gain. The rising cost of energy will not only restrict access to affordable and reliable energy, but it will also undermine our businesses' ability to compete on a global scale and will ultimately ship jobs overseas to these other countries that will be increasing emissions for the next decade. The outcome sounds a lot like the United Nations bureaucrats' hope for ``leveling the playing field for big business worldwide.'' It was Margot Wallstrom who made that statement, and I quoted her a minute ago. It is no wonder the President is working so hard to circumvent Congress's role in committing the United States to an international agreement on climate change. He is playing to the wishes of the international community to include French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius who, when talking about the forthcoming international climate summit, said that an agreement needed to be reached that would allow the President to make a commitment ``without going to Congress.'' That is the whole idea. It is not just this one; there are other areas as well. Last week we were discussing the big water bill for a long period of time. Historically--always in this country--the control of water has been under State jurisdiction, and if it is under State jurisdiction, the only exception was navigable waters. About 5 years ago, there was an effort by a Senator from Wisconsin and a Representative Oberstar from Minnesota to try to pass legislation that would take the word ``navigable'' out, and that would have meant that everything would go from the States back to the Federal Government. Not only did we defeat those bills, but both the Senator and House Member were defeated at the next election in 2010. The American people have caught on, and the summit is going to go forward, and I can assure my colleagues that we will have a big delegation from the United States of America at the summit and will talk about what America is going to do. Again, they are trying to do it through regulation. They tried to do the water rule legislatively, but they couldn't do it. So now the President is trying to do it with a rule. We have gone through this with ozone and other things. We will be faced with this, and clearly the President's agreement is about his legacy more than promoting a policy that is in the best interest of the American people. Americans need to not only question a science that is not settled, but a policy that is being used to appease internationalists at the cost of America's future prosperity. We have gone through this now for quite a while--I would say for the last 18 years or so. The problem we are having--and I see a lot of the young people here--is that so many of the young people actually believe this stuff. One of the reasons they believe it is that they are taught it. This is a terrible confession for me to make. I have 20 kids and grandkids, and one of them--I won't say which one--when she was in sixth or seventh grade came to me and said: Pop-I--the ``I'' is for Inhofe--why is it that you don't understand global warming? I said: Honey, show me why you are asking. She showed me the propaganda coming from the EPA and going through our school system. It is incredible. In spite of that, the facts are there, and it is not going to work any more this time than it did during the 21 last visits. With that, I will yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Nevada I be recognized, unless an intervening minority Member should come in, in which case that I be recognized after that minority Member.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, yesterday 41 Senators refused to have a substantive debate on an issue that is critically important to all of our constituents--the scope of Federal authority under the Clean Water Act--and voted against a motion to proceed to Senator Barrasso's bipartisan Federal Water Quality Protection Act, S. 1140. Later in the day I was extremely disappointed to learn that 11 of those 41 Senators agreed that the EPA's rule is flawed, but instead of doing their job to provide legislative clarity to the EPA on the regulation of our Nation's waters, they wrote a letter. In this letter they told the EPA that they have concerns with the rule, but instead of acting now they reserve the right to do their jobs simply at a later time. If only 3--only 3--of these 11 Senators who signed this letter would have voted to proceed to the bill, we could have worked with them to resolve their concerns and ours about the WOTUS rule disapproval. As Senator Sasse so eloquently reminded us yesterday in his maiden speech, what are we here for if not to have a substantive debate on issues? No wonder the American people think Congress is not looking out for their interests. Instead of doing their jobs, 11 Senators asked the EPA to change the final rule through guidance. That can't happen. EPA can't do that. That would be a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and I think most of us know that. These 11 Senators also asked the EPA to enforce the rule in a way that will protect people who are not regulated today. That also will not happen. The WOTUS rule is on the books. Even if the EPA doesn't bring enforcement action against someone, some activist, environmentalist community is going to file a lawsuit, and we know what the result of that would be. In the letter I am referring to, the 11 Democrats agreed that the EPA did not provide clarity in its final WOTUS rule to protect American landowners, but instead of voting to debate a bipartisan bill that would have forced EPA to provide that clarity and to offer perfecting amendments, if they wished to do so, they wrote a letter. I know I am sounding very critical, and in a minute I will tell my colleagues why, because this happens to be the No. 1 issue of the farmers and ranchers in my rural State of Oklahoma. It is a big deal. The EPA's entire rulemaking process, and now the lack of debate in the Senate, is an example of Washington at its worst. This is a long and sordid story that dates back to 2009. EPA wanted to be able to control isolated ponds, wetlands, and dry channels water only when it rains, but they were blocked because the Supreme Court said the Clean Water Act is based on the authority over navigable waters. I think everybody understands that the State has always had the authority, but certainly if they are navigable waters, I agree, the Federal Government should be involved. First, the EPA backed legislation--and this is the legislation I referred to yesterday by Senator Feingold, 5 years ago, and Congressman Oberstar in the House--to take the word ``navigable'' out. If we take the word ``navigable'' out, everything is then in the authority of the Federal Government. To support this legislation, EPA created a propaganda message that action was needed to protect drinking water. The EPA spread this propaganda, even though they know that all sources of drinking water are already regulated. That is already done. That is a done deal. It should have been done and it was done, but the American people were not fooled. The bills were so unpopular with the American people that even though Senator Feingold's party held the Senate, the White House, and the House--everything was on their side--the bill never reached the Senate floor and Congressman Oberstar did not even try to move his bill through the committee he chaired. So the American people held them accountable. Both of them, I might add, lost their elections for reelection to office in 2010. After that election, EPA changed its strategy. Even though in 2009 the EPA said they needed legislation to expand Federal control after Congress rejected their attempt to take the word ``navigable'' out of the clean Clean Water Act, they tried to do the same thing through regulation. This is exactly what this administration has been doing. Every time they try to pass something legislatively and they can't do it, they get a regulation. That is what they are doing. How many times did we vote on the global warming and the cap-and-trade bills, and each time it went down resoundingly in the Senate. Well, it happened over and over again. So what did they do? They said if we can't do it legislatively, we will do it through regulation. In this new regulation, EPA tried to dodge the Supreme Court rulings by pretending that all water has a connection to navigable water. EPA also cranked up its propaganda machine. On May 19, the New York Times said: ``In a campaign that tests the limits of federal lobbying law, the agency orchestrated a drive to counter political opposition from Republicans and enlist public support in concert with liberal environmental groups and a grass-roots organization aligned with President Obama.'' That was in the New York Times. They created social media messages and asked people to send these EPA-directed messages of support back to EPA--a true echo chamber going back and forth. After soliciting comments using its propaganda machine, the EPA claimed that 90 percent of the comments supported the rule and that every comment is meaningful to the EPA. However, the Corps of Engineers told my committee--the committee that I chair, the Environment and Public Works Committee--that only 39 percent of unique comments supported the rule, and 60 percent were opposed. The difference is that EPA is counting each email address on a list as a separate meaningful comment. For example, EPA counts a list of nearly 70,000 email addresses sent in by Organizing for Action, President Obama's political campaign arm, as 70,000 comments. It is actually only one. Apparently the EPA considers an email address more meaningful than substantive comments submitted by States and by local governments, by farmers, ranchers, and property owners. The EPA has ignored the significant concerns raised by these groups, and they should not have. I am sure that every Member of this body has heard from someone comparable to Tom Buchanan in my State of Oklahoma. Tom Buchanan is the president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau. He speaks for a lot of farmers and ranchers, and we are a rural State. He says of all the problems that farmers and ranchers have in Oklahoma, these issues are not found in the farm bill, and they are not in the ag bill. They are the overregulations of the EPA. He is talking about endangered species, where you can plow your fields and where you can't. But of all the regulations of the EPA, the most onerous are the water regulations because they will allow the Federal Government to have an army of bureaucrats crawling over every farm and every ranch, not just in my State of Oklahoma but throughout America. Two courts have already said it is illegal. It will be overturned. We don't have to stand for this. We don't have to endure years of confusion before the courts act. They are going to act, but it could take a long, long time. In the meantime they will go forward, and the overregulations will continue. We have only one way to stop the rule right now, and that is coming up. It is through the CRA offered by Senator Ernst. A lot of people don't know what a CRA is, but it forces responsibility on Members of the Senate. There are a lot of Senators who want overregulation; the liberal ones do. So they would rather go ahead and go home, and when people complain, they can say: Hey, it wasn't us who did that; it was an unelected bureaucracy that did that. A CRA will not let them get by with that. The President can veto it, which he will, and it will come back for a vote to override the veto, and we will know and our constituents throughout America will know just how their Senator is voting. Senator Ernst's CRA would do that. I certainly urge a ``yes'' vote, not just for me but for all my farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma. After vacating this rule, if any Senator wants to work with my committee on substantive issues around the scope of Federal authority under the Clean Water Act, I stand ready to work with them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time spent in a quorum call before the 12 noon vote be charged equally against both sides.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Chuck Podolack, a legislative fellow in Senator Flake's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this year.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to do three things quickly. One is a request, one is an apology, and one is the truth. The privileges of the floor request will appear in another section of the Record. Secondly, I have an apology. I am very fortunate I have had the same staff for 21 years in the Senate. They have never made a mistake. My staff never made a mistake until last Friday. Last Friday I was informed by my staff that we had two votes starting at 1 o'clock in the morning--two votes, and yet there were three. So I am the guy who came down, thinking I had already voted. So I apologize to the leader, I apologize to the staff who was working, and more than anything else, I apologize to the young people on the front row, our pages, who had to stay up another 15 minutes at 4 o'clock in the morning because of me. I apologize. On the truth side, first, let me put in the Record--my good friend from California was talking about all of the groups. I have five times as many groups now on record, many of which are from the State of California. I have a long list. I wish to make those 44 groups from California a part of the Record. And then there are the 480 very thoughtful groups nationally that are opposed to this rule. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the two lists of supporters.

Mr. INHOFE. Now, the waters of the United States rule is not just another example of regulatory overreach. I chair the Committee on Environment and Public Works. We have jurisdiction over the EPA, yet they do not want to even come in and testify when requested, and that is something I don't think has ever happened before. This rule we are talking about now is illegal. It is not supported by the science, it is not supported by the technical experience of the Corps of Engineers, and it is a political power grab. Thirty-one States--here is the chart--filed lawsuits against the WOTUS rule. If we don't act to send this rule back, States, local governments, farmers, and landowners could face years of abuse by the EPA until the courts inevitably strike the rule down. Believe me, it is inevitable that the rule will be overturned. I think we know that. That is not just my opinion. This is the conclusion of the two courts that have looked at this rule so far. On August 27, Judge Erickson of the District of North Dakota issued an injunction that prevented the WOTUS rule from going into effect in 13 States. Oklahoma, my State, was not one of the 13 States. According to Judge Erickson--and this is her court--``the rule allows EPA regulation of waters that do not bear any effect on the `chemical, physical and biological integrity of any navigable-in-fact water.''' As a result, Judge Erickson concluded this rule is ``likely arbitrary and capricious.'' That means it violates the law. That is what the judge said. Now, on October 9, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion and issued a nationwide stay on the WOTUS rule. My committee has conducted a lot of oversight. I believe we have had six hearings so far. We have memoranda from the Army Corps of Engineers that document the fact that EPA is claiming the authority to assert Federal control wherever they want no matter what the science says or what the technical or legal experts of the Corps say. So what we have is a rule that is not developed based on science or technical expertise. Instead, it is based on a political goal to call everything a water of the United States. If we look at the chart that is set up right now, it is imperative we have to act right away. This is what we have right now around the country. Let me make this comment. I am very much concerned about this. The ones who want this the most are the farmers and the ranchers, and a lot of other people too, but my State of Oklahoma is a farm State, and I can remember not too long a guy named Tom Buchanan. He was the chairman of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau. He said that, historically, it has not been this way. But as it is right now, the major problem farmers and ranchers have in my State of Oklahoma is not anything that is found in the farm bill, it is the overregulation of the EPA. Of all of the regulations of the EPA that are overregulating and putting farmers out of business, the one that is the worst is the waters of the United States rule. Let me share this with you, Mr. President. Five years ago, the liberals--those who want all the power in Washington--made an effort to take the word innavigable out. Historically, this has always been in the jurisdiction of the States, except for navigable waters. I understand that, and everyone else does too. So Senator Feingold from the Senate and Congressman Oberstar from the House got together and introduced a bill to take the word navigable out and give all the power to the Federal Government. Not only did we defeat their legislation, but they were both defeated in the next election. So this is a huge issue. It is one of regulation. It is one we need to go ahead with, since the courts have decided what is going to happen eventually. We need to go ahead and pass this legislation or we are going to be working in a direction that is contrary to our court system. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I know the Senator from California was disappointed in a few things that went on procedurally, and I am very much in sympathy. But far more significant than that is the bill we are talking about now. We made a tremendous advance to it just a few minutes ago. We did what the House has already done. We are now extended to the 20th of November. It is my understanding that the House is going to be taking up--we are talking about the highway bill. A lot of things we talk about around here are not very important. We all have different ideas about what is and is not important, but still we have that Constitution, and the Constitution says what we are supposed to be doing. What we are supposed to be doing here is defending America and roads and bridges. That is what we are supposed to be doing. Senator Boxer and I--she is a very proud liberal and I am a very proud conservative--have recognized what our duty is when we come here, and the second most important bill every year--not every year, because we have the Defense authorization bill every year, but not the Transportation authorization bill. That is what is important, and that is what we are supposed to be doing here. What we did a few minutes ago is very significant. We are on the same page as the House, and that is to have a bill done and on the President's desk by the 20th of November, which is going to be right before we have a break for Thanksgiving. It now looks like we are assured of doing that. I have to say that in working over the years with Senator Boxer, we have worked in a capacity in which she was the chairman of that committee and I was the ranking member; then I was the chairman of the committee and she was the ranking member. We never changed what we stood for or what we saw as significant in the second most important bill we deal with every year. I am anticipating we are going to be able to have this 6-year authorization bill on the floor next week. We are going to be dealing with it, and we are going to be passing it. We already know the number of people who have voted for it in the past, so we know where we are. On the other hand, I think this is going to have a privileged motion and go straight in for a conference. I look forward to that, and that makes it all possible. You have to keep in mind the Senate isn't doing this. The House is going on a Veterans Day recess, so we have to work on getting their job done before the recess so we can do ours while they are on recess, and then we will have a happy ending. While I do regret there are some disappointments, I have to say this. When we are talking about a bill like this, it means that the left and the right have to get together, and we did. I want to applaud my ranking member, Senator Boxer, for helping us in some of the areas where we are able to shortcut some of the NEPA requirements and expedite some things that couldn't be done otherwise. Let's keep in mind that if we went ahead and did what we have been doing since 2009, we wouldn't be doing this. We wouldn't be doing any major bills--no bridges, no major bills. This is a great day to see the assurance that this is going to take place, and I applaud Senator Boxer in the joint effort we had on the left and the right in this body. We don't see that very often.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for one observation?

Mr. INHOFE. The Senator mentioned the fact that we have a 6-year bill and 3 years to pay for it. That doesn't really concern me for a couple of reasons. One is that once we start projects, I can assure you that there will be a reshuffling of priorities in this Chamber here, where people will realize the one thing we don't want to do is to start construction on something and then stop. This, I have no question in my mind, is going to take place. Secondly, we have the same provision in the House as we do in this body, and that is that if for some reason money is not available, nothing else can be done after that 3-year period. We are not going to let that happen. So I think we are going to be in good shape. Job well done.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the fact that my colleagues from West Virginia, North Dakota, Kentucky, and Montana-- all of us are getting together on this in a bipartisan way. I think it is worth repeating, to make sure everyone understands where we are on this, what a CRA is. The CRA is the Congressional Review Act. It is an act that allows an elected person who is answerable to the public to weigh in on these decisions that are made by the President--who can't run again for office--and by the unelected bureaucrats who are destroying this country. As was pointed out by the Senator from Kentucky, I do chair the committee called the Environment and Public Works Committee. On this committee, we deal with these regulations. We have jurisdiction over the EPA. It is interesting I would say that because we tried to get the EPA to come in and testify as witnesses as to how the President plans to move to the percentage of power that is going to be generated by the year 2030 by renewables, and they won't testify because they don't have a plan. They don't know how they are going to do it. The CRA is significant because there are a lot of people in this case who would be the liberals in this body who like the idea of being overregulated, who like the idea of having the regulators run our lives, and they are the ones who would love to go home when people are complaining about the cost of all of these things and they can say: Well, wait a minute. Don't blame us. That was a bureaucrat who did that; that wasn't me. Well, this forces accountability, and these guys don't like it. I can assure you right now that we are going to give everyone an opportunity to weigh in on what these issues are. They would much prefer to go home and say: I know we are overregulating and I know it is destroying the States--whatever the States happen to be--but it wasn't me, don't look at me. Now we are going to see who is responsible because what is going to happen is we are going to have a vote. The vote is going to take place, and I think our leader is correct when he says the President will probably veto this. If the President vetoes it, it comes back for a veto override, and then people will know who is for it and who is against it. So I think a CRA has another great value. It forces accountability by people who are answerable to the public. On the issue we are discussing today, the interesting and the consistent pattern we have is that what this President does is he gets the things they tried to do through over--through legislation, and those things that fail through legislation he tries then to do by regulation. Let me give you an example. Another issue--not the issue we are talking about today--is the WOTUS issue, the waters of the United States. Historically, it has been the States that have regulations over the waters except for navigable waters. Well, of course, liberals want everything in Washington. So 5 years ago a bill was introduced, and the bill would have essentially taken the word ``navigable'' out so that the Federal Government would have control over all the waters in my State of Oklahoma and throughout America. Two of them introduced a bill, one was Senator Feingold of Wisconsin and the House Member was Congressman Oberstar from one of the Northern States. I don't know which one it was. They introduced a bill to take the word ``navigable'' out. Not only did we overwhelmingly defeat the legislation, but the public defeated the two of them in the next election. Now the President is trying to do what he was not able to do through legislation through regulation. The same thing is true--the Senator from West Virginia is right when he talked about what they are trying to do. It is very interesting when you look at this bill. We are talking about the emissions of CO2. The first bill that was introduced was in 2002. It was the McCain-Lieberman bill. We defeated that. The next one was the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2005, and the third one was the Warren-Lieberman bill in 2008. Then we had the Waxman- Markey bill that we never even got to vote on because nobody was going to vote for it. So what they fail to be able to do legislatively, they are now trying to do through regulations, and that is why a CRA is significant because it does force accountability. Let me make one other statement. This thing about Paris that is going to take place in December. This is the big party that the United Nations puts on every year. It is the 21st year they have done this. I can remember when they did it in 2009. That was going to be Copenhagen. Several people went over there at that time. President Obama was in the Senate, Hillary was in the Senate, Pelosi was there, and John Kerry went. They went over there to tell the 192 countries that were meeting in Copenhagen--the same 192 countries that will be meeting in 2 months--went over to tell them we were going to pass cap-and-trade legislation that year. That was 2009. I went over after they had given their testimony there. I went all the way over to Copenhagen, spent 3 hours, and came all the way back on the next flight. I probably had the most enjoyable 3 hours I ever had because I was able to talk to 192 countries and tell them they had been lied to; that we are not going to be passing it. The same thing is going on in December of this year. By the way, let me just mention one thing that hasn't been said. There are people out there listening to this who actually believe this stuff, that the world is going to come to an end because of CO2 manmade gases. This is something we have been listening to for a long period of time. I remember right before going to Copenhagen in 2009--at that time the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was Lisa Jackson, an appointee by President Obama, and I asked her this question on the record, live on TV. I asked: If we had passed any of the legislation or the regulations that we are talking about passing, would this have an effect of lowering the CO2 worldwide? She said--now keep in mind this was an Obama appointee--by the way, Obama was President at that time when he went to Copenhagen. She said: Well, no, it wouldn't reduce emissions worldwide because it just pertains to the United States. This isn't where the problem is. The problem is in India, it is in China, it is in Mexico. The problem we would have there is, yes, we might lower our CO2 emissions in the United States. However, those other countries will not, and it could have the effect of increasing, not decreasing, CO2 emissions because as we chase our manufacturing base overseas to places they don't have any restrictions, we would have the effect of increasing it. So I am just saying I appreciate the fact we are all together on this and making the necessary efforts to make people accountable. I think it might surprise a lot of people as to who changes their mind on this once they know they have to cast a vote and be accountable. I applaud, certainly, my friends from West Virginia and the other States that are involved in this. I think this is the right thing to do. Let's keep in mind the Utility MACT--that is the maximum achievable control technology--was the first shock to put coal under. At that time we did a CRA, and we actually came within four votes of getting the bill passed, and that was when Republicans were not a majority. I look for some good things to happen, and I think we are doing what is right and responsible. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for such time as I may consume.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I came back today and had really good news over the weekend. I think a lot of people have gotten together on both sides, in the House and the Senate, to do what we are supposed to be doing. I often refer to that old instrument called the Constitution, which says there are two main things we are supposed to be doing here: One is defending America, and the other is building roads and bridges. That is what we are supposed to be doing. The Presiding Officer has heard me say before that my top priority as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee is, and continues to be, passing a long-term highway reauthorization bill. The last one we passed was in 2005. I was proud to be the author of it at that time. It expired in 2009. Since that time, we have not had anything except short-term extensions. I have to remind my conservative friends, because I am a conservative, that the conservative position is to have a long-term reauthorization bill, because the short-term costs about 30 percent off the top. As a result, the industry stakeholders and local government leaders have lost faith in Congress's ability to provide funding certainty to maintain and advance our surface transportation and infrastructure. Ranking Member Barbara Boxer and I have been fighting for a long period of time to change this and reverse the trend of wasteful short-term patches. On June 24, our committee--and this is very unusual for this to happen. Our committee unanimously voted to advance to the Senate the DRIVE Act, which is a 6-year reauthorization bill. In July, the Senate gave strong bipartisan support by a vote of 65 to 34, a 2-to-1 majority. Again, this is not something that normally happens with a major piece of legislation. It also included contributions from the Senate Commerce Committee and the Senate Banking Committee, so it is not just the Environment and Public Works Committee. Other committees have parts of this legislation also. The Senate worked hard across party lines to put forward a solution for our Nation's roads and bridges. We ended the summer by passing yet another short-term patch in order to give more time for the House to join our efforts. Unfortunately, we are now 3 days away from facing another cliff and the two Chambers have not yet been able to conference a long-term transportation solution. I just talked to Chairman Shuster of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. They marked up a 6-year reauthorization bill just this last Thursday. I am proud to see that both Chambers are on similar pages. Both bills recognize the need for a national freight program. We approach it just a little differently, but there is nothing that can't be reconciled in a matter of minutes. Further, environmental streamlining is absolutely necessary. Both bills are doing that. We place a new focus on innovation which provides States with flexibility, as in my State of Oklahoma. When we give flexibility to the States, we get a lot more done. This idea that no good ideas are put to work unless they originate in Washington is just not true. Also, long-term certainty, which we are very much concerned with, is there, and it is now a reality. We are now one step closer to putting America back on the map as a place to do business. It is my understanding that the House intends to move Chairman Shuster's 6-year reauthorization bill through the full House over the next 2 weeks. I just spoke with him a few minutes ago. Unlike in years past, I expect a very short conference period. Because we still face this important process, Congress will need one more extension to get us to the finish line. The finish line should be the 20th of November, and it can be done. When I say a very short conference period, it is because there is very little difference between the House bill and the Senate bill. I have talked to the likely conferees, and they are in accord with the idea that we can do this in a matter of hours, not days. I realize there are a lot of moving discussions on larger deals on the debt limit and budget caps; however, there is agreement that the surface transportation bill can and will move on its own timeline. The House will move a short-term extension to November 20 this week. The ones I have talked to assure me that is going to happen. I hope the Senate passes it quickly so the House can move the T&I-reported bill on the floor and we can move to a quickly resolved conference. Due to the similarity in both bills, I am confident we can and should have this on the President's desk by Thanksgiving. If we fail to get this done by November 20, we are going to be faced with two significant hurdles: First, Congress has other pressing deadlines to address in December--to include December 11, when funding of the Federal Government expires, and December 31, when a host of important tax provisions will expire. Another December 31 deadline would be the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act. I can remember in years past when we got dangerously close to December 31. One time the Big Four had to take it, and it was not even a product of the committees. I was one of the Big Four. We were able to pass it, but we came so close to December 31, it was scary. Here we are, in the middle of a bunch of wars, and all of a sudden we would have provisions out there--reenlistment bonuses, hazard pay, and things that would expire. Nothing would be worse than to have our kids in combat facing that. We are addressing these deadlines that will require Congress's undivided attention. Some of the solutions for these bills could result, I fear, in Members attempting to siphon off the payoffs of the DRIVE Act. That is why this is important. The second significant hurdle we face is that later this year the highway trust fund will drop to a dangerously low level, as DOT Secretary Foxx has warned. At that point, agencies at the Federal and State level will begin to implement cash management procedures that significantly affect the States' construction seasons. In the majority of the United States, we would lose a construction season in States such as Iowa and in Northern States. Mark my words: A failure by Congress to enact a long-term bill by Thanksgiving will result in a loss of the 2016 construction season. Congress is going to return to its current pattern of short-term extensions. Again, short-term extensions syphon about 30 percent off the top. It is a terrible outcome that should be avoided at all costs. We have the opportunity to do it now. By making industry and States continue to hold their breath and budgets, we rob taxpayers of cost-efficient project planning and continue to stall on launching major economy-boosting projects. Look at my State of Oklahoma, which lost $63 million in construction dollars over the last few years as a direct result of inefficiency and contracting uncertainty that comes from short-term extensions. I have used that figure of 30 percent off the top with some of my conservative friends. I said: If you oppose a long-term extension, a long-term reauthorization bill, then you are saying that you want to have the liberal alternative, which is to lose 30 percent off the top. With a fully funded long-term reauthorization, Oklahoma would actually see a savings of $122 million and millions more in efficiency savings from long-term commitments and early completion savings from contracts. This is something a lot of people don't realize. The streamline you get--many of the NEPA requirements and the environmental requirements can be offset if you are able to get to a long-term bill. But you can't do it, you can't start any large projects--not any of these big projects--the bridge projects and others you can't do on short-term extensions. We haven't had an authorization bill since 2005, and I believe it is time for Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty to fund our roads and our bridges. As I said earlier, I am confident that the Senate and House will work together to get this bill to the President's desk within the next few weeks. That is my wish for my counterpart on the House side, Chairman Shuster--the best of luck in moving forward. He is now committed to doing that. He is going to get this done. He kept his word in getting the job done last Thursday, and now he is going to be able to get this bill up so that we can conference it together. I anticipate we can do a conference in a matter of a few hours. It wouldn't take the normal time. That is good news. It is good news to come back on a Monday and find that we are going to be doing what the Constitution says we ought to be doing, and that is roads and bridges. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, from January through August of 2014, over 8,100 aliens that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had identified for deportation were released back into our communities by sanctuary jurisdictions. Over 5,000 of those released had a criminal history. In that same time period, 1,900 of those 8,100 went on to be charged with another 7,500 crimes. These are crimes that would not have been committed had local authorities cooperated with Federal authorities in enforcing our laws. This summer, everyone heard the case of Kate Steinle who was shot and killed in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who had seven felony convictions and had been deported five times. Rather than turn him over to ICE, San Francisco released him, allowing him to commit more crimes. This guy even admitted that he was in San Francisco because their liberal laws would protect him. While this one case received the media attention it deserved, many other preventable crimes don't. For example, the city of Los Angeles released one immigrant who had been arrested for the continuous sexual abuse of a child. ICE wanted custody of this deviant. ICE tried to get custody of him. However, rather than hand him over to Federal law enforcement and get this guy out of our country and away from our children, Los Angeles ignored ICE's detainer and released him. He was later arrested for sodomy of a victim under 10 years old. Another child became a victim of this predator because liberal policies would rather release him into our communities then get him out of our country. This year, sanctuary cities have already released more than 9,000 criminal aliens from jail and these criminals are committing more crimes. In California, an immigrant was arrested for battery last year, but instead of turning him over to ICE, the local sheriff released him. This July, he raped and beat a 64-year-old woman so severely that she died 8 days later--yet another preventable death due to the intentional failure of a jurisdiction to comply with federal law. How many more do we have to have before people realize what these policies are doing to our communities? Over 300 States, cities, and counties have sanctuary laws, ordinances, or policies that protect criminals and hurt the innocent. These jurisdictions continue to receive money from the Federal Government even though they continue to ignore Federal laws and rebuff Federal agencies working to enforce the laws. Enough is enough. I believe that, if a jurisdiction chooses not to cooperate with federal law enforcement, they should not be the beneficiary of federal grants. This is why I cosponsored S. 2146, the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle filibustered. It is why I have cosponsored similar legislation introduced by Senator Sessions. Unfortunately, others would rather let politics come before doing what they know is right and failed to protect our communities from further victimization. When the proper enforcement of current law could save lives and protect the innocent, how could you not vote to do so?

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we are a little more than a month away from the United Nations climate conference in Paris. The countries continue to roll out their international pledges to reduce carbon emissions in an attempt to control global warming. I can't believe it, but this is the 21st year they have done this. I wrote a book once about this, and the last chapter is the longest chapter. It talks about the motivation and why the United Nations wants to get into this thing and what is in it for them. I think we all know that every time the United Nations does something, it is contrary to the interest of the United States. We write a letter, which is usually a threat to withhold funding, and that really gets them upset. Of course, what they really want is to have something there that they can draw on so that they don't have to be obligated to any of the countries that are participating. Anyway, this is not the time to get into that, but I am just saying that this is the 21st year they have had this conference, and every year the same thing happens: The 192 countries get in there and they follow the lead of the United States by saying that they are going to be reducing their emissions, and of course it doesn't happen. In 2009, Copenhagen hosted such a meeting. I remember going over there, and some of the people who attended at that time were Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry--Clinton and Kerry were in the Senate at that time--Barbara Boxer, and Nancy Pelosi. They all went over to assure everyone in Copenhagen that the United States was going to pass cap-and-trade legislation. So I waited until they had all finished their business, and I went over. It was the shortest trip to Europe I had ever taken. I was there 3 hours. I was the one-man truth squad. I said: You have been hearing from all of these leaders, but it is not going to happen. We are not going to pass it. And of course we didn't. We are going through the same thing now. While the verbal commitments are creating positive press coverage for a lot of people who want to believe this stuff--and the President is seeking to solidify his legacy--most of these pledges are empty and only place the United States in a position of economic hardship, while other countries continue on their current trajectory with CO2 emissions. Let's start with India. On Friday we received a report from India. I didn't see it personally until 2 days ago. It was the most recent country to submit its domestic global warming plan. India's plan will cost--and I am stating what they have in the plan they have presented-- $2.5 trillion over the next 15 years. Do the math. That is approximately $160 billion a year in costs in order for them to do what is expected of them as a developing country. Their pledge is based on a premise that developed countries--that is us, the United States, always picking up the bills--will pick up these costs by financing the Green Climate Fund. President Obama has pledged $3 billion to go to the Green Climate Fund, but the Senate and House appropriators have pledged zero, nothing, no money. If you stop and look at one country, such as India, with an estimated cost of $2.5 trillion, $3 billion is such a minuscule fraction, it is not even measurable. That isn't going to happen, and so the President cannot deliver on that promise. India's approach to addressing its carbon emissions is a continuation of the rich-poor country divide that has plagued the United Nations process in achieving climate agreement from the very start. That is what prompted the Byrd-Hagel resolution of 1997. I remember it so well. I was sitting in this Chamber. I had only been here for 3 years at that time. We all agreed to it. It passed 95 to 0. It was unanimous. Everyone who was in the Chamber at the time voted for it. It said: We are not going to come back. They were really addressing this to Clinton and Gore during their administration. Gore had gone down to see his friends in Central America, I guess it was--I am not sure--to put this thing together. He said: We are going to join you in this commitment to reduce CO2 emissions. Well, that sounded good until they came back and they had the Kyoto Convention. They never submitted it to this body because no treaty can be ratified unless it is ratified by the Senate. We never even saw it. What is the reason for that? The reason is they knew it wouldn't pass because the Byrd-Hagel amendment--and several of us were cosponsors of that--said that we won't agree and ratify any convention that comes to us and doesn't treat the developing countries like the developed countries. Unless it does one of two things, we will reject it: one, if it hurts us economically--of course they all do--and two, if China doesn't have to do the same thing we have to do. Well, that is what happened, and of course none of these things have passed. Now the President is trying to do with regulations what he failed to be able to do through legislation, and we are seeing that every day in the committee that I am fortunate enough to chair, the Environment and Public Works Committee. All of these rules are coming before us, and these rules are a result of things they tried to do legislatively, but they couldn't do--the WOTUS rule. If you talk to farmers and ranchers in America, they will say that of all the regulations that come from the EPA that are the most damaging to farmers and ranchers, it is the WOTUS rule, and that is the waters of the United States. The Chair is certainly very familiar with this. That means that while we have had State jurisdiction over our water for many years, it had one exception, and that is for navigable waters. I think all of us who are conservatives would agree that the Federal Government should have jurisdiction over navigable waters because that affects a lot more than just States. So they tried to do that with legislation. That legislation was offered 6 years ago by Senator Feingold of the Senate, who is from Wisconsin, and Congressman Oberstar, who is from Minnesota. Not only did we overwhelmingly defeat their legislation, but we defeated them at the polls in the next election, so it gives you an idea of the unpopularity of this. Since the President was not able to do it with legislation, he tried to do it with regulation. Well, that is the way it is with CO2 emissions. So India sent their plan over. They are the third largest CO2 emitter, only behind China and the United States. Its demand for coal is expected to surpass U.S. consumption by the end of the decade unless the United States helps front India the cash it needs to execute its trillion-dollar climate plan, but that is not happening. As a Member of this body, we will do everything we can to stop it, and we will be successful. We know for a fact that is not what America wants to do. Now we have China. It has pledged to peak its carbon emissions around 2030 and increase its renewables to 20 percent of the primary energy use. Subsequent to its commitment, China also announced a nationwide cap-and-trade system alongside a newfound partnership between U.S. cities. While all of these commitments--that is, they have partnership cities that say ``We will do it in our State if you do it over there''--they sound good to the media, but the facts don't pan out because it is nothing more than business as usual. At the end of the day, the country gets to increase its emissions for the next 15 years. Here is what they call an agreement that is in the best interest of reducing CO2 worldwide. Yet they are committing not to reduce but to increase their emissions for the next 15 years, until 2030. When they first made their commitment--I called it a nonbinding charade because as China's economy has grown, so has its demand for electricity. China is the largest consumer and importer of coal in the world, accounting for 50 percent of global consumption. Fifty percent of the global consumption of coal is in one country--China. Over the next decade, China is expected to bring a new coal-fired powerplant online every 10 days to give it the electricity it demands. Unlike the United States, China does not have other inexpensive energy sources. Where we in the United States are benefiting from cheap natural gas, China doesn't have the technology and resources to do it, so they can't do that. Even though we have this huge shale revolution in this country where we are producing oil and natural gas--which brings up the other thing we need to do, and that is to do away with the export ban on natural gas and oil. But China doesn't have the technology to do that, so all they can use is coal. And to continue to support the world's largest economy, which China is, China will have no choice but to break its promise of hitting its emission peak by 2030, and that is not going to happen. Russia has pledged to reduce its carbon emissions between 25 and 30 percent by 2030. Here is the sticking point. Russia made this projection based on its carbon emissions baseline of 1990. By playing with numbers, Russia's commitment will actually allow it to increase emissions between 700 and 900 tons in 2030. Then there is Mexico, South Korea, and South Africa. All of them will have made pledges not cut emissions but to slow the growth--not to cut emissions but slow the growth. In other words, these countries are committing to increased emissions through 2030. In the meantime, President Obama is committing the United States to cut--not slow the growth but cut--its emissions from 26 to 28 percent by 2025. Nobody knows how they came to those years. There is no plan that we have seen that would do that. But this promise is also just as hollow as what we have been hearing from these other countries that I previously mentioned. Not only does the President not have the backing of the Senate and the American people, but outside groups are finding that the President's methods to achieve these reductions through climate regulations--primarily the Clean Power Plan--are faulty. According to a recent analysis by the U.S. Chamber, the President's intended nationally determined contribution is about 33 percent short of meeting its stated target. So that is not going to work On July 8, David Bookbinder, former Sierra Club chief climate counsel, testified before the committee that I chair about his own analysis that has found an even greater gap. It was in this same hearing where it was stated that to close the gap in the President's climate commitment, the United States would likely have to consider regulating other industrial sectors, including agriculture. So it is not just oil and gas and some of these emitters. It is everybody, and it is not going to happen because it can't happen. It doesn't work. After that committee hearing, I led a letter with 10 other Senators to the President requesting a detailed response for just how the United States intends to meet the pledge of 26- to 28-percent emissions reduction by 2025. It has been 3 months, and we still haven't received a response. So they have been saying this. We are saying: How are you going to do it? Three months have gone by, and we still don't know how he plans to do it. When we go to these other countries, they assume that America is like they are; if the President says it, he means it, and he is going to try to make it happen. With his pledge to the international community, the President is setting up the American economy to suffer great pain for no gain. Now, his Clean Power Plan lacks credibility. The EPA does not even bother to assess the minuscule environmental benefits associated with the Clean Power Plan and with the cost of the plan. We are talking about something that would be upwards of $400 billion a year. That is very similar to when they tried to do this with cap-and-trade legislation. I had the occasion and I do this: Every time I hear a big number, I go back to my State of Oklahoma and I do a calculation. I find out how many families in my State of Oklahoma filed a Federal tax return, and then I do the math. As it turned out, that would cost about $3,000 per family. Now, to some people who believe the world is coming to an end and global warming is causing it, that might sound like: Well, $3,000 a family is not that big a deal. But let's remember--and I would remind the Chair--that it was just a short while ago when Lisa Jackson, who was the President's nominee and eventually became the Director of the EPA, was asked by me on live TV in our committee: If we do pass any of these things, either by regulation or by legislation, will that have the effect of reducing CO2 emissions worldwide? She said: No, because this isn't where the problem is. It is in China. It is in India and in these other countries that I mentioned before. So we would be doing that. Even if you are a believer in the doom philosophy, we would be doing it in a way that is not going to work. So despite all the costs they have, the President's climate regulations would only reduce CO2 concentrations by 0.2 percent. Global average temperature rise would be--would be, I say, not will be but would be--reduced only by .0016 degrees Farenheit. It could not even be measurable. And the sea level rise would be reduced by 0.2 millimeters, which is the thickness of two human hairs. So it is no wonder the President is working so hard to circumvent Congress's role in committing the United States to the agreement. I only say this because we are now getting close to December and we have been through this so many times before, and this isn't going to be any different. There is going to be a difference, and that is that they are not going to attempt to do it by passing legislation. They want to circumvent Congress because they know Congress reports to the people and the people don't want this. I can remember when global warming--when they had their annual Gallup poll every March. It used to be that when asked what were the critical concerns about America, global warming was always--in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005--between first and second place of the greatest concern. Do we know what it is today? Out of 15, it is number 15. So the people have caught on. They know it will be the largest tax increase in history and that it will not accomplish anything. Mr. President, what is our timing situation?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to make some other comments because something very good happened, and it is not normally the case. We passed the Defense authorization bill. Here we are in the midst of over two decades of wars and we are being challenged on all fronts--from national states to terrorist organizations and extremists to cyber and lone-wolf attacks. Our military is directly engaged in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and the demands that this country is placing on them continues to increase. It is greater than anything I have ever seen in the years I have been here and probably the greatest in history in terms of the numbers of threats to America from different countries. Yesterday we voted to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, or the NDAA, for the 54th consecutive year. I have been worried. The last few years we ended up passing it not this early but passing it in December. If we had gone to December 31 in those years or even in this year, all of a sudden our people wouldn't get hazard pay and they wouldn't get reenlistment bonuses and we couldn't let that happen. So I am glad we did it earlier this year. I think it is the most important bill we pass every year. It is our constitutional duty to provide oversight over the President and his administration. There is an old wornout document that nobody reads anymore. It is called the Constitution. If we read article I, section 8 of the Constitution, it tells us what we are supposed to be doing--No. 1, defending America, and No. 2, roads and highways. I am very glad we passed the highway bill. It is over in the House, and I am optimistic they will be able to pass it over there as well. So the Constitution says the most important thing we do is defending America. It is our constitutional duty to do it. The NDAA contains provisions that take care of military men and women--the pay, the benefits, the bonuses, the new starts, the reenlistment bonuses, military construction, and all of this stuff. This bill addresses things such as additional protections for victims of sexual assault. It is a good bill, and most of the members of this committee have been to the floor today and have talked about. I just wanted to mention a couple of things that may have been overlooked by some of the other speakers. They should be focusing on accomplishing their missions instead of wondering if this bill authorizes spending priorities critical to our national security and supports the resources requirement of the Department of Defense. While this bill does not contain every provision that the Senate wanted, that I wanted, that the House wanted, and that the President would like to have, the final language is overall good policy for our national defense. It provides authorizations in a timely manner. This vital piece of legislation sets the course for our national security and provides for our Nation's nearly 2.1 million all-volunteer force. I was a product of the draft many years ago. I have often said that is one of the things that this country probably ought to go back to. We wouldn't have a lot of the problems today if we had to have kids go through the discipline and the appreciation for our country. But nonetheless, this is an all-volunteer force, and it has worked beautifully. I make it a point, when I go to Afghanistan or Iraq or Africa and these places where we have troops stationed, to sit down in the mess halls, to go out in the field and eat with them or listen to the problems they have and try to boost them up a little bit because they know that under this administration, which I have called the disarming of America, defending America is not the high priority that it should be. This is a time when each service chief, secretary, and combatant commander has testified that no service will be able to meet the wartime requirements under sequestration. The President and many people in this body wanted sequestration to take place but only for domestic purposes as well as military, and we are saying this is where the problem is. Let's look at Secretary Carter, our Secretary of Defense. He said recently: Readiness remains at troubling levels across the force. Even with the fiscal year 2016 budget, the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps won't reach their readiness goals until 2020 and the Air Force until 2023. At a time when former Secretary Hagel says--listen to this. I don't know why more people in America didn't hear this. This is the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Hagel, who said: ``American dominance in seas, in the skies, and in space can no longer be taken for granted.'' This is America, and people are thinking that the President might even veto this bill. Admiral Winnefeld, who is Vice Chief of Staff, said: ``There could be for the first time in my career instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and we will have to say that we cannot.'' General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says we are putting our military on a path where ``the force is so degraded and so unready'' that it would be ``immoral to use it.'' General Dempsey labels it ``unlike any in his lifetime.'' So the passage of this legislation is absolutely necessary. We have passed it. We have done the responsible thing. And I think we need to be sure that we use full pressure to make sure the President does not veto this bill, because he is toying with a veto. We have never seen anything like this in the history of this country. We have a level of threat to America, and we are going to have to make sure that we pass this bill. I am very proud that it was passed by the majority in the Senate. I know I am the last speaker tonight. I suggest the absence of a quorum, just to see if there is any last message that has to be given.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you very much. TSCA Reform Mr. President, let me first mention that you don't see many things around this Chamber that are truly bipartisan, and you are about to see one now. I have to give credit to the Senator from New Mexico for the great job he has done in making it a possibility to even be talking about this now. I am honored to be chairman of the public works committee. We do a lot of significant work in that committee. We just passed out arguably the second most significant bill of the year, which was the highway reauthorization bill, and others. It is a very busy committee. However, the issue we are concerned about today--and I want to talk about it a little bit--is the bill we have been working on for a long period of time. We had a great Member--Frank Lautenberg--of the Senate for a number of years. He and I became good friends on this committee when Democrats were for 8 years the majority party, and prior to that we were in the majority for a long time. During that timeframe, Frank Lautenberg and I became good friends. We had some things in common people were not aware of; that is, we both came from the corporate world. We were involved in doing things together and looking at things through a corporate mind. But this bill we are talking about now is one where we are enjoying 60 cosponsors. I would mention that Bonnie Lautenberg is in the Gallery today. She has been so cooperative. If you can single out one legacy of the great Frank Lautenberg, it would be this bill. I can remember calling Bonnie and asking if she would be willing to come and testify before the committee--this was some time ago--and she was more enthusiastic than I expected she would be, and she has been a big help. It is great to see so many of my colleagues excited about TSCA reform and specifically the Lautenberg bill, which now has overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. For a long time, we have been focused--and rightfully so--on the public health and environmental benefits of reforming this 39-year-old failed law. I know a lot of my friends across the aisle who are here will continue talking about that today, so I wanted to take my time on the floor to tell them some of the benefits of TSCA reform that they might not be aware of, from a Republican perspective. TSCA reform, in addition to providing greater protections for families in my State of Oklahoma and the rest of the country, can play a pivotal role in boosting our economy, creating well-paying American jobs, and creating regulatory certainty for businesses not only in the United States but across the world. Today, the U.S. chemical industry is experiencing a resurgence. Nobody had ever predicted it. For years, chemical manufacturing has been moving its way out of this country, relocating in places such as China, Saudi Arabia, and South America. One of the reasons for this is that we have this antiquated law on the books that made it very difficult for them to operate in the United States. So we kind of got used to this. Everyone was leaving the United States because of that. Now they are coming back. The interesting thing is, there are two reasons that I am going to mention to you in a minute for why they are coming back and what it means to us economically. In the last few years, one thing has completely flipped the idea on its head that we are not going to be able to change the laws that are regulating the chemical industry. Natural gas liquids are the primary feedstock for chemical manufacturing in the United States. Due to the shale boom or the shale revolution--we are very sensitive to that in my State of Oklahoma--natural gas production from companies such as Continental Resources, Devon, Chesapeake Energy--all in my home State of Oklahoma--manufacturers have an abundant and reliable source of natural gas for decades to come. This provides the stability and certainty that manufacturers need to once again make major investments in the United States. There is no better example of an industry reinvesting in this country because of our energy revolution than the chemical industry. As of this June, the chemical industry has announced 238 investment projects valued at $145 billion. Let me repeat that: $145 billion in new capital investments in the United States of America by the chemical industry in large part due to American natural gas production. This investment is predicted to be responsible for over 700,000 new jobs along with $293 billion in permanent new domestic economic output by 2023. The benefits don't stop there. This investment is also predicted to lead to $21 billion in new Federal, State, and local tax revenue in the next 8 years and will lower our trade deficit by increasing our exports by nearly $30 billion by 2030. Right now the U.S. chemical industry is capturing market share from around the world, and all of those facilities that packed up and moved to China, moved to the Middle East, and moved to Western Europe are rushing back. You don't have to look any further than comments by folks such as Antonio Tajani, the European Commissioner for Industry, who said: When people choose whether to invest in Europe or the United States, what they think about most is the cost of energy. The loss of competitiveness is frightening. In North America as a whole, chemicals and plastics production is predicted to double in the next 5 years, while it falls by one-third in Europe. In other words, it will go down by one-third in Europe. At the same time, it doubles in the next 5 years in the United States. Some of you may be wondering what this has to do with TSCA reform because I am talking about the cheaper prices of energy. The main stock for chemicals is natural gas. Specifically, the Lautenberg bill, what we are talking about today-- let me tell you, passing this bill and getting TSCA reform signed into law not only provides these domestic industries with one manageable national rule book so products can be manufactured and distributed in all 50 States consistently, it also provides necessary regulatory certainty, the lack of which could be the one thing to drive away this much needed economic investment. Moreover, today global chemical manufacturing and use, in the absence of a coherent and functioning U.S. chemical policy, is dominated by the European system called REACH. I will not get into much detail about the European regulatory system, but it is significantly more burdensome and costly than many of our businesses can afford to deal with. Unfortunately, today it is the global standard. By enacting meaningful U.S. chemical policy, our Nation will be on the path to once again be the world leader, not only in chemical manufacturing or manufacturing in general but to set the global standard in how chemicals should be managed. That is what we are talking about. That is what this is all about. So there are two things that are bringing this industry back to the United States. One is our plentiful and cheap natural gas and the other is this legislation. Imagine people anticipating that the legislation is going to pass and making corporate decisions bringing back many jobs to the United States. So there is going to be a surge in economic benefit, and consequently right now the price of natural gas, the main feedstock that goes into chemical manufacturing, is far cheaper in this country than it is in Europe. So I say to my good friend who has carried this ball, Senator Udall, that it is great that those two things are happening at the same time. Again, when I looked around at the press conference we had this morning--and we saw everyone ranging from the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans. That does not happen very often in Washington, DC. I think a lot of it is due to my good friend from New Mexico, along with Senator Vitter, who has been carrying this ball. I would vacate the floor and ask for any comments.

Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield, I would observe the number of people who said--when the bill first started out, there was a lot of opposition. There was opposition in our committee. I think a lot of the people on the committee were surprised when we passed it on a bipartisan basis. Then, of course, once it got down to the floor--this is going to have support from all corners. Again, yes, it was a bipartisan effort. It is kind of rewarding to have that happen now and then. This is a good example.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I wish to take advantage of an opportunity to bring up the subject that no one is talking about now. Of course, right now everyone has been in the middle of the Pope's visit and other things and what is happening with the Iran bill and the votes we have. I wish to mention there is something else very significant going on right now, that we are in the middle of, and that is the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2. To put it into perspective, 3 years ago last month we had the Pilot's Bill of Rights 1, and it was one people were not aware of. There are only 617,000 pilots in America, so it is not one of these issues that gets an awful lot of attention. But the mere fact that those 617,000 people--many of them are single-issue people. A lot of people are not aware that prior to the passage of the Pilot's Bill of Rights 3 years ago, there was just one area left within our system whereupon you are guilty until proven innocent. That is exactly what we corrected with that bill, just to refresh the memory of my colleagues. It gave the pilots who were accused of something the evidence that was used against them. I had a personal experience with it. It actually happened to me. I was never sensitive to that until such time as I experienced it myself. What we have right now is we are up to 64 cosponsors of the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2. The major part of this bill is something that is out there that doesn't resolve anything. Ten years ago, as kind of an experiment, we put in a sport pilot-eligible exemption so that the pilots of small aircraft would not have to have what they call a third- class medical. The result of this was that after a 10-year period, the medical safety experience of these pilots has been identical to those with medical certificates. A joint study was made following that by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and by the EAA, the Experimental Aircraft Association, of the 46,976 accidents over a 6-year period. Of those, only 99 had a medical cause as a factor. That is less than one- quarter of 1 percent. Of those 99, none would have been prevented by the current third-class medical. That shows that experiment worked and there is no reason to have a third-class medical. So people are aware that some changes have been made, I want to briefly outline the modifications that have been made. The modifications require three things for pilots to qualify for an exemption. The exemption we are talking about is the exemption from having to take a third-class medical exemption process every 2 years-- sometimes more extensive than that. First, pilots will have to complete an online medical education course. Secondly, pilots have to maintain verification that they have been to a doctor at least once every 4 years and certify that they are receiving the care they need by a physician to treat any medical condition that warrants it. Third, a pilot would have to complete a comprehensive medical review by the FAA. That would be applied to a new pilot, so they establish a benchmark as to what a pilot's physical condition is. The pilot would be required to take an online medical course every 2 years. This gives the pilot access to information on medical issues that may not be covered by a doctor in a medical examination but that would have an impact on their physical condition to fly. For example, this course would make sure pilots are aware of impacts on interactions of over-the-counter and prescription medications and how these interactions could impact their flying capabilities. Requiring pilots to take this course boosts aviation safety for the aviation community. Secondly, pilots would need to complete an exam by their personal physician at least once every 4 years and include a proof of their doctor's visit in their logbooks. This resolves the problem most people are concerned about; that they would have to at least see a physician and be assured that they didn't have some condition they didn't have prior to that. Furthermore, the pilots would be required to certify that they are under the care and treatment of a doctor for any medical condition that would warrant treatment. Pilots would do this instead of visiting an aviation medical examiner every 2 years and sometimes even more frequently than that. With this modification, we are actually encouraging pilots to be honest about their health and seek treatment for it. Right now pilots are incentivized to hide any medical condition from the FAA, including by not seeking treatment for it, out of the fear that the pilot might lose his wings. We don't want that to happen. People who are not pilots do not realize how significant it is that you don't want to be taken out of the air, particularly for some reason that is not justified. Pilots, like any individual, maintain stronger relationships with their personal physician, and this is a good thing that fosters an honest dialogue between pilots and doctors, which is something we should all want and something that is not there today. We want pilots to get the treatment they need. Any medically treated pilot is safer than one who is not being treated. So for many pilots the most burdensome aspects of the FAA controversy is simply the constant churn of submitting paperwork over and over, every 2 years or less, even when there has been no change in their medical status. This bill, as modified, gives pilots a break from the bureaucracy. The third requirement for pilots to receive the third-class medical exemption is to complete one FAA medical review. So if a new pilot comes in, we need a benchmark--where is that pilot, what is his physical condition today--so as time goes by we can see how he might be changing. If someone does not have an existing medical certificate, such as new pilots who have never gone through an exam, they would have to do it before they fall into qualifying for the exemption. By the way, of the 617,000 pilots in America today, this is the one thing that concerns me more than anything else, which is to have to go back and go through the type of examination they are required to, now that we know the 10-year experiment of being exempt has worked. There is one caveat. If a pilot flying under the third-class medical exemption is diagnosed with a severe condition--let's talk about maybe a heart attack--then they need to go through the FAA special issuance process to receive medical clearance to fly again. Again, this would only be needed to be done one time. The ability of the FAA to maintain a stranglehold on pilots will be gone. I am confident the changes will result in a safer flying environment. I want to reiterate that the Pilot's Bill of Rights does not change the certification standard to obtain a pilot's certificate. All pilots still have to possess the pilot's certificate, pass the required practical tests and necessary check rides to demonstrate that they have the knowledge, skills, and ability to safely operate their plane. Further, this bill does not change the fundamental responsibility of every pilot to self-certify their ability to fly each time they get into the cockpit of a plane. I am a pilot, and every time I get in a plane I make a conscious decision that I am fit to fly. Everyone I know who is a pilot does the same thing. Again, all of this is not necessary. When you go back and realize that over the 10 years of the experiment with a limited number of pilots there were no changes. There is no difference between those who have or have not had the pilot exams. With these changes, the third- class medical exemption and the Pilot's Bill of Rights is enjoying a greater level of support from Members of the Senate. Support from general aviation is strongly bipartisan. Sixty-four of my colleagues are cosponsors of this legislation. Half of those are Democrats and half are Republicans. Groups representing general aviation in the community and in the pilot unions have declared their support for the bill. General aviation organizations, such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Experimental Pilots Association, and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, support the bill. The National Association of State Aviation Officials support the bill, the Allied Pilots Association and the Southwest Pilots Association, both unions which represent 23,000 pilots who fly for American Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Southwest Airlines, support the bill. Pilots for NetJets support the bill. The bill has strong bipartisan support. I urge all the Members who support general aviation and all the economic activity of general aviation to be a part of this bill. One of the reasons I am doing this today is one of the two organizations--and I am not sure which one it is, it is either the AOPA or the AA--is doing a major effort right now to encourage the pilot population out there to encourage their Members of the Senate to cosponsor this bill. Again, we currently have 64 sponsors of the bill. I can't think of any reason we can't get everyone else. The same individuals who supported it 3 years ago should be there to support it. So I encourage those few Members of the Senate who are not sponsors to look at it very carefully. It may be 617,000 people are not a lot of people, but of the 617,000 people, most of them are single-issue people. So it would be very good to join in on this. This is something we now have demonstrated clearly is not going to incur any safety hazards and it is going to be a real godsend for pilots who don't want to go through this bureaucracy every 2 years or more frequently in some cases. The bill is out there, and it is one I feel very strongly that we ought to be able to work into our floor use probably in the next very short period of time. With that, I do yield the floor because my very good friend from Delaware is here to say something profound.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I am going to make a reference to a 20-week sonogram. I will introduce, however, Donelle Harden. I am a little bit biased, but I think she is the best communication director in the U.S. Senate, and you can see she is 31 weeks pregnant. At the conclusion of my remarks, I want to demonstrate clearly what a 20-week sonogram looks like and what a baby does look like. By 20 weeks, a woman has reached the halfway point of the pregnancy and has the opportunity to learn the gender of her child. By 20 weeks, there is conclusive scientific evidence that a baby can feel pain, they can hear sounds, and they can react to sounds. They twist, they kick, they yawn, and they stretch, and some even open their eyes and suck their thumbs. But most importantly, they feel pain. The United States is just one of seven countries with populations of more than a million that allows abortions past 20 weeks. Other countries who join ours in this practice are countries like China and North Korea and Vietnam. The abortion procedure after 20 weeks is known as late-term abortions. We have been talking about this on the floor, and I think people are pretty familiar with it--much more so now than they were just a short while ago. It is very unpleasant and very shocking. During the procedure the baby is rotated and the forceps are used to pull the baby's legs, arms, and shoulders through the birth canal. Once this is done--because the head is too large--an incision is made at the base of the baby's skull to allow a suction catheter to be inserted to remove the cerebral material--that is the brains--collapsing the skull and allowing the baby to be completely removed. Now, I lay this out for you because people need to know what inhumane practices are taking place in America. When you start to devalue the life of a child just because it hasn't been born yet, you start devaluing life in general, situations like what happened in Philadelphia are allowed to occur. As I am sure the occupier of the Chair remembers very well, in May of 2013, Kermit Gosnell was convicted of three first-degree murder charges for killing babies who had been born alive at his abortion clinic in Philadelphia. Testimony from the trial indicated he and his staff snipped the necks of more than 100 infants who survived abortion attempts. Viable babies were delivered and then murdered. Furthermore, Gosnell endangered the health and lives of the women who came to his clinic by reusing disposable medical equipment, performing procedures in unsanitary conditions with unsanitary instruments, overdosing them, and causing serious injuries to their bodies. On at least two occasions women died after visiting his clinic. Talk about a war on women, this guy is on the front lines. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania turned its back on these women when it never once inspected the clinic in 17 years, despite receiving complaints against Gosnell and being notified that a woman died in the clinic. Pennsylvania Department of State wouldn't investigate the complaints they received. These kinds of things can happen when human life is considered disposable. This year, we have seen 10 videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, showing Planned Parenthood executives and employees across the country detailing the sale of baby parts and how they manipulated and delayed the abortions. What we are saying is they delayed an abortion from taking place so the baby could mature and the parts they were using as their specimens would be of greater value to the customers they were selling the baby parts to. The heartless way they talked about these things and the complete disregard for the life of the baby that is being dissected are shocking and sickening. It is no wonder over the past decade Americans have been waking up to the scientific facts and the moral implications regarding abortions. There was a Gallup poll in 2010 that called pro-life the ``new normal'' for Americans. But 3 years later, in 2013, the Gallup poll showed that 64 percent of Americans--that is 2 to 1, a majority of Americans by 2 to 1, which is a very strong majority--supported banning abortions after the first trimester. That is just one of many polls showing this trend to favor life. In the first trimester you are only talking about 12 weeks at that point. What is really interesting about these polls is that in each of them women always support these bans at a higher rate than men. As I have learned from my wife and two daughters, only women can really understand what is at stake. I had the opportunity to experience firsthand and be there at the time of the birth of my four children and my 12 grandchildren. Life is truly a miracle. It is not just the life of a child but also that of the mother. Thanks to the progress of science it is more evident than ever that abortion ends life. Medical data is now also showing significant risks to women's health and well-being. Now, what I am going to show--what Donelle is going to show--is the baby she is carrying right now. That sonogram was taken at 20 weeks. At 20 weeks you can see all the details of the baby, and I would like to have Donelle point out the ear of the baby the sonogram shows. It is very, very clear--the kidney, the heart, the spine, the teeth, the lips, and the brain. Now, that was 20 weeks. What we have here in the United States is an opportunity for those in favor of abortion to go far longer than just the 20 weeks. They can go all the way up to, in America, the time of birth. All they have to do is show the health of the mother is at risk and this can be done. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would ban these abortions and protect these babies. We have 46 Senators signed to the bill. The House has passed its own version, and I think we have the opportunity to take a major step forward. That is what this is all about. I have hope. I have run into so many people who have not had the opportunity to get some of the graphic details of what Planned Parenthood has been doing in murdering these babies and selling their parts, but I hope this is an opportunity. We are going to have a vote so that we will have an opportunity to do this, and I am very hopeful some of these Senators who have not acknowledged this is going on, that they will do so. This is what it is all about. This is what the baby is, and this is what we have the opportunity to reform in our system. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.