Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today because there is something going on that people are not as aware of as they should be. We don't have a better friend than King Abdullah in Jordan. I have been pleased to get to know him as a personal friend as well as a friend of America. I was over there with him last October. We were on the Syrian border looking at all the things that are going on right now with ISIL and ISIS, and it has been a real tragedy. Last week King Abdullah was in the United States for the National Prayer Breakfast. While he was here, there were several of us who were with him when he got the news that his friend and relative, an F-16 pilot, had been caged, soaked with gasoline, and burned alive. America and the whole world saw what happened and asked: What kind of monsters are these people who are doing this over there? They are beheading children and pregnant women and burning people alive. Yet this is going on. People have to understand this. They do understand it in terms of ISIS. But what I want to share with you, and introduce legislation to correct, is that it is not just happening there, it is also happening in Ukraine right now. I happened to be in Ukraine in late October of this year. I went over there because they were having their parliamentary elections at the time. Ukraine has been such a good friend to us--not just Poroshenko, but the rest of the administration that went through the parliamentary election has also been a friend. Let's keep in mind that the Presidential elections were way back in May. This last election was the parliamentary election, and we were there to see what was happening in the Ukraine. In the Ukraine they have a constitutional requirement that you cannot have a seat in Parliament unless you have 5 percent of the vote. This is the first time, after the vote when we were there in October, that they had a parliamentary election and not one Communist got a seat in Parliament. This is the first time in 96 years that not one Communist has a seat in the Parliament. As bad as things are with ISIS, I suggest that what is going on--and I only preface what I am saying so I can demonstrate what a good friend Poroshenko and the leadership of the Ukraine is to the United States. We have the Russians in there with the separatists doing horrible things--things that are just as bad as what is taking place in Syria with ISIS and in other places. To demonstrate this--it is not a very fun thing to look at, but you have to understand what is happening. These are T-72 tanks. Putin keeps saying: We don't have any Russians in there with the separatists. It is not us. We are not doing it. Well, here they are. These are the pictures we brought back with us. All those tanks are lined up within Ukraine, and that is clearly what they are. If you want to see how brutal Putin and everyone else is--it is not something anyone enjoys looking at, but you have to know this is going on. The tragedies that are taking place in Syria and in other parts of the world are also taking place in Ukraine. This is a picture of the murders and torture that have been taking place there. These people have been disembodied, their heads cut off. These are Ukrainian citizens. They are legal citizens. They are the ones whom Putin and the rest of them are fighting. For that reason, I have introduced legislation to require that the United States offer the weaponry. By the way, I was making a presentation about this issue and Senator McCain was there. He said: If you look at all of those tanks, they don't have one piece of equipment that could offer a defense against those tanks. What have we been giving them? We have been giving them MREs and blankets. When Poroshenko was here in the United States, he made a speech to both Houses. He said that ``one can't win the war with blankets. . . . Even more, we cannot keep the peace with a blanket.'' In other words, we have to share the very best defensive weapons or weapons that can be used offensively with them. They cannot be left naked there when facing this kind of abuse. We know that shortly after the heavily armed Russian soldiers invaded and took control of the Crimean region in February of 2014, the Ukrainian Government and its people faced and sustained a deadly force from heavily armed rebel separatists who were equipped, trained, and supported by the Russian Federation. We have seen pictures of that. This is the first time we have shown pictures that document, No. 1, that the equipment came from Russia and Putin, and, No. 2, the type of things they are doing over there. We passed a law last year that said we would give defensive weaponry to the Ukrainians, but it fell short because of one thing--it was prescriptive. It said what kind of equipment it would be. The bill I am introducing today does two things. It offers the equipment we can give them with no restrictions whatsoever, and secondly, it does something else I think is very significant, and that is we require the President to come up with a strategy. People always say: Well, the President doesn't have a strategy against ISIS. It is true he doesn't have one, and it is deplorable that he doesn't have one. He also doesn't have a strategy for Ukraine. Without a strategy, it is not going to work. Last week we had a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee. It was kind of funny because we had people from the past. We had George Shultz, Madeleine Albright, and Henry Kissinger. We were talking about the Ukraine at that time and talked about offering some equipment we thought should go there, and they said: Well, you have to do that, but you can't just send them equipment. You have to specifically demand a strategy. In this bill we are saying to the President of the United States to not only send over equipment but we need to also provide a strategy we can massage as time goes on. On February 2, 2015, eight of the former senior ranking diplomatic and military officials testified. They included the former U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine, Steven Pifer; former Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy; former Supreme Allied Commander ADM James Stavridis, and former Deputy Commander to the U.S. Command, Gen. Charles Wald. They all served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. They released a nonpartisan report calling on President Obama to provide Ukraine with lethal weaponry, and this is what we talked about in the bill. They encouraged other NATO countries to do the same, particularly those that possess and used former Soviet equipment and weaponry. On January 25, when President Obama stated at a news conference in New Delhi, India that the aggression by the rebel separatists in eastern Ukraine had Russian backing, Russian equipment, Russian financing, Russian training, and Russian troops--so he finally agreed. It is not something that is debatable or might be happening; it is something that is happening. You can see the horrible things that are going on there, and you can see the reason it is necessary to get this done. Some time ago, back when Carl Levin was still here--he is retired, and he did such a great job as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee for so many years when I was the ranking Republican on the Committee on Armed Services. At that time, a year ago in October, we wrote the following in the Washington Post: We believe that the United States should begin providing defensive weapons that would help Ukraine defend its territory. Such weapons could include anti-tank weapons to defend against Russian-provided armored personnel carriers, ammunition, vehicles and secure communications equipment. This would present no threat to Russia unless its forces launch further aggression against Ukraine. In other words, these weapons are lethal, but not provocative because they are defensive. That came from Carl Levin and me. This is back before we knew the results of the parliamentary election that was so successful and so complementary to the West. This has been long overdue. There is no one who disagrees with it, and even the President recognizes they have the equipment and we are not doing the job we should be doing. So, with that, I am going to introduce S. 452, and we are going to ask for cosponsors to come down and speak on this topic. We have quite a long list of cosponsors. It doesn't bother me if other Members want to introduce like resolutions because we need to get something passed. We need to raise the visibility so the people of America know this is not just going on in Syria and some of these other countries, but it is also in the country of one of our very best friends worldwide, and that best friend is the Ukraine. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, along with Senator Hatch, we have a concern we want to share with this body. One of the reasons I do is because I had planned to go ahead and introduce the bill having to do with the AUMF. In fact, I actually had introduced it a year ago, but I understand now we are coming into an agreement and Senator Hatch and I stand together to speak about the need for the new AUMF, authorization for use of military force, against the terrorist organization known as ISIS or ISIL, or whatever you want to call it, in order to answer any legal question as to the authority the President has to defend the American people and demonstrate our commitment to the global coalition in defeating this radical Islamic organization. I have always contended the President had this authority anyway. In fact, I can remember a year ago he said he did. I now understand the President will be sending to Congress his own version of the AUMF this week. I will read it with interest. Over the past 6 months, ISIS, or ISIL, has expanded its control in Iraq and Syria. They continue to recruit followers worldwide. We saw just the other day what happened when we had the King of Jordan here and we had the opportunity to be with him when he got the very sad news of what happened to his F-16 pilot being burned alive. I happened to be with him in Syria just a month before that. I am talking about with the King of Jordan. We know firsthand what is going on. It is my hope the President's proposed AUMF will include all the authorities needed to execute his strategy to stop ISIS and the President provides Congress with that strategy as part of any approval for an AUMF. The President's proposed AUMF should not contain restrictions on U.S. forces or time or geographic limitations. An AUMF should authorize the use of all necessary and appropriate force anywhere where ISIS or any successor organization is operating until we accomplish our strategy. At the State of the Union speech last month, President Obama specifically said--and I am quoting now: I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL. We need that authority. That was a quote from his State of the Union Message. Quite frankly, he had already stated before he had that authority. I am not going to argue about that. Let's just make sure to eliminate all doubts. Subsequent official White House statements have called for a ``right- sized, modernized AUMF...it would send a powerful signal to the citizens of this country, the citizens of our allies, and to our enemies.'' It was on January 23 that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dempsey said--and I am going to quote General Dempsey's entire quote because I think he is the No. 1 guy. He is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the one who should be the best qualified to make these decisions. He said: I think in the crafting of the AUMF, all options should be on the table, and then we can debate whether we want to use them. But the authorization should be there...In particular, it shouldn't constrain activities geographically, because ISIL knows no boundaries, [and] doesn't recognize any boundaries--in fact it's their intention to erase all boundaries to their benefit. Constraints on time, or a ``sunset clause,'' I just don't think it's necessary. I think the nation should speak of its intent to confront this radical ideological barbaric group and leave the option until we can deal with it. That is all a quote from General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I think we need to listen to it. I don't think the immediate need for an AUMF could be put more clearly or succinctly than General Dempsey's words, and it is my hope he was intimately involved in the drafting of the administration's AUMF. It is my understanding we will see this tomorrow. Again, I, along with many colleagues--including my good friend from Utah--look forward to reading President Obama's AUMF. We have to get rid of this monster. With that, I yield to my good friend from Utah.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to make a unanimous consent request that Lt. Col. Anthony McCarty, a defense fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this year.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I remain strongly committed to our veterans and their families. When America sends our men and women to war, we vow to care for them when they return. However, throughout the Nation, we have seen reports of our veterans enduring long wait times, substandard quality of care, and a lack of transparency at the Department of Veterans Affairs. In my great State of Oklahoma, we have a large population of veterans at roughly 340,000. From 2005-2012, there was an increase of 34 percent in the annual veteran suicide rate in Oklahoma, totaling 1,018 veteran suicide deaths. An average of 127 deaths per year is not acceptable. We must help our veterans get access to the best mental health and suicide prevention programs. I believe the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for Americans bill will provide opportunities for the VA to work collaboratively with local community organizations and require an evaluation of the various mental health care programs to identify the efficiencies or lack thereof. It will also allow the VA to compete in recruiting the necessary staff for the mental health care and suicide prevention programs. We cannot allow VA psychiatry positions to remain open for long periods of time, and the education loan repayment pilot program will assist the VA in attracting the much needed psychiatrists to support those currently employed with the abundant workload. With this bill, Congress will exercise its constitutional right to oversight of the VA while requiring the Department to use the resources it already has. Freedom is not free. Many of our veterans and their families have paid and continue to pay the price for us and our great Nation. It is our duty to honor the promises made to them in return for their sacrifices.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill to name the Federal courthouse serving the Western District of Oklahoma after the late Judge William J. Holloway. This legislation has the support of the judges on the Western District, retired Judge Ralph Thompson who served on the bench in the Western District for from 1975 to 2007, and many in the legal community in the Western District of Oklahoma. Judge Holloway was born in Hugo, OK, and his father was the eighth governor of the State of Oklahoma. He served in the U.S. Army during the height of World War II, received his law degree from Harvard University in 1950, and worked in private practice with a 2-year stint for the Department of Justice. President Lyndon Johnson nominated Judge Holloway to the 10th Circuit in August 1968, and the Senate confirmed him on September 13, 1968, where he served as chief judge from 1984 to 1991. Judge Holloway assumed senior status in May 1992 and passed away April 25, 2014, in Oklahoma City. Judge Holloway was the longest serving judge on the 10th Circuit, and during his service, he authored over 900 opinions. He was well regarded by all who worked with him, appeared before him, and knew him. I have not found a person knowledgeable of Judge Holloway or his service who could not unequivocally tell you that Judge Holloway adhered to precedent when deciding cases. He did not proclaim any type of philosophy. As new 10th Circuit Judge Robert Bacharach described Judge Holloway, ``He simply decided cases by asking `What does the statute say? What does the Constitution say? What are the facts of this case?'' We know that is a high standard, and a standard lost sometimes in our judiciary. When he passed away last year, 10th Circuit Judge Jerome Holmes said of Judge Holloway, ``The nation has lost a thoughtful, dedicated, and compassionate jurist, and, as a former law clerk of Judge Holloway, I have lost a mentor, dear friend, and colleague. I know that Judge Holloway was very honored to serve his nation as a judge on the Tenth Circuit, and he served with great distinction.'' On behalf of Judge Holloway and his family, I introduce this bill in his honor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill to name the Federal courthouse serving the Western District of Oklahoma after the late Judge William J. Holloway. This legislation has the support of the judges on the Western District, retired Judge Ralph Thompson who served on the bench in the Western District for from 1975 to 2007, and many in the legal community in the Western District of Oklahoma. Judge Holloway was born in Hugo, OK, and his father was the eighth governor of the State of Oklahoma. He served in the U.S. Army during the height of World War II, received his law degree from Harvard University in 1950, and worked in private practice with a 2-year stint for the Department of Justice. President Lyndon Johnson nominated Judge Holloway to the 10th Circuit in August 1968, and the Senate confirmed him on September 13, 1968, where he served as chief judge from 1984 to 1991. Judge Holloway assumed senior status in May 1992 and passed away April 25, 2014, in Oklahoma City. Judge Holloway was the longest serving judge on the 10th Circuit, and during his service, he authored over 900 opinions. He was well regarded by all who worked with him, appeared before him, and knew him. I have not found a person knowledgeable of Judge Holloway or his service who could not unequivocally tell you that Judge Holloway adhered to precedent when deciding cases. He did not proclaim any type of philosophy. As new 10th Circuit Judge Robert Bacharach described Judge Holloway, ``He simply decided cases by asking `What does the statute say? What does the Constitution say? What are the facts of this case?'' We know that is a high standard, and a standard lost sometimes in our judiciary. When he passed away last year, 10th Circuit Judge Jerome Holmes said of Judge Holloway, ``The nation has lost a thoughtful, dedicated, and compassionate jurist, and, as a former law clerk of Judge Holloway, I have lost a mentor, dear friend, and colleague. I know that Judge Holloway was very honored to serve his nation as a judge on the Tenth Circuit, and he served with great distinction.'' On behalf of Judge Holloway and his family, I introduce this bill in his honor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Senator Enzi was going to be here, so I am hoping his schedule will allow him to use his time this afternoon.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, yesterday we had an interesting debate on climate change in the Senate, and there were three separate votes. The first one I and virtually all the Republicans supported, the Whitehouse amendment No. 29, said climate change is real and not a hoax. This is true. Climate has always changed, and I think there is an effort by those on the other side who are trying to promote the big Obama program that would cost $479 billion and not accomplish anything in terms of setting up a new bureaucracy of trying to say we are denying that climate changes. As I said on the floor yesterday, climate has always changed. If we go back and read history, look at archeological findings, and read the Scriptures, it has changed since the very beginning of time. We know it is real. The hoax is that somehow there are people so arrogant who are going to go along with the President's program to say: Yes, if we spend enough money we, the human beings, can stop the climate from changing. I think people do understand that is not going to happen. So I am very happy we were able to get it out so it cannot be used in a way that would be deceptive to the public--because the climate has been changing since the beginning of time. The hoax I have referred to since 2002 is that man is going to be in the position to change climate. That is not going to happen. What is interesting is these votes could have taken place any time over the last year. I hope I am not divulging something someone else is going to use, but we are on pace now to have more amendments and votes on this one bill--a popular bill--than we had on amendments in the entire year last year. We were very critical of the majority and the fact that we were not doing anything here. I would go home this last year and people would say: What did you accomplish? Nothing. We didn't have any votes. We didn't do anything. We had 15 votes on amendments in the entire year last year. By the end of today we will have that many votes on amendments just in 1 week. So it is very significant that we are actually getting things done. Why did the Democrats not have a vote on the Keystone Pipeline or on climate? Because voters don't care or because people have lost interest in that. They have caught on. They know that, despite the money that has been put in this thing by Tom Steyer--we have already talked about that on this floor--that went into midterm elections, the proglobal warming votes would be seen negatively by voters. This wasn't true back in the 1990s. At that time they had everyone scared that global warming was coming and the world was going to come to an end. There was polling by the Gallup polls, and that was the No. 1 and No. 2 concern in America. Environmental concerns are now No. 14 out of 15 in America. So that is where it is. That is why Tom Steyer has spent, by his own admission, some $70 million on the elections. He stated he was going to get involved in eight senatorial elections--and I say to the Presiding Officer, he knows which ones they would be--and they lost them all. But Tom Steyer is not out of money, and they are going to do what they can to try to resurrect this global warming as an issue. So the Gallup polls--and not just the polls. The Pew Research Center said 53 percent of Americans either don't believe global warming exists or believe it is caused by natural variation. I don't have it here, but I do know there was a university that put together a poll of all of the television weather people and it came out to the same thing: It was 63 percent said either it doesn't exist or, if it does exist, it exists because of natural causes. What do the American people care about? They are concerned about the deficit and they are concerned about jobs. Yesterday on the floor we talked about the deficit. Under this President--not a believable figure but an accurate figure--he has increased the debt in America more than all Presidents in the history of America, from George Washington to George Bush. So that is what people care about. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, one of my top priorities in this Congress is to conduct vigorous oversight of EPA regulations and getting into President Obama's excessive regulation regime through numerous hearings. We are going to have hearings on these regulations. We actually have dates set already to have hearings so people will understand what the cost is of these regulations. The Presiding Officer is from a rural State, as I am. I am from Oklahoma. When I talk to farmers--in fact, Tom Buchanan, president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, said I can use his quote: Our farmers in Oklahoma--and I suggest all throughout America--are more concerned about the EPA regulations than they are all the other problems that are out there or anything that you will see in the farm bill. He talks about the endangered species, that they can't plow their fields anymore in certain places because there might be some kind of a bug down there. He talks about containment of fuel on their farms. He talks about the water of the United States. That bill is probably the No. 1 concern of farmers. The western part of my State is arid. I was out in Boise City, in the panhandle, and it is one of the most arid parts of the United States. It could actually be declared a wetland if we were to pass this and allow the Federal Government to replace the States and come in and regulate water on the land. These are the things they are concerned about. We should look closely at this, and this is quite a breakthrough. Our friends in Australia already tried regulating their emissions. I think we all know the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and that bureaucracy is supposedly the scientific community. Yet we find out now--and I talked about this yesterday. All the scientists were not believers in this, but a lot did believe and Australia did believe. So they joined in a Kyoto-type treaty and started stopping their emissions. They imposed a carbon tax on the economy a few years ago, and it caused horrendous damage--$9 billion in lost economic activity per year, and destroyed tens of thousands of jobs. It was so bad that their government recently voted to repeal the carbon tax they imposed just a couple years ago, and their economy is now better for it. In fact, it was announced just following the repeal that Australia experienced record job growth of 120,000 jobs--far more than the 10,000 to 15,000 jobs economists had expected. We also looked closely at this because scientists are having a difficult time explaining the 15-year hiatus we have seen in temperature increases. This isn't me. The IPCC agrees with this, Nature magazine agrees with this, the Economist magazine agrees. They are reputable publications. Reviewing the science is one thing they have to do in the EPW Committee, the committee I chair, because it is on this disputed science the EPA is building its significant greenhouse gas regulation package scheduled for this summer, which all together would be the costliest regulation in history. The component regulating CO2 emissions from existing sources is the cause of a great concern in particular. We heard in the President's message on Tuesday night that as proposed right now, the EPA's regulation will raise energy prices, destroy jobs, and impose billions of dollars in costs on the U.S. economy without achieving any kind of an effect. It is interesting, and I have quoted her many times. The first EPA Administrator appointed by Barack Obama was Lisa Jackson. Lisa Jackson came before our committee many times. I always appreciated her because she would not get a message from the White House and come and repeat it in our committee. I asked her a question: If we were to pass any of these regulations or the legislation to have cap and trade in America--which is what the President proposed on Tuesday night--would this have the effect of reducing CO2 emissions worldwide. Her answer, live on TV, in our meeting was, no, it wouldn't because this isn't where the problem is. The problem is in China, the problem is in India, the problem is in Mexico. So what we do in the United States isn't going to affect what they do. In fact, the opposite is true. Because if we control emissions to the point where our manufacturing base runs out of energy in America, where do they go? They go to places such as China. China is sitting back hoping we pass something so they can benefit from our lost jobs in America. The Wall Street Journal on June 3 called the proposal that the President suggested on Tuesday ``a huge indirect tax and wealth redistribution scheme that the EPA is imposing by fiat [that] will profoundly touch every American.'' Further quoting the Wall Street Journal: ``It is impossible to raise the price of carbon energy without also raising costs across the economy.'' This is clearly worthy of intense congressional oversight, and that is what we intend to do. EPA has gone beyond the plain reading of the Clean Air Act in an attempt to grossly expand its authority. It is forcing States to achieve dubious emission reduction targets from a limited menu of economically damaging and legally questionable options. One of the foremost authorities in America is Richard Lindzen of MIT. Richard Lindzen some time ago made the statement, ``Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream.'' That is what they want to do, try to control carbon emissions. Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life. The scientific community has been divided on this. We are in a position to try to make sure this doesn't happen to America, and so we are going to be very busy on that. I wish to also mention we have seen Europe go down the road of imposing these mandates--the cap and trade and regimes they are proposing for America and in the green energy subsidies--and we have seen where that has gotten them. Electricity prices are up to 2\1/2\ times higher than those in the United States. In Germany, in 2012, CO2 emissions actually rose by 1.3 percent over the 2011 levels, while the U.S. emissions fell by 3.9 percent--and they were imposing these new restrictions, we were not. As a matter of fact, things got so bad in Germany that they backed off of their disastrous renewable fuels program and now plan to build 10 new coal-fired powerplants in Germany. Make sure we heard that, 10 new coal-fired powerplants. This is what they are trying to do away with altogether in America--as if we could run the ``machine'' called America without fossil fuels and without nuclear. We can't do it. A look closer to home: California has adopted similar carbon reduction policies, and its cap-and-trade scheme alone will increase electricity rates by 8 percent, according to the California Public Utilities Commission. That is in California today. If we pass this, I don't have a figure as to how much that is going to increase out in California. Do we want our entire economy following the path of the State of California? It has one of the country's highest electricity rates. The rates in California are 65 percent higher than our rates in the State of Oklahoma, and it has one of the worst unemployment rates, one of the worst insolvent fiscal positions of any State, not to mention some of the worst air quality in the country. Predictions of this rule's devastating impacts are prevalent. In Oklahoma, residential rates are projected to increase by 15 to 19 percent and industrial rates by 24 percent; that is, in the event they are successful in this program. I notice the other side has not arrived. I ask unanimous consent to go an additional 7 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. The Kansas Corporation Commission calculates that compliance with the rule as proposed would cost the State $5 to $15 billion, the equivalent of a 10- to 30-percent increase in electric rates. The loss of cheaper and more reliable coal units will increase the power prices by as much as 25 percent on grids that serve about a third of the Nation's population, according to the Brattle Group in Massachusetts. Now, I have gone on and talked about how much more this would cost State by State. There isn't time to go over all of it now. But let's stop and realize the cost of this. NERA's analysis of the increased cost if we were to adopt these programs projects that the cost to comply with the EPA's plan could be a total of $479 billion or more, with 43 States having double-digit electricity increases and 14 States potentially facing peak-year electricity price increases exceeding 20 percent. I say this because--who is having to pay this? Everybody pays it, and they have to pay it equally. It has to be the most regressive type of increase in taxation that we could have. If you have a pilot program, with a family that is in poverty they have to spend the same amount of money for their electricity. That is a must, not a luxury. It is something they have to have. So they could easily spend half of their expendable income on electricity price increases, while wealthy people might only face a 1-percent increase of their income. That is why it is important and why we need to pay attention to it--to make sure we know the public is aware of this. NERA also estimates that atmospheric CO2 concentrations would be reduced by less than one-half of 1 percent--that is if they are successful in doing this--equating to reductions in global average temperatures of less than two one-hundredths of a degree. So all these things they say they might be able to accomplish, they have studied it and say it is just not true. I have already talked about the fact that within the President's own administration, Lisa Jackson, the former head of the EPA, said even if they are successful, even if they are right about this, it is not going to reduce CO2 emissions because this isn't where the problem is. So this is going on right now. We have a committee that is clearly going to be working on this so the American people will be aware of what is happening. The Energy Information Administration determined that the China agreement would result in a 34-percent increase in electricity prices. I bring this up because we heard in the President's speech on Tuesday that they were negotiating with China and some very successful negotiations took place. The Presiding Officer remembers that this was back when our Secretary of State went over and met with President Xi of China and came back and said it was a successful meeting. What came out of that negotiation? China said: Well, we will keep increasing our emissions until 2020, and then we will look at it and decide whether we want to lower it. That is not much of a negotiation, and it was not very comforting to us. A comprehensive survey conducted by a Harvard political scientist shows that people who are worried about climate change are only willing to pay energy bills up to 5 percent higher. Whether it is global warming or climate change, the American people understand this proposal is in no way about protecting the environment or improving public health. This rule is an executive and bureaucratic power grab unlike anything this country has ever seen, and it is merely the tip of the spear in a radical war against affordable energy and fossil fuels. At a time when domestic oil and gas prices through hydraulic fracturing continue to be one of the only bright spots in our economy, a lot of people are trying to stop this from taking place. I kind of wind up with this because I think it is important. I come from an oil State, so I have to buy it. I understand that. The process of hydraulic fracturing started in my State of Oklahoma--in Duncan, OK--in 1948. Did you know that by their own admission the EPA said there has never been a documented case of groundwater contamination since they started using hydraulic fracturing? When the President made the statement in the State of the Union Message that the United States has dramatically increased in the last 5 years our production of oil and gas, that is correct, but that is in spite of the President. We have enjoyed a 61-percent increase in the production of oil and gas in America in the last 5 years--61 percent. However, all of that is either on State or private land. On Federal land we have had a reduction of 6 percent. So I look at that, and I believe it when people say that if we had been able to increase production on Federal land such as we have done in the last 5 years on private land and State land, we could be totally--100 percent-- independent from any other country in developing our resources. So I am committed to using our committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, not only to conduct a rigorous oversight of the Obama EPA policies which are running roughshod over our economy, operating outside the scope of the law, and directly ignoring the intent of Congress but also to rein in this out-of-control agency through any and all means at our disposal. This has been a problem. People used to say that it was just big business that wanted to reduce these regulations. That isn't true. As I mentioned before, the farmers of America--just in my State of Oklahoma--say the overregulation of EPA is the most difficult issue they have to deal with. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

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

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

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for such time as I shall consume.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me address what happened today because I think it is significant. I think a lot of people are a little bit confused over what did happen, and it was somewhat of a surprise. As the Presiding Officer knows, I have been leading the opposition to this whole idea of cap and trade. It originated way back in 2001. Since that time, we have voted on it many times. I will always remember that back in those days most people believed that manmade gases were contributing to global warming and that the world was going to come to an end because of manmade gases and CO2 emissions. At that time, early on, I was on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I think at that time I was not chairman, but I was the chairman of one of the subcommittees, and I thought, it must be true, everybody says it. Well, some time went by and we got a report. The first one came from the Wharton School where they talked about the fact that if we were to pass cap and trade--at that time there were two bills before the U.S. Senate--not in the House, just in the Senate--and those bills would have been cap-and-trade types of bills. So they calculated what this would cost if we in the United States passed cap and trade. This was way back in 2002, 2003. They said that the range of the cost to the American people would be between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. I do something that I don't think very many people do, but I always do it. Every time I hear a large number, I go back and get the latest figures from my State of Oklahoma as to how many families file a Federal tax return, and then I do the math to determine how much it is going to cost an average family who pays taxes. It came back in excess of $3,000 a year. I thought, that is a lot of money. Let's be sure there is science behind this idea, knowing it all came from the United Nations. That is what started this whole thing. By the way, this IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and that is within the United Nations. That is where it all started. If my colleagues remember, that was during the Clinton-Gore administration, when Al Gore went to South America and came back with this idea of the Kyoto Treaty. We were all going to sign it, and if we didn't, then we were all going to die because of manmade gases. So we started looking at it to see if the science really was there because the only science we had heard about was the IPCC. Well, sure enough, we started getting phone calls from scientists all over the country. This was a long time ago. I started naming the scientists and groups of scientists who were calling in. We got up to 100 and then to 1,000 and then to 4,000. This is all on my Web site even though it was a long time ago. We can see all of these renowned scientists. Richard Lindzen is with MIT. He is one who is considered by a lot of people to be the foremost authority on this, and he is the one who came out adamantly and said: No, the science is not there. It is not settled. So several others started calling in. In fact, I will quote him, if I have it here, what Richard Lindzen actually said at that time. He said: ``Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life.'' That is what bureaucrats would like to do. The Presiding Officer understands that because he has served in the other House and is new here in the Senate. Lindzen also said, talking about Al Gore--Al Gore at that time was Vice President of the United States. He was the one who was really pushing this. He said: To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough. To do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Of course, what Richard Lindzen of MIT was talking about was the fact that Al Gore at that time--they speculated he would be the first environmental billionaire. That was speculated in the New York Times. Anyway, after that happened, all the other scientists started checking in. These are scientists who cannot be challenged--these individuals. We have hundreds more, and I have a make on each one of these that I would be glad to discuss or debate with anyone. But at the same time, other things were happening. One of the universities here in Virginia commissioned a poll to be done of all of the weathercasters on TV. They came back with 63 percent of the weathercasters saying that any global warming that occurs is a result of natural variation and not human activities. So when I hear people--I have good friends on the other side that really believe this, and I think that one sometimes has to open it up and realize there is another side to this story. When they say that 97 percent, 98 percent of the scientists agree, it just isn't true. We have the names and things that have actually been said. I think one item that people are going to have to remember--let me first of all say what happened today because I know they have been told I would explain what happened today. My good friend, Senator Whitehouse, had an amendment. The amendment was one sentence. It says that climate change is real and it is not a hoax. There is a ruling against talking about your own votes on the Senate floor, so I can't do that. But that hoax came from a totally different interpretation. The hoax was the idea that this is happening--climate change. That it is due to manmade gases. In other words, man is causing it. So what I said on the Senate floor today is: How arrogant is it for people to say that man can do something about changing climate? Climate has always changed. I quoted this morning--I said it has changed. Go back and look at the archeological findings. They talk about climate from the beginning of time having changed and changed both ways. The Scriptures talk about it. This is something on which everyone has agreed, and no one would debate that it has always happened. The debate is whether man is causing that to happen. So here we have a chart that shows--do you remember the hockey stick? The hockey stick was the concept that one of the guys with the IPCC came out with and said that it is like a hockey stick. We had this weather going like this for a long period of time. Then all of a sudden it shot up, and it resembled a hockey stick. What they forgot was to put these two things in the hockey stick where it is supposed to be level. One is the medieval warming period that is between 1000 and 1500 A.D. We are talking recently. Then that went into the little ice age. Those were left off the chart. We have looked back, and everything you look at talks about how many years in the past we have had this change that is taking place in climate. I am going to do this from memory. There are--in addition to these major changes such as you are seeing on this chart, which is a chart that--this actually is the IPCC's chart. No one is going to argue with that because they are the ones who dreamed up this whole idea. That is an intergovernmental panel on climate change. But within that--I can remember when I first heard the terms global warming and ice age, it was when they went back and they started tracing not long-term trends in climate change in weather but short term. Starting in 1895, from 1895 to 1918, they had what they referred to as a cooling spell, possibly another little ice age. Then in 1918, it started getting warm again. So from 1918 to 1945 there was a little warming period. That took place kind of every 30 years. Then in 1995, from that period until 1975, for 30 years again, it went into a cooling period. Here is the key. No one will argue with the fact that 1945 was the year that we had the maximum increase surge in CO2 emissions. That precipitated not a warming period but a cooling period. Then, of course, 1975 came along. Where are the charts that showed that in 1974--Time magazine or one of those? Here it is. This is Time magazine. This is the front. They said: Is another ice age coming? This is 1974. This is making the case. Everybody believed it. They talked about global warming before that and then another ice age. We are all going to die one way or another. Put up the other chart, which is also Time magazine. This is when they said: Oh, no, here is the last polar bear and all the ice--so we have another global warming period. Both of them are from Time magazine. Both are 30 years apart. This is what has been happening for a long period of time. Recognizing this, we had a little experience that--getting back, I made a determination that I would not only support the Whitehouse amendment, since it was just one sentence, it said that climate is changing, and it is not a hoax, but that I could clarify that and maybe become a cosponsor to his amendment. So I did that on the floor just a few minutes ago. I said on the floor that, yes, it is changing--no question about that. But the hoax is that there are people who are so arrogant they think they have the power to change climate. That is the hoax--not the fact that climate is changing. So that is what has been happening. When some of the scientists came out and they started changing back and forth and all of a sudden people realized this whole thing was cooked up by the United Nations--IPCC was part of that group--then they found out that some of the scientists who were behind this were discovering that they had some emails that were sent out saying and proving conclusively that they were cooking the science, that these scientists were lying. One of the things that was discovered and came out was an email from one of the scientists to another. It was 1999 and it read: I have just completed Mike's nature trick, adding in the real temperatures of each of the series for the last 20 years. In other words, they were cooking the science at that time. This thing was such a scandal that throughout the world--we didn't hear nearly as much in the United States, but we did throughout the world. The UK Telegraph, which is maybe the largest communication in the UK, said that it is the worst scientific scandal of our generation. What they are talking about is the scientific scandal. They are trying to make it sound as if man is responsible for all of these things. The Financial Times came out and said the closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science is surprising even to me. The stink of an intellectual corruption is overpowering. One of the IPCC physicists said that climate-gate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen before. This went on and on, and we could quote Newsweek, the Guardian, and all the rest of them. It was known worldwide as a scandal. What was the scandal? It was that they had a bunch of scientists who were saying we are going to have to pass something like cap and trade because man is causing the world to come to an end. So that is really what that was all about. We are going to have the debate. We want to do that. I chair the Committee on Environment and of Public Works. I chaired it 8 years ago. Then when the Democrats got control of the Senate--and now I am back in that position. We will have a chance to have hearings. We are going to have hearings with prominent scientists to come in and talk about this issue because all they say now is: Oh, the science is settled; the science is settled. The science is not settled. That is the reason my good friend Senator Wyden wants to make some remarks. That is the reason I made that statement today. I think we will have that very healthy debate. But let's keep in mind what the President was suggesting last night. It would cost the American people $479 billion a year, and that would constitute the largest tax increase in the history of America. That is one of his legacies which he is trying during the last part of his presidency and which he announced last night that he is going to put as a top priority. We will be there to be the truth squad in that and make sure that my kids and grandkids--I have 20--are not going to be encumbered with the largest tax increase in the world, particularly when their own director said: If you pass it, it will not reduce CO2 emissions. I yield floor.

Mr. INHOFE. No objection.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the Whitehouse amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Climate is changing. Climate has always changed, and it always will. There is archaeological evidence of that, there is biblical evidence, and there is historical evidence. It will always change. The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant, who think that they are so powerful that they can change the climate. Man can't change the climate. I ask my colleagues to vote for the Whitehouse-Inhofe amendment.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Committee on Environment and Public Works has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 114th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we are getting close to a time when we are going to be able to see a reality here that we have been talking about--the Keystone Pipeline--for a long period of time now. When I go back to Oklahoma, people say: If you have something that no one is against who does not have a particular institutional reason to be against it--everyone is for it. When you see the jobs--no single thing we have dealt with in the last 3 or 4 years that I can recall has talked about 42,000 new jobs that otherwise are not going to be there, good-paying jobs. I admit that I am biased a little bit because being from Oklahoma-- Cushing, OK, is right in the center of the State. It is the hub of all of the pipelines going through America. But I see that there is really no logical reason--I heard someone on the floor just a few minutes ago saying: All those dirty oil sands up in Alberta are going to be--there is a great environmental risk from that. Yet they know full well that if for some reason the people who are opposed to fossil fuel altogether--such as President Obama--are successful, they are still going to produce that stuff up there. China is chomping at the bit right now because China has a great need for the very ingredients in the pipeline that we do here in this country. They already have talked about transportation to the western part of Canada to get it to China. So it is going to happen. In fact, you could argue, if you are concerned about some of the environmental problems, if they do exist, they would be greater if China did it than if we did it. For example, China does not have any emission controls on all of the stuff that we are talking about the way we do in this country. I think there are some things that are factual. I think everyone is aware of it. One is that President Obama has had a constant war on fossil fuels since the time before he was even President of the United States. When we look at what he has done and how he has committed--and we have heard all of those quotes from when he was talking to the far- left environmental groups, the Tom Steyers and others like him who have put in the money to fight fossil fuels. He is one who is solidly opposed and doing everything in his power to keep us from finishing the pipeline. Having said that--I will put the chart up on what happened just a year ago in my State of Oklahoma. The only visit the President has made to my State of Oklahoma was about a year ago--2 years ago. He came in and was--in the background there, that is a picture of him in Cushing, OK, and those are the barrels--this is what is taking place right now in Cushing. He was talking about--his quote there, as you can read: I am directing my administration to make this project a priority-- He was talking about the Keystone Pipeline-- to go ahead and to get it done. Well, he made that statement and he came down to hold that meeting in Cushing, OK, to try to make them believe he was actually for a pipeline. He went on to say that he was going to make sure that he was not going to do anything to keep the pipeline from going on further south. Now, let's get the picture here. You have Cushing, OK, which is right in the middle of the United States, and the pipeline will continue to go south to the Texas coast. Well, he said he was not going to do anything to stop that. There is a good reason for this; that is, he cannot. He does not have any jurisdiction. That did not cross an international boundary. The borders--the international border that it has crossed is in Canada. So that is the area where he is still to this day doing all he can to keep that from being a reality. The southern leg could be finished and he cannot do anything about that. I mentioned Tom Steyer. I want to put up that chart so people know-- in case they have not been introduced. He is probably a very fine person. He has a strong commitment to try to stop fossil fuels. He is the one who made the statement back before the November elections that he was going to raise $100 million--put in $50 million of his own money and raise $50 million in addition to that--and put it in eight campaigns--I think we know probably which campaigns they were--to see whether he could resurrect the issue of global warming and whether he could stop the pipeline. Well, all that happened back then. I think it is important that people understand that he was not able to--he was willing to put his millions of dollars in, but he could not raise the 50. So instead of that, he put $70 million of his money in the race. This is not me talking; this is all--he is very proud of it. Frankly, I appreciate the fact that he is not trying to hide what he is doing. I know he has some political interests. I know he has a commitment to try to stop the pipeline. I am not sure what that is based on other than just the people to whom he caters. But nonetheless he has a great deal of influence with this administration. It was reported a couple of weeks ago that he had visited the Obama White House 14 times--that is as of that time--which led a member of the watchdog group Public Citizen to say, ``Tom Steyer has not just got the ear of the President, but he clearly has the President's attention.'' Again, that is this watchdog committee making that statement. So we are looking at it now. We know that the White House meetings were often with President Obama's counselor and chief environmental advisor, John Podesta. We remember John Podesta from the Clinton administration. He has been a lobbyist now for quite some time. He is very actively involved in this issue. Reports have also surfaced that Steyer and Podesta met with billionaire liberal activist George Soros just days after Steyer made his commitment. Anyway, that is behind us now. That affected the election, there is no question about that; however, they still lost. If I am guessing right on the races he was involved in, there is not one of those who won. Republicans took over 10 seats. That was quite a good year. So maybe he wasted several million dollars. But when we looked at it and if you think about what he has done to fossil fuels, that has been his war. Twice today already I have heard people on the floor saying: Well, look at the success the oil industry has had under the Obama administration. Well, I have to suggest that it has been in spite of the Obama administration. The proof is very easy. The revolution that is going on right now within the oil industry is one that has been very successful. On private land and on State land, the amount of production since Obama has been in office has actually increased by 61 percent. That is incredible. They say: Well, you must be really pro oil and gas because of that. In reality, all of that, 100 percent of that 61-percent increase has been on State and private land. On public land, the Federal land that he has control over, there has not be an increase of 61 percent or even 6 percent. As a matter of fact, there has been a reduction of 6 percent. So that is going on and it is all a part of this war that is taking place right now. I am very anxious to see how these votes turn out. I know that people, when they realize the number of jobs that are there, I get very excited about it, and I can't help but think we are going to be successful. I wish to mention though--I wasn't going to--a person whom I consider to be a very good friend is on the floor, and we have philosophically disagreed with each other about as much as any two people can; that is, the Senator from Vermont. He is sincere. He believes what he says. Yet some of the things he says I believe are wrong, but he believes them. I don't want to question whether he is telling what he believes is the truth--and others too. Another good friend of mine is the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer. Frankly, I will miss her in the Senate. I understand she has announced her retirement. But nonetheless, on the issue they are talking about on global warming, I listen and I think: Where do they come up with this stuff? Because we know for a fact that many of the things that they talk about are not true. We keep hearing that 97 percent of the scientists are saying they believe CO2 is the cause of the catastrophic climate change, the world is coming to an end, and we are all going to die. This goes back to about 2002 when this became an issue. I will remember this for a long time because that was when the first bills were introduced. At that time everybody thought global warming was true. They were all going to try to do what they could to stop it. Frankly, at the very first I thought it must be true--that is what everybody said--until they did a study at the Wharton School. Some of their scientists, along with MIT, Charles Rivers and Associates, and others said what the cost would be. Because everybody was talking about the world coming to an end and they asked: But what is cost going to be? They all agreed on a range, and that range has not been refuted by anyone. The range is between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. I immediately went back to see. Whenever I hear a big number, I go back to Oklahoma and I count the number of people, families who file a Federal income tax return and then I do my math. That would cost the average person and family in Oklahoma $3,000. So we think: All right. Are we sure we are going to get something for the $3,000? I will share with you--because a lot of people have forgotten this-- that Lisa Jackson was the first Administrator of the EPA who was appointed by President Obama. I asked her on the record, live on TV, in our committee, I said: Now let's assume we passed some of this legislation that puts in cap and trade or do it even by regulation. Is this going to stop CO2 emissions or lower CO2 emissions worldwide? She said: No. These are her words, not mine. She said: The reason is the problem isn't here in the United States, the problem is in China, it is in India, it is in Mexico, and it is in other places. So in the event they were able to do that, then this would not lower it. In fact, we could use the same argument and say if we passed a cap and trade and did something--as they are talking about doing and we have heard on the floor today--then it would have the effect of not reducing but increasing CO2 emissions, and this is why. As we chase our manufacturing base overseas where they have to somehow find someplace where they can generate electricity, it will be in countries such as China and India where they don't have any of the restrictions in emissions. So even if someone is a believer that the world is coming to an end, that global warming is going to kill everybody and it is all due to man-made gas, if they truly believe that still, even in spite of that, it is not going to reduce worldwide emissions. I guess that is what they want to do, so we hear about the consensus. I remember at that time I made a speech on this floor questioning the science. I said: I assume there are scientists out there who are not a part of the IPCC--that is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--and that those scientists know better. They know what the reality is. I started getting phone calls. I got phone calls from scientists. On this chart are recognized scientists. There are 58. Richard Lindzen, I see his picture. He is a scientist at MIT. I think we could argue he would be in contention with the very best informed scientists. Richard Lindzen said: Controlling Carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life. Is that real, these people, or what? I remember how upset he was with Al Gore. Richard Lindzen made the statement again--this is him, not me, Richard Lindzen of MIT: To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough. To do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Now we have so many things that have happened. Just the other day--it wasn't long ago, I don't have the exact date--one of the universities did a survey of all the weathercasters, and they came back that 63 percent of weathercasters believe any global warming that is occurring is the result of natural variation and not human activities. To say ``97 percent of scientists'' is just not true, but if you want to believe it badly enough you will. So we have a lot of information. Nature journal, which is a well-respected journal, in their 2013 paper said that ``there is considerable uncertainty as to whether [increases in extreme climate variability] is occurring. Munich Reinsurance Company said: ``Global weather related disaster losses have declined by 25% as a proportion of GDP.'' We have all these statements. The IPCC, they are the ones that are always being quoted, and it is a branch of the United Nations. That is where all this started and certainly it would enure to their benefit to have people believe that we have to look at some international organization such as the United Nations to protect us from all these droughts and all these things that they say are going to happen. We had another little thing happen recently. I only mention this because nobody has yet on the floor. I think everyone used to believe that everyone was already aware of it, but remember Climategate? Climategate was when they were having one of the big United Nations parties. It was going to be in Copenhagen. I remember a lot of our people went over there to tell the 191 countries that were participating that the United States was going to pass cap and trade, they were going to do all of these things. I went over at the very end of it, made my little talk, and assured them that in spite of the fact that President Obama had been there, Secretary Clinton at the time had been there and now-Secretary Kerry and all the rest of them--to say we are not going to be doing it in the United States of America. If anybody believes what they said, that we are going to pass cap and trade, we are not going to do it. They had tried it already. There were 35 Members--and at that time it was a much more liberal Senate than we have today--only 35 would actually vote for something like that. Incidentally, it was at that time when Climategate came up. Climategate was when they analyzed some of the things IPCC had said, and they had all these quotes and emails that totally debunked the credibility of IPCC. Still today they are talking about it. To give us an idea, Christopher Booker, with the UK Telegraph, said: ``Worst scientific scandal of our generation.'' That scandal he is talking about is to try to have them make people believe climate change is going to destroy the world. Clive Crook of the Financial Times said: The closed mindedness of these supposed men of science . . . is surprising, even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. Again we are talking about Climategate. Nobody talks about it any more, but still this is a fact. A prominent physicist from the IPCC, who is no longer there, said: ``Climategate was a fraud on a scale I've never seen,'' talking about how they are rigging the information to try to cook the science. So we have all of these--this is Newsweek. It said: ``Once celebrated climate researchers feeling like the used car salesman.'' ``Some of the IPCC's most quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures. . . . '' So these are the things that are going on, and I hope the people, as we develop this right now--we should be concentrating on the vote that is going to be coming up having to do with the pipeline. But as the committee of jurisdiction is looking at this, I can assure you we are going to be having hearings. One hearing we are going to have is to get some of the best scientists around to evaluate and to see what the truth is on the global warming issue. But in the meantime let's go back to the pipeline. I can't think of any argument against it that is overwhelming, and the mere fact that people say they don't like the Alberta sands or the production, it doesn't mean we in the United States of America are going to stop them from doing it because they will just do it and ship it to China. So we have a huge issue we are concerned with. I can't think of anything I have seen in the past 4 or 5 years that is going to be producing more jobs in America than this issue. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know we are all concerned right now with the progress that is going to be made on the pipeline, and I would like to make a few comments about it. I have three charts. Let us look at this one from Oklahoma. I want to remind everyone that we had a visitor to the State of Oklahoma--the only time, I understand, the President has been in Oklahoma. President Obama came to Cushing, OK. Let me explain where Cushing, OK, is. It is in the central part of the State, and it is the hub of all the pipelines--all the way from Canada down to New Mexico. Of course this is the pipeline in question here that we have been talking about over and over now for months and months and months, and it is one we understand just how great it would be. So the President, knowing this is very popular--and this trip was, in fact, actually before the election--made a trip to Oklahoma and talked about how good--well, I will actually read the quote. Keep in mind this was in Cushing, OK, right in the middle of the hub of the pipelines going through. The President said he was directing his administration ``to make this project a priority, to go ahead and get it done.'' That sounded real good. The problem was everyone in Oklahoma knew he wasn't telling the truth. I don't like to stand here and use the ``L'' word, because nothing really gets done by it, but he has done everything since that time to destroy the pipeline. The President was making the statement then that he was not going to stand in the way of furthering the production of this pipeline to go down south through Texas. Well, there is good reason for that, because he couldn't do anything about it. It doesn't go across any international borders. But where he has blocked this is where he can do so, because it crosses the international border between Canada and the United States. I want to mention that there is a person who has been very active in the political realm. His name is Tom Steyer. He has been very much involved. Quite frankly, I don't object to people who are right forward and honest about what their intentions are. This is the man--Tom Steyer, who is a billionaire--and he has had several meetings and said that he was going to put up $50 million of his own money and raise an additional $50 million--that is $100 million--to put in races in the coming election, meaning this last November. It is my understanding that, in the final analysis, he wasn't able to raise the extra money, but of his own money--and these are his words, not mine--he put in $70 million. Mr. Steyer said: It is true we expect to be heavily involved in the midterm elections . . . we are looking at a bunch of . . . races . . . . My guess is that we'll end up being involved in 8 or even more races. So we are talking about some $70 million that was going to be involved, and I would say that wasn't a real good investment because he didn't win any of those 8 races and actually netted out a loss of 9 races. So again, he has a stated goal to try to do two things with his influence and his money. Again, I don't criticize him for this. He believes in his cause. His two causes are No. 1, to try to stop any further development on Federal land--in other words, to try to do what he can with some of the suggested pollution and all these things that are supposed to go with it--and another thing is to stop the pipeline. Again, he was the one who made the statement. He also has been very influential in this administration. It has been reported--this was about 2 weeks ago--that he had visited the Obama White House some 14 times, which led a member of the watchdog group Public Citizen to say: ``Tom Steyer has not just got the ear of the President, but he clearly has the President's attention.'' Now, these White House meetings were often with President Obama's counselor and chief environmental adviser John Podesta. We all know John Podesta. We have known his background for a long time. Personally, I have known him. He has lobbied for Mr. Steyer to be the U.S. Secretary of Energy, saying, ``I think he would be a fabulous choice for energy secretary, and I've let my friends in the administration know that.'' The reports also show that Mr. Steyer and Mr. Podesta have met with George Soros, one of the liberal billionaires. So this effort is going on, and I think it is necessary to remind the American people because it has probably been about 6 months since anyone has even talked about some of the obstacles we can look forward to that are in the way of getting the things done that need to be done. The President tries to downplay the job numbers. We talk about the 42,000 jobs. The President said a couple days ago: Wait, those are just temporary jobs. Well, all jobs are temporary, but these jobs will be there for a number of years and will lead to others. The President tries to downplay the numbers by using rhetoric that has earned his statements multiple Pinocchios. The Washington Post has a program where they check the facts, and several times he has been the recipient of these Pinocchio awards. Unfortunately, his attitude toward construction and manufacturing jobs is one that would stop jobs for hard-working Americans. So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and this is very significant. We are talking about jobs. We are talking about important jobs. We are talking about high-paying jobs. I am a little biased because in Cushing, OK, we are the hub of these pipelines going through America. So what is going to positively affect our economy nationwide will probably be even more in my State of Oklahoma. The President has done a lot of talking about the transportation infrastructure. Of course, this pipeline is part of it. We think about transportation infrastructure as roads, highways, and bridges. I applaud every time I hear him saying we need to do something about our transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately, it is always just words. He never follows through. He had a program on two different occasions that was going to be very ambitious and was going to start constructing new highways. He was very specific about where they were going to go. But then that was the end of it. He got the word out there, and everyone heard about it and agreed that he must be for highways, but then he forgot about it. I am pretty biased here because I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee that deals with all the infrastructure. I would say this: We are embarking on a very ambitious transportation reauthorization bill, and it is one that is going to include lots of modes of transportation. Of course, it would all be a part of this pipeline and the benefits that are coming through it. So I would say he does a lot of talking about that, but we are going to really have to get down and do it. I often wonder what could have happened 6 years ago. Just to refresh our memories, the first thing this President did was his $825 billion stimulus bill. How better could you stimulate the economy than having an ambitious transportation bill? I remember my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Barbara Boxer, and I offered amendments on this amount. I, of course, vigorously opposed the $825 billion--that was a checkbook given to the President in the opening months of his office. But the fact was that it was going to pass, and we knew they had the votes to pass it right down party lines--which it did--and then he was going to be in a position to say: We are now going to be doing these things. So Barbara Boxer and I thought, well, let's get a percentage. I think our amendment was 8 percent would be reserved--a modest amount-- for highways. If we really want to stimulate the economy, there is no better way to do it than that way. That is kind of a background of what has been happening. I really believe, now that we have a majority, that we are going to get busy and try to get this done and will be successful in doing it. We have a lot of critical infrastructure projects. This is supported by the chamber of commerce and by labor unions. Almost everyone out there is in support of this. Yesterday, I think it was, in one of the committee hearings--I wanted to make sure this was properly answered in the committee hearing because it was in a committee that I am not on, the energy committee. One of my good friends on the Democratic side of the aisle made the statement: We are very proud of the President because our production has dramatically increased during the 6 years he has been President of the United States. Yes, that is true, but it has been in spite of the President. Let me give a couple statistics that people are not aware of. In the shale revolution taking place in this country, we have increased, during that period of time, our production--we are really talking about shale production--by 61 percent. So 61 percent in 5 years. That is what it has been. But all 61 percent of that has been on private and State land. On Federal land--over which President Obama has jurisdiction and can stop it--while the rest has increased by 61 percent, it has decreased by 6 percent. I think we need to make sure to remind people because we don't want the public thinking that somehow the President is not involved in a war on fossil fuels. He is definitely involved in a war on fossil fuels. Let me mention one other thing about the shale revolution. Because of the Marcellus, what is happening back East--people have always historically thought about the West and the State of Oklahoma as being kind of where all the oil is and where the production is. That really was true for a long period of time, but with the Marcellus coming in, Pennsylvania, New York--the Northeast has been a heavy production area. In fact, I have heard figures that in Pennsylvania, the second largest employer right now is people involved in the shale production that is taking place there. I don't know that it is the second largest, but that has not yet been refuted. So very important things are happening there, but the key to making all of this happen is the pipeline. We know that eventually we are going to be there, but there has already been a veto threat. We are going to pass a bill. I know we are going to pass a bill. It is going to pass the House and the Senate. The President will probably veto it. He said he would. I am inclined to think that a lot of my friends on the Democratic side are going to stop and think ``Wait a minute, this is good for everyone,'' and there will be a bunch of people overriding a veto. I really believe something like that is going to happen, this is so significant. People have said: The reason we don't want this is because it is dirty. This is up in Alberta, Canada. This is going to affect the environment. First of all, it won't. People understand that is just not a true statement. But if it were true, it is something that is ridiculous because China is already making their deal. It has been made public that China wants to have transportation across Canada that would go to the west coast and be able to be sent over to China. If that should happen, in terms of the pollution, since they don't have any safeguards over there, that would result in increasing, not decreasing, any pollution that would be associated with this production. I know a lot of people want to talk about this. To give an idea of what all is there in moving this production around, this is a very significant chart because it shows what is out there today and what can be produced. A minute ago I talked about the Northeast. That is the Marcellus we are talking about. It is a huge benefit out there. Yet a lot of the people who represent that part of America are not even aware that this is not just the Western United States. Just look at that, and we can see. We have an opportunity here. I feel very strongly that our friends up there with the pipeline coming down--everyone is going to benefit. We have seen the charts. Certainly the Presiding Officer has many times pulled out the charts that show the great benefits that are going to be there for the entire country, along with our rapid path to be totally independent of any other country in our ability to produce our own energy. This is a win-win situation. We are eventually going to get it but the sooner the better. I applaud the Chair and others involved in the legislation we are going to be considering. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President. Before the Senator from Iowa leaves, let me make one comment. I look at him and all of those who are saying nice things about the Senator from Iowa--and I am from Iowa, so I can say this. My colleagues need to remember that even conservatives can love Tom Harkin. I think it is important for people to understand that. I have to say that I have been to I think at least 10 of the airshows, and spending 90 percent of my time--my wife and his wife, the four of us together, because we are both pilots--sitting around and lying about airplanes, we got real close to each other. I can say the same thing about my good friend Senator Sanders, and I have said this on the floor before: The two of you are two of my favorite in-the-heart liberals because you are not ashamed of it. You stand up--exactly what the Senator from Vermont just said. The things that I have seen you do, you have a big heart. You have your own philosophy. You are not a demagogue. You live your philosophy. So I just want you to know there are a lot of Republicans who love Senator Harkin just as much as the liberals do. All right. Thank you. We should have started with Senator Levin and myself kicking this off. I think we were a little bit late in starting, so Senator Levin is not here now. He will be here in about 30 minutes. Let me make one comment about Senator Levin. I did so this morning. This person chairing these committees--and he has been through 16 of the NDAAs in the past, and no one else can say that. No other Member has ever done that. Over his 36 years of service, he has concentrated on his concern for the defense of America. This is interesting because as the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, he and I have worked together. We even participated in two of the events called the Big 4. The Chair knows this, but some of my colleagues may not. When it comes time and the committees are unable to pass a bill, then the ranking member and the chairman of the House and the ranking member and the chairman of the Senate--the Big 4--get together and they draft a bill. That is what happened this year and last year. Last year I was getting panicky because we didn't pass that bill until December 26. What would happen if we didn't, then it would be a crisis on December 31. So I want to say, Senator Levin, I have enjoyed--I regret we won't be able to have the same positions because, of course, Senator Levin is--such as our friend from Iowa--retiring after this term. Let me mention the NDAA bill is the most important bill we do every year. I don't think anyone is ever going to debate that. We had the 52 consecutive years--and this is going to be the 53rd consecutive year we have been able to pass it. It seems as though each year it is always hard to do, because at the last minute there are other people who want to get things in the bill that were not there. But we have to keep in mind, in defense of the big-four approach to this, we passed this bill. We passed it out of the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 23. We have been wanting to get it on floor since May 23. Senator Levin and I have come down countless times and begged our colleagues on the Democratic side and the Republican side to get their amendments down so we could consider their amendments. We had a lot of amendments that did come down. Of the amendments that came down, I am very proud to say that we incorporated almost all of them. Forty-seven of those amendments are a part of this bill. So it is not as if the amendments were considered. I know some people who are opposed to this bill may come along later and say we didn't consider all the amendments. We considered almost all of them but adopted 47 of the amendments which is a record. In spite of the pushing for months on the NDAA--I don't know what the reasons were and I am not going to point the fingers, but we didn't get it on the floor--we have to do it at the last minute. I want to just say, in my heart I believe--I know the House wound up most of their business--but if we don't pass this bill, there is no other train leaving this station. There is no other way to do it, because in this bill, when people stop and think about it, there are some things I don't like about the bill. I have to admit that, but there are so many good things. If we go through December 31, and this is the reminder we have to have in our own minds, we have right now 1,779,343 enlisted personnel who are in service right now. They will lose their benefits if we don't pass this bill. I am talking about reenlistment bonuses. I asked the chair, do you realize--I think he does but not many people do--just flight pay. There is a huge pilot shortage right now because the private sector is hiring them up and we are having a hard time keeping them. We have a flight pay incentive. That incentive would go way. Does it mean anything? Yes. It is a $25,000 incentive, and it lasts for--it goes for 10 years each year. But if they wake up on January 1 and find out they don't have their flight pay incentive, how many of these existing warriors in the sky are going to drop out and go to work for one of the airlines? I don't know. But a lot of them will, I can assure you of that. I think we need to remind people how much it costs to train a new one. Instead of a $25,000 bonus to reach the standards of the level of an F-22 pilot, it costs $17 million. Stop and think about the millions and millions of dollars that would be lost just from the flight pay. These things are happening. A lot of good things are in this bill and some are controversial. The housing starts are in this bill--none of the housing starts. I am talking about military construction for our kids that are out there. One of the controversial areas is in Gitmo. This is one of the very few areas where Chairman Levin and I disagreed with each other. Gitmo is a resource that can't be replaced. He would be for closing it. We are now keeping the restrictions we have right now and keeping it open for another year so we can look at it next year and spend more time on it. We have the counterterrorism partnership funds, and so many of these things are in this bill that I think are very significant. We are supporting the needed Aircraft Modernization Program. You hear a lot about the F-35. The F-22 was terminated by the President and terminated 6 years ago. So what we have in the fifth-generation aircraft, that is it, the F-35. What we are doing is continuing with that modernization program, a controversial area. The support for ground support is the A-10. The A- 10 is probably the ugliest airplane in the sky, but you ask any of our troops on the ground what they want to see coming when they are in danger, it is the A-10. That is going to continue. There is not going to be one reduction in that. I know the Armed Services Committee next year will look at that freshly and maybe make changes. AWACS, the President wanted to take seven of the AWACS planes out, and that would be 25 percent of the AWACS fleets. That is a great big plane that has a circle on the top that goes out and brings back information to save lives. That is there. The authorizing the military construction of family housing projects that has been started, they would come to a stop without this bill. That means we would have paid the contractors. There are going to be breach-of-contract lawsuits and everything else. I will only mention one other thing--the Russian-made rocket engines. A lot of people hear about that and they say: Why in the world, with all the problems with Putin, with what is going on in the Ukraine, around the world--I just got back from Lithuania, and I also went over to Ukraine. I am seeing things with our allies over there that they would ask the question: Why are you buying Russian-made rocket engines? We are, but those are being fazed out. We have directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a U.S. rocket to replace that rocket. That is going on right now. By the way, I have to say this. I mentioned Ukraine. I can't tell you, when we look and see what is happening over there--I had a great experience. I was over there just 3 days before our elections. It happened to be 3 days after their elections. In the Ukraine, President Poroshenko was so proud, and he sat there and told me: In Ukraine, we have to get 5 percent of the vote to have a seat in Parliament. The Communists, for the first time in 96 years, didn't get 5 percent. So there will not be one Communist in Parliament in Ukraine. That is incredible. Those are our friends over there. They are the ones we need to keep our defense strong, and we directly address that in this bill. I will only say one thing about the lands package. It is the most controversial part of this bill because it is something which has nothing to do with Defense. On the other hand, when we are in negotiations and there are some things that should not perhaps come in, in this forum, and I thought--I even characterized it as outrageous at the time that that was made part of this bill. I have to say this--any changes in the bill, by the way, are going to result in not having a bill, and all the things I just mentioned would happen. But I started reading some of these provisions from a conservative Republican's perspective, getting in and being able to produce and drill in some of the public lands, let some of our public lands rejoice in this revolution that we are having out there with shale. The ranchers in Oklahoma tell me the grazing rights issues that are in these land packages are good. I hear some people saying, well, there is something to do with a women's committee starting or something like that. Let's keep in mind, I say to my fellow conservatives, that if Marsha Blackburn's bill that became a part of this bill--now, it shouldn't have happened, but nonetheless it did. It is so overriding we pass a bill and not allow something like that to actually kill the bill. I would say we are still a nation at war right now. We will be back to discuss this further, and I do want to have an opportunity to respond to some of the critics of this bill. Keep in mind. This is the last opportunity we have before December 31--before January when we come back in--and on December 31 it would be a crisis. I say to my good friends on the left and on the right, we have to have the bill. This is the last bill we can pass. I would like to recognize Senator Ayotte, the very courageous Senator who has been a major part of the provisions to this bill, and I will go so far as to say as the most active member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I yield the floor.