Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I think I had the floor, and I was objecting to the UC. Let me just share that we would--we could--do ours probably in about 12 minutes, and then we could have more time tomorrow, if that would work out. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I first say and express my appreciation to Chairman Levin. We hear a lot of talk about bipartisanship and people getting along. That is usually just talk. In this case, it is real. We have a committee of Democrats and Republicans concerned about defending our Nation with totally inadequate resources. Chairman Levin has responded every time we have had some kind of a controversial matter come up. Then our staff--Peter Levine is the staff director for the majority and John Bonsell is the staff director for the minority--I have yet to call them when issues come up that we haven't been able to get this done, and this is kind of unusual. This doesn't happen in the Senate in very many committees. I believe, and have always said, the NDAA is the most important bill of the year, keeping in mind we have actually passed one for 52 consecutive years. This is something that has to be done. We adopted the National Defense Authorization Act on May 22, as the chairman said, 25 to 1, which doesn't happen very often around here. It contains a lot of vital work we have to do and it is within the budget caps. I think it supports the training of the troops, the maintenance and modernization, research and development, and the pay and benefits. These are tough issues to negotiate, but we have done that, and we have it ready for more action. What we don't want is what happened last year. Last year we had a lot of amendments. We on the Republican side were wanting to have all these amendments. I think we are entitled to amendments. We did a count last year of how many amendments were on the average bill. It was something like 140 amendments. We didn't have nearly that many requests, but we were able to get them in. If we start now, we can do that. So I wish to tell my Republican colleagues that I don't want them to come back and start complaining later on, if we don't start getting amendments now so we can hash them out, find out what is acceptable, and find out where the opposition would be. But we don't want to wait until the end of the year. It got so close last year, as we were approaching December 31, and we all know that if we don't have a Defense authorization bill by that time, hazard pay is at risk, reenlistment bonuses won't be paid. Stop and think about the cost. Right now, if we were to hire a person in training to be an F-22 pilot, the cost is $9 million. However, the retention bonus for over a 9-year period could be $225,000. Look at the economics of it. We don't want that to happen. Last year we were able to get a bill. It is the first time I have ever participated in a ``big four'' meeting. Actually, three of us sat down because we had one no-show. So three of us put together a bill in a period of time, tried to consider all the amendments, and most people were pretty satisfied with it, but that is not the way it is supposed to happen. We are going to have a lot of amendments. We always do. The only way we are going to be able to do this is to get this out on the floor. I think it needs to be passed before the end of the fiscal year. So I invite my friends on both sides of the aisle to bring down their amendments. Let me again say how appreciative I am personally of having worked with Carl Levin in this process and with the staff, who have been so easy to work with, and so competent and professional.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a year ago this month I stood before you during the Senate's debate on immigration to offer an amendment that would prevent convicted criminal aliens from being released back into our communities. Unfortunately, my amendment never came up for a vote despite the fact that this is an issue that should concern us all. This problem arises from a couple of Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2005, which held that immigrants who have been ordered removed cannot be detained for more than 6 months. Even though an alien is an aggravated felon or has committed a crime of violence, they must be released back into society if no other country will accept them. By releasing these criminals back into our communities we are allowing them to commit even more crimes against Americans. For example, a Vietnamese immigrant, Binh Thai Luc, was ordered deported after serving time in prison for armed robbery and assault. Due to the Supreme Court decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, Luc was released from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, custody when Vietnam refused to admit him. He is now facing charges for the murder of 5 people in San Francisco in March of 2012. Five people would be alive today if our law enforcement officials had not been handcuffed by the Supreme Court. From 2008-2012, nearly 17,000 immigrants with orders of removal were released back into our communities. Just last month, we learned that this number has more than doubled in one year. In 2013 alone, more than 36,000 criminally convicted aliens were released by ICE because their home countries had yet to take them back. That is an astonishing number, especially when you look at what crimes these offenders have committed. These 36,000 criminals have been convicted of more than 87,000 crimes, including: 193 homicide convictions; 426 sexual assault convictions; 1,075 aggravated assault convictions; and 16,070 DUI convictions. These are convictions, not allegations. Convicted murderers, sex offenders, and other violent felons that have been ordered removed from our country are now free to live among us. Today, in light of these revelations, I am reintroducing my amendment as a standalone bill along with Senators Grassley, Vitter, Cruz, and Sessions. S. 2463, the Keep Our Communities Safe Act of 2014, amends the Immigration and Naturalization Act to allow the Department of Homeland Security to detain non-removable immigrants beyond 6 months in specific situations. These situations include circumstances when an alien's release would threaten national security, have serious adverse foreign policy consequences, or would threaten the safety of the community and the alien either is an aggravated felon or has committed a crime of violence. Some organizations, such as the ACLU, believe this bill amounts to indefinite detention in violation of a criminal's due process rights. However, in addition to the specified circumstances of continued detention mentioned earlier, this bill requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to recertify that a person is a threat every 6 months. Furthermore, an alien can submit evidence for a review of his detention and aliens will still have access to our federal courts, giving judges a say in the process. I would like to commend my friend, Congressman Lamar Smith from Texas, for his good work on this in the House and I ask that both the Senate and the House take up consideration of the Keep Our Communities Safe Act to protect our fellow Americans from these violent offenders.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a year ago this month I stood before you during the Senate's debate on immigration to offer an amendment that would prevent convicted criminal aliens from being released back into our communities. Unfortunately, my amendment never came up for a vote despite the fact that this is an issue that should concern us all. This problem arises from a couple of Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2005, which held that immigrants who have been ordered removed cannot be detained for more than 6 months. Even though an alien is an aggravated felon or has committed a crime of violence, they must be released back into society if no other country will accept them. By releasing these criminals back into our communities we are allowing them to commit even more crimes against Americans. For example, a Vietnamese immigrant, Binh Thai Luc, was ordered deported after serving time in prison for armed robbery and assault. Due to the Supreme Court decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, Luc was released from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, custody when Vietnam refused to admit him. He is now facing charges for the murder of 5 people in San Francisco in March of 2012. Five people would be alive today if our law enforcement officials had not been handcuffed by the Supreme Court. From 2008-2012, nearly 17,000 immigrants with orders of removal were released back into our communities. Just last month, we learned that this number has more than doubled in one year. In 2013 alone, more than 36,000 criminally convicted aliens were released by ICE because their home countries had yet to take them back. That is an astonishing number, especially when you look at what crimes these offenders have committed. These 36,000 criminals have been convicted of more than 87,000 crimes, including: 193 homicide convictions; 426 sexual assault convictions; 1,075 aggravated assault convictions; and 16,070 DUI convictions. These are convictions, not allegations. Convicted murderers, sex offenders, and other violent felons that have been ordered removed from our country are now free to live among us. Today, in light of these revelations, I am reintroducing my amendment as a standalone bill along with Senators Grassley, Vitter, Cruz, and Sessions. S. 2463, the Keep Our Communities Safe Act of 2014, amends the Immigration and Naturalization Act to allow the Department of Homeland Security to detain non-removable immigrants beyond 6 months in specific situations. These situations include circumstances when an alien's release would threaten national security, have serious adverse foreign policy consequences, or would threaten the safety of the community and the alien either is an aggravated felon or has committed a crime of violence. Some organizations, such as the ACLU, believe this bill amounts to indefinite detention in violation of a criminal's due process rights. However, in addition to the specified circumstances of continued detention mentioned earlier, this bill requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to recertify that a person is a threat every 6 months. Furthermore, an alien can submit evidence for a review of his detention and aliens will still have access to our federal courts, giving judges a say in the process. I would like to commend my friend, Congressman Lamar Smith from Texas, for his good work on this in the House and I ask that both the Senate and the House take up consideration of the Keep Our Communities Safe Act to protect our fellow Americans from these violent offenders.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, with 20 kids and grandkids, I understand the importance and value of quality education. For many years my wife dedicated her life to teaching and mentoring young students, never knowing that in the years to come, two of our children would follow in their mother's footsteps, building classrooms of their own and impacting the lives of so many young people. Through my family's unique educational experiences, and my time in State and local government, I have learned that with teaching comes the great responsibility of not only working with students, but also parents, employers and many in the local community to ensure our children are well equipped for the road ahead. Nationwide, 96 percent of local school board members are elected, making those members accountable to the many students, parents and taxpayers they represent. But in recent years, the voice of this local authority is being eroded through inhibitive policies and requirements established by Federal agencies, like the Department of Education. Education has historically been a State and local issue. By strengthening the process for meaningful input by impacted stakeholders, our local communities can remain active in the education policy decision-making process. This is why I have introduced the Local School Board Governance and Flexibility Act. With this legislation, the goal is to bring control of our education policy back to where it belongs--with our local communities--giving State and local school boards the necessary flexibility to achieve their educational goals. S. 2451 would wrestle away control from the Department of Education by prohibiting the agency from issuing any regulations, rules, guidance materials, or grant conditions that would result in a conflict of authority with any State or local educational agencies. This bill would also streamline reporting requirements and would require the Department to provide Congress with an annual report on how the agency's policies impact local school districts. As we have seen, many of the overreaching education policy changes declared by Washington bureaucrats have resulted in negative effects on local schools, not only in terms of policy, but also financially. This bill requires the Department of Education to seek input on costs and assistance needs from State and local school agencies before issuing or implementing regulations, rules, guidance materials, or grant conditions. The Local School Board Governance and Flexibility Act will give State and local school boards a voice in how the Federal Government issues regulations and guidelines for education. It is time for the Department of Education to be accountable to the parents, teachers, and local elected officials who work first-hand with our Nation's children. Education needs are unique to each community, and in order to give the next generation of Americans a better future and wealth of opportunities, my legislation will give State and local school boards the authority they need to carry out the education goals that are best suited for their children.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, with 20 kids and grandkids, I understand the importance and value of quality education. For many years my wife dedicated her life to teaching and mentoring young students, never knowing that in the years to come, two of our children would follow in their mother's footsteps, building classrooms of their own and impacting the lives of so many young people. Through my family's unique educational experiences, and my time in State and local government, I have learned that with teaching comes the great responsibility of not only working with students, but also parents, employers and many in the local community to ensure our children are well equipped for the road ahead. Nationwide, 96 percent of local school board members are elected, making those members accountable to the many students, parents and taxpayers they represent. But in recent years, the voice of this local authority is being eroded through inhibitive policies and requirements established by Federal agencies, like the Department of Education. Education has historically been a State and local issue. By strengthening the process for meaningful input by impacted stakeholders, our local communities can remain active in the education policy decision-making process. This is why I have introduced the Local School Board Governance and Flexibility Act. With this legislation, the goal is to bring control of our education policy back to where it belongs--with our local communities--giving State and local school boards the necessary flexibility to achieve their educational goals. S. 2451 would wrestle away control from the Department of Education by prohibiting the agency from issuing any regulations, rules, guidance materials, or grant conditions that would result in a conflict of authority with any State or local educational agencies. This bill would also streamline reporting requirements and would require the Department to provide Congress with an annual report on how the agency's policies impact local school districts. As we have seen, many of the overreaching education policy changes declared by Washington bureaucrats have resulted in negative effects on local schools, not only in terms of policy, but also financially. This bill requires the Department of Education to seek input on costs and assistance needs from State and local school agencies before issuing or implementing regulations, rules, guidance materials, or grant conditions. The Local School Board Governance and Flexibility Act will give State and local school boards a voice in how the Federal Government issues regulations and guidelines for education. It is time for the Department of Education to be accountable to the parents, teachers, and local elected officials who work first-hand with our Nation's children. Education needs are unique to each community, and in order to give the next generation of Americans a better future and wealth of opportunities, my legislation will give State and local school boards the authority they need to carry out the education goals that are best suited for their children.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Whitehouse, and two or three others at his choosing, that I be recognized as in morning business for such time as I shall consume.

Mr. INHOFE. Let's just amend the Senator's amendment that it be 20 to 35 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. First, I thank my good friend for yielding. I think we will have several people coming down and talking about this tonight. I want to say something about Senator Sanders from Vermont. I appreciate very much his comments. I think they were very appropriate. I remember one time when he and I had a difference of opinion on an amendment. It had to do with the amount of money one of the large oil companies made. He and I debated on floor for something like 3 hours. A vote was taken, and I did win the vote. Afterward, he came up to me and he said: I want you to know that since I have been here from the House, that was probably the most enlightened debate we have ever had, and you won and I lost, and I really do appreciate it. We have been very good friends since then. Well, the comments he made are real because I don't have any doubt in my mind that Senator Sanders and the rest of you have strong feelings about this. What I want to do is something a little bit different. I have heard several people talk, and they talk about what is the hottest year and the coldest year and all of that. I am very careful to document anything I say, and I will continue to do that tonight. Last Monday, the EPA released the long-awaited global warming regulations for the Nation's existing fleet of powerplants. We had already talked about the new powerplants and what we are going to do. We have seen the evidence of the increased pricing of energy in this country as a result of that. Now, of course, we are going to be talking about the existing program. The interesting thing about this--this is what they are talking about doing through regulation after they have lost every single issue on the floor of this Senate--and so trying to do it now by regulations. The EPA's proposed rule requires powerplants to reduce their CO2 emissions by 25 percent by 2020 and by 30 percent by 2030. I do believe there will be major legal challenges facing this rule if it goes final, and I will talk about that in just a minute. Over the past decade the Senate has debated a number of cap-and-trade bills. The first one was the McCain-Lieberman bill of 2003--I am going from memory now. I think Republicans had a majority at that time. I think I chaired either the subcommittee or the committee of jurisdiction. We defeated the McCain-Lieberman bill. It came up again slightly changed in 2005. We defeated it at that time too. Then the Warner-Lieberman bill came up in 2008, and we defeated that even by a larger margin. The Waxman-Markey bill--and keep in mind that this was when the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts was in the House-- came up in 2009, but it never did reach the floor. All of these bills would have established greenhouse gas regulations for the Nation's largest manufacturing power-generation facilities, but once the American people learned how much these cost, Congress ran away from these bills and they were defeated. Each and every one of these bills would have cost the economy between $300 and $400 billion in lost GDP every year. These figures are not disputed. The first time they were calculated was back when the first bill came up. At that time everyone assumed that global warming was real, they assumed that the end of the world was coming and that manmade gases were responsible for it, and that was something which was kind of accepted. At that time, though--and I remember hearing the first speculation as to the cost--the Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates came out with the range of between $300 and $400 billion a year. Then the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, and Charles River Associates and others came out with the same range--between $300 and $400 billion a year. When you break this down to each household--every time there is some big regulation that comes along, I take the number of people from my State of Oklahoma who filed a Federal tax return, number of families, and then I will calculate, do the math, and it turns out about $3,000 a family. That would make cap and trade the largest tax increase in American history. It is not surprising that these bills did not become law. They were defeated. The McCain-Lieberman bill of 2003 fell 43 to 55; then the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2005--an even wider margin--38 to 60; and the Waxman-Markey fell because they didn't have the votes to do it. What I am saying is that the trend is not going the way my good friend from Rhode Island would like to have it go. Instead, more and more people are opposing this. Part of what is motivating the EPA's rule is that they want to say they leveled the playing field between parts of the country that don't have cap-and-trade programs. I think one of the previous speakers talked about the fact that many places like--I see the Senator from California is here now--California and the Northeastern States have cap and trade. These regions are hurting economically in part because of the onerous environmental regulations, including cap-and-trade programs they have been working to implement for so many years. But the real result of this has been higher electricity prices. In fact, the average price of retail electricity in New England, according to the Energy Information Administration, is 17.67 cents per kilowatt hour. That is almost 18 cents a kilowatt hour. Compare that to Oklahoma. We are at 9 cents per kilowatt hour. We are one-half the cost in my State of Oklahoma for electricity. You see we have a real competitive advantage. There is nothing that keeps the Northeast from bringing their electricity costs down, but they are unwilling to do it. They are unwilling to do what we did; that is, utilize a diverse, inexpensive fuel supply we can source from right at home in Oklahoma. California implemented its own cap-and-trade program just over a year ago, and it applies to both heavy industry and power generation. The State boasts that its program is second in size only to the European cap-and-trade program. Today, however, California's electricity prices are 15.94 cents--in other words, 16 cents per kilowatt hour--a stunning 70 percent more than they are in my State of Oklahoma. Knowing this, it isn't surprising we constantly hear about all the jobs and companies and manufacturing facilities that are moving from places such as California and New England to States such as Oklahoma and to the South where we don't have these same kinds of regulations. What we want to do in Oklahoma is develop a nurturing environment for business to thrive, and a big part of it is having inexpensive, reliable energy. That is what we have in Oklahoma. EPA's rule threatens all we have worked so hard to accomplish, and it is all because so many politicians are beholden to the radical environmentalists. What is interesting to me is the more and more the other side talks about global warming and all of the purported solutions here in Washington, the less and less people care. In March, when Senate Democrats hosted their first global warming slumber party, Gallup released the results of the poll I believe the same day, showing Americans rank global warming as the 14th most important issue out of 15. I believe this was on March 9 or 10 when they had their last slumber party. It used to be No. 1 or No. 2, and now it is nearly last. We can see on this chart Gallup's poll numbers over time showing Americans care less about environmental issues than they ever did before. We can see the changes that have taken place. What people really care about are the economy and government spending. Those are the top two issues across party lines. If enacted, this rule is going to cause serious damage to the economy. The Chamber of Commerce last week put out a study on regulations similar to the EPA's new greenhouse gas rules and found they will cost the economy $51 billion in lost GDP and 224,000 lost jobs each year--not just once but each year. The Heritage Foundation put out separate analysis calculating that the rule would enact a cumulative hit of $2.23 trillion in lost GDP and destroy 600,000 jobs. By their measure, the average income for a family of four would decrease by $1,200 a year. I believe it is actually closer to $3,000 a year. Nonetheless, there is the consistency. If we want to see where these regulations will ultimately lead, we need look no farther than the modeling President Obama uses. We need to be, as he says, more like Germany. Starting a few years ago, Germany began implementing an aggressive alternative energy agenda where they hiked subsidies and set a goal of generating 35 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020. By 2050, this goal would increase to 80 percent. In doing this, the price of German retail electricity has doubled from where it was before. It is now 3 times--300 percent-- higher than ours. The next chart is Der Spiegel, a major publication in Germany. They recently had this on the cover of the magazine with the heading ``Luxury Electricity: Why energy has become more expensive and what politicians must do about it.'' In this, they talk about the politicians and others who are wishing Germany had not done what it was doing. And while industry, utilities, consumers, and some politicians are calling for reforms to the laws, it may be too late because everything is already on the books. This is what they are finding in Germany--and we all know how hard it is to repeal a law once it becomes implemented. So the Germans started this, and we are now emulating Germany, and their cost of electricity has doubled. When we talk about doubling, to a lot of people--maybe a lot of us who serve in this Chamber--that is not a big deal. But take a poor family that is spending 50 percent of their income on energy. It is something they can't handle. EPA's rules will push us in the same direction as Germany--which makes sense, when we consider the EPA's recent rules such as utility MACT and the 316(b) rule, and the NRC's incessant overregulation of the nuclear power industry. We have perfectly good powerplants being forced to shut down all over the country. Now we have this rule coming out of EPA that will force even more shutdowns and push the Nation to more aggressively adopt renewables, and over a very short period of time. This is going to cause reliability and affordability issues. We have been talking about affordability. Reliability is another thing too, because we have to have a reliable source that doesn't stop. There is no way around it. It is not just me saying this. FERC Commissioner Phil Moeller recently predicted that because of EPA's overregulation, the Nation could face rolling blackouts by next summer. Renewables will only make this risk more severe. If a substantial amount of electricity is being provided by renewables, then we will become vulnerable to reliability risks. What I mean by that is we don't always know when the Sun is going to be shining or when the wind is going to be blowing, but there is always a demand for power. The demand is always there, but the wind stops. I understand this. I am from Oklahoma. We can have a very windy day and all of a sudden it stops, and the Sun maybe stops shining. If the wind is blowing really hard one day and then stops the next, significant strains are put on the electricity grid. To compensate for that, we have to have backup power ready to come online at a moment's notice--where it is turned off 1 minute and then on the next. Having that kind of capacity sitting around waiting for the Sun to stop shining is incredibly expensive, which is one of the reasons Germany's power is so much more expensive than others. So when I hear the President and EPA saying this rule could actually lower electricity bills, it makes me wonder if they ever sit down in the same room with FERC and NERC and NRC to tell it like it is. Honestly, they are not telling the truth. The President and Administrator McCarthy have also been touting the human health benefits this rule will deliver. To help announce the new rule, President Obama did a conference call with the American Lung Association and said it would help reduce instances of childhood asthma. Gina McCarthy made the same point in her remarks about the rule. But this completely contradicts what EPA previously said. In this chart which the Agency has published, in official documentation, it says greenhouse gases ``do not cause direct adverse health effects such as respiratory or toxic effects.'' I know others will stand up to refute this, but this is what the EPA said. What is even worse is this rule will not have any impact on global CO2 emissions. We know this because of the President's first EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson. This is kind of interesting. I asked her the question during the committee hearing, on live TV: If we were to do away, either pass cap-and-trade or by regulation, would this reduce the overall CO2 emissions worldwide? And she said: No, it wouldn't. Her quote is: ``U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.'' This is because the largest tax increase in history, without any benefits--because once you implement these regulations, our manufacturing base would go someplace where they can find it; maybe China, maybe India, maybe Mexico. But they will go places where they don't have the stringent emission requirements we have in this country. So in that case, emissions would actually go up instead of down. Add to all of this the fact that there has been no increase in global surface temperature between 1998 and 2013. This is according to the journal Nature, the Economist, and even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is the United Nations. They are the ones who started this, and even they say there has not been any increase in global surface temperature between the years of 1998 and 2013. This pause was totally unexpected by the scientific community. After all, CO2 concentrations went up by 8 percent over the same period of time--which, according to the models, should have led to significant temperature increases. This chart shows the difference between actual temperatures--the blue and the green lines down here-- and the temperatures that were predicted by ``consensus'' scientific community--the red line. They said this is where the heat was coming, and it didn't happen. It is clear the scientific community, which everyone puts so much trust in, did not predict a pause would actually happen. Add to this the fact that the U.S. Historical Climatology Network is reporting that this is the coldest year so far on record for the United States. Others will say, no, that is not true. So I quoted this source, the U.S. Historical Climatology Network, that if things continue as they are so far, this will be the coldest year on record in the United States. Normally, putting all this together would make me wonder why the President is pushing these regulations. But then I remember Tom Steyer. Let me introduce him. This man, who made billions in the traditional energy industry, is the new poster child of the environmental left. He is the one who promised to direct $100 million to resurrect the dead issue of global warming. He has the President and others on board with his plan, and they are following through. Tonight's slumber party is proof enough. I can hear it now. A severe case of righteous indignation is going to show up, and they are going to say: Are you saying Tom Steyer is putting 100 million in these races? No, I am not saying that. That is what Tom Steyer is saying. I have a quote here from him: It is true that we expect to be heavily involved in the midterm elections. We are looking at a bunch of races. My guess is we will end up being involved in eight or more races. And that is with $100 million. But that is what this all comes down to--a key constituency of the Democratic Party wanting to see the Nation completely change the way we generate and consume energy--for no environmental benefit. The only benefit here is a political one. In closing, I wish to highlight a few of the legal issues I mentioned a minute ago that will likely come up once the rule is finalized. There are three main reasons why I do not believe this rule, from a legal perspective, is an appropriate construct of the Clean Air Act. I always supported the Clean Air Act amendments, and good things happened from them. The first is the Clean Air Act was never designed to handle greenhouse gas emissions. We know that. This is a bipartisan perspective. Congressman John Dingell, one of the principal architects of the Clean Air Act over in the House, said last week: I do not believe the Clean Air Act is intended, or is the most effective way, to regulate greenhouse gases. The second legal reason is this rule relies on an outside-the-fence approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Section 111 of the Clean Air Act should only allow the EPA to establish a process where the States determine the most appropriate emission reductions on a facility-by-facility basis. Instead, the EPA has set statewide emission reduction mandates, without regard to the technical feasibility of actually accomplishing the goal. Cap-and-trade proposals will emerge under this, which will ultimately pit industries against one another. So the real impact of this rule could far exceed its advertised intent of targeting only powerplants. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has effectively made this case and will lead the charge challenging the legal authority of this rule, should it become final. I am very proud of the attorney general, because he has been very effective in leading other attorneys general around the country to join in this effort. The third reason this rule is inappropriate is because the Clean Air Act states that section 111(b) regulations cannot be pursued in the event the facilities are already regulated under section 112, which governs air toxins. Powerplants are already regulated under this section. So the fact they are trying to regulate them under 111(b) is inconsistent with the law, and that of course will be on our side on this. There are a number of major reasons why this rule may not stand up in the courts. But it is my expectation that it will not come to that point. The largest tax increase in history. The Earth's surface has not gotten warmer in 14 years. Polling shows Americans don't believe it is a huge problem. It is huge for job losses. Stopping CO2 in the United States won't affect world CO2 emissions. That is what we have from the Administrator of the EPA. So we will be hearing a lot of things tonight, all about what is going on, and they will be discreet with me. That is the reason I always document things. Let me predict what I think is going to happen. A lot of people are not aware that there is something called the CRA, the Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act is something where people say: Yes, there is a crisis in this country. Don't blame me. I am a Member of Congress. I didn't vote for it, but the regulators did this. This puts them where they should be in having to take a position. The CRA is something introduced with 30 cosponsors. I already have 30 cosponsors to file a CRA on every one of these regulations, if they do become final. You cannot do it until they become final. Then it is a simple majority. So people are going to have to get on record, and to me that is really all we really need to get people on record on this. I think you are probably going to hear some issues and people will assume that these are really happening. You will hear that extreme weather is increasing. The reinsurance company and global-related disaster losses have declined by 25 percent as a proportion of GDP. They will say that hurricanes are happening. Yet the Washington Post says the United States has not been witness to a category 3 or higher major hurricane landfall since October of 2005 when Wilma hit Southwest Florida as a Category 3 storm. They will be talking about drought, in spite of the fact that even the IPCC has stated that in the United States droughts have become less frequent, less continuous, or shorter in central North America. Nature, the well-respected publication, says drought for the most part has become shorter, less frequent, and covered a smaller portion of the United States over the last century. Flooding--the IPCC comes in again talking about this. The USGS says floods have not increased in the United States in frequency or intensity since at least 1950. NOAA says flood losses as a percentage of GDP have dropped by 75 percent since 1940. You are going to hear about flooding. That is why it is necessary to document these things. NOAA, talking about tornadoes, says: Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950. Some data shows that there has been a decline. So we have all these issues that I am sure we will be discussing sooner or later. Polar bears--the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee gave me a polar bear coffee cup, which I use frequently, and we display that very prominently. But they say in the 1950s and 1960s there were between 5,000 and 10,000 polar bears. Today there are between 15,000 and 25,000. So we have all these issues that are a reality on the glaciers. You can record the hurricanes and all these other items, and, yes, they are going to be talking about them, I am sure, during the course of the evening. Let me just mention one other item from memory on this, but I know it is right because the I have said it so many times and it has recently been documented. We go through these 30-year cycles all the time. We have been going through them for a long time. If you take in 1895, all of a sudden everything started getting cooler, and that is when the term ice age first came along. They said another ice age is coming. That lasted until 1918. In 1918, all of a sudden it started getting warmer, and that was the first time you heard about global warming. That was 1918 to 1945. In 1945 it turned again--you see, every 30 years--and all of a sudden it got cold. They talked about another ice age coming. I remember Time magazine had a cover talking about the ice age. Then in 1970 another warm period came along. That is the one that people have been talking about. Here is the thing. In 1945 we had the largest amount of increase in CO2 emissions of any time in the recorded history of this country, and that precipitated not a warming period but a cooling period. Now as they have said, we haven't been warming for the last 15 years. So this is always a difficult issue to deal with. I know the effort is there. I know it is renewed now and people are excited about it, and I could assure you the trend is in the wrong direction, and it is not going to happen. With that, Mr. President, my time has expired, and I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding that the Senator from Missouri Mr. Blunt will be recognized next for 10 minutes or so. I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks by Senator Blunt, I be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me first say to my good friend from Missouri, I plan to talk about energy, the very thing he is talking about. If we go back and look logically, if we are dependent upon fossil fuels for 75 percent of our ability to run this machine called America, and we extract that, what is going to happen? I think we all know what is going to happen and I think people need to be forewarned. I am going to tee this up by talking a little bit about President Obama's climate assessment meeting he had yesterday. All of these people were talking about the world coming to an end, the report he came out with--let me, first of all, ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Delaware be recognized.

Mr. INHOFE. The whole idea in this report by design is to spark fear in the American people so they will go along with the administration in implementing their policies that will kill fossil fuels and leave us with nothing but a broken economy. When I say broken economy, if, in fact--and no one would refute this--we are dependent upon fossil fuels--coal, oil, and gas--for 75 percent of the energy to run America, then what is going to happen to our economy if we extract 75 percent? I think we all know logically what is going to happen. In the words of White House counselor John Podesta this morning: ``The American public doesn't feel that sense of urgency about the impacts of climate change and I think this report will help influence that.'' That is nothing but an admission. The whole reason for this report is to try to resurrect the issue of global warming. We heard my good friend from Massachusetts talking about that. He is very knowledgeable, and I will refer to some of his activities in a minute. But keep in mind, this is John Podesta. It is the same John Podesta who is representing some of the terrorist regime from Sri Lanka that is no longer in effect. He is the same one who ran the White House during the Clinton years. So he comes from a very partisan perspective. But nonetheless, I appreciate the fact that he is admitting this is the reason for the climate assessment President Obama did yesterday, because he wants to try to bring this up again. I can remember back when the polling showed that global warming was either the No. 1 or No. 2 of the environmental issues in America. Do we know where it is now? It is No. 10, according to the last Gallup poll. So people have forgotten about it. People have caught on. They have seen the scientists come in and refute all this IPCC stuff that the United Nations has been putting forth for a long period of time. I think it is a recognition that people have caught on to this and it is no longer the issue they want it to be. Whether it is a drought or a flood, high temperatures, low temperatures, you can't find a job, you are finding more allergic reactions, then the White House blames it on global warming. Fear has always been a tactic the administration and other global warming alarmists have used to spur people into action. Time and time again, when the American people learn the details and the costs of the solutions to global warming that they contend exist, they don't want anything to do with it--and the costs are enormous. Congress last debated global warming when my good friend, now Senator Markey, was in the House of Representatives. It was the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. This bill would have cost, according to Charles River Associates--and I think people recognize them as authentic-- between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. That is the cost. I would contend this would be the largest tax increase in the history of this country. That is consistent with other analyses. One was the Wharton Group and many of the scientists there who were making evaluations came out with the same thing: between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. MIT came out with about the same amount of between $300 billion to $400 billion a year. The cost estimate has been the same over the last 15 years since we first started debating this issue. I don't think anyone is challenging that. But what is important--and this is kind of in the weeds, but we have to talk about this: I applaud Senator Markey for at least the levels of pollution--of emissions, I should say--that come from different sources that he was wanting to regulate, and that was those with 25,000 tons of CO2 emissions or more. That would be, quite frankly, the major emitters, the refineries and all of that. Here is the problem we have today. It is far worse than the Waxman-Markey bill would have been, because it wouldn't call for the regulation of just those entities that emit 25,000 tons or more, but the same as the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act has a threshold of 250 tons of greenhouse gases a year. Stop and think about that: If it costs between $300 billion to $400 billion to regulate the emitters who emit 25,000 tons of CO2 a year, how much more if we regulate everyone with 250 tons? It has never been calculated. It would be very difficult. But we are talking about billions and billions of dollars more. So the regulations are far worse. The first of these regulations now being developed is the New Source Performance Standards for newly constructed powerplants. The rule would essentially make it illegal to build new coal-fired powerplants. That is what it was designed to do. The next step would be to take the existing powerplants--those that are employing hundreds of thousands of people in America today--and they would be out of a job. So that would go to the refining industry, and so forth, and establish new regulations for each and every industry. These greenhouse gas regulations mark the latest attempt by the EPA to destroy affordable and reliable electricity and energy supplies that have been the hallmark of our economy for a long period of time. They are already doing it in other areas too. It is not just regulating the greenhouse gas emissions or CO2 emissions; it is other regulations that are unbearable. This one right here--they are talking about changing the ocean regulation. This chart is an interesting one because this shows that virtually every county in America would be out of attainment with their new goals. In my State of Oklahoma, we have 77 counties. All 77 counties would be out of attainment if they are able to do that. In 2011, the EPA finalized its utility MACT. By the way, that stands for maximum achievable control technology. That is what we are talking about. So they passed this. Now it is passed. It is history now. They finalized utility MACT with a rule that costs over $100 million and would result in 1.65 million lost jobs. The EPA put this rule out without even considering the cost of it, saying it wasn't required to do so. In other words, the law does not say they are required to say what it costs. I take issue with that. They estimated the rule would result in the retirement of less than 10,000 megawatts of electricity generation, but today we know the power companies around the country have announced the retirements totaling more than 50,000. So they are off by 500 percent. Fifty thousand megawatts in direct response to the EPA regulation. By the way, when we had the utility MACT, I filed a CRA, and this is something I want to make sure people are aware of, and certainly my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle. On all of these regulations, when they reach the point where the regulation is final-- and we know for a fact it is going to cost dollars and it is going to cost jobs--I am going to file a CRA. A CRA is a Congressional Review Act. A CRA provides that if there is a regulation--and I hear so often my colleagues in the Senate will say to their constituents, Don't blame me for these regulations because that is the regulatory--that is the EPA and other regulators doing it. But a CRA forces them to take an issue. So all one has to do is find 30 people in the Senate, have them sign a CRA, file the CRA, and then it is simply a simple majority--51. In the case of this utility MACT, I only lacked three votes for stopping that rule. So we anticipate that we are going to be able to stop a lot of these rules. In about 10 days, the EPA is poised to propose another new rule, the 316(b) cooling water intake rule. This rule is designed to protect fish from being caught and killed in nets designed to prevent them from entering powerplant systems. While the rule doesn't have any human health benefits, it is expected to cost industry over $100 billion in compliance costs, which, of course, will be passed on to everyone in America who ends up paying these bills. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which is called NERC, has warned that this rule will have a far worse impact on electricity affordability and reliability than the utility MACT did. We know it will. In fact, the FERC Commissioner recently said that because of EPA's rules, the United States is likely to see rolling electricity blackouts over the summer months in the next few years as demand for electricity outstrips the supply remaining after all of the powerplant shutdowns that are slated to occur in response to EPA's rules. The EPA has been systematically distorting the true cost of its regulations for years, and I have been raising this as an issue for some time now, but it has been very difficult to air them out before the entire Senate simply because at this point the sole goal of the Democrats seems to be to protect their majority. If we look at this chart, this was prior to the 2012 election. What we found they were doing, prior to the 2012 election, was postponing many of these very onerous regulations because they knew we would be doing a CRA and the public would know who is responsible for these. They had postponed this. This is a report I put out in October 2012, and that was to try to force the administration to not wait until after the election to come out with their rules. That is what they did. They are doing it again. Last week I released documents revealing that the EPA intentionally delayed the release of its greenhouse gas new source performance standards--that is the NSPS--by 66 days in order to avoid it being finalized before the midterm elections--the same thing as 2012. I also sent a letter to Gina McCarthy, who is the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency, asking why the rule was delayed, especially when she had previously told me it was the result of a blacklog in the Federal Register. In other words, she was saying: The Federal Register did not post this rule until 66 days after we gave it to them. We checked with the Federal Register, and they said that is absolutely false. They have an immediate turnaround for these rules. So now I am waiting for a response to that letter. I do not want to use the ``L'' word. I know there is a lot of pressure put on the employees and certainly the Director of the EPA to try to minimize what the public feels is going to be the cost of these regulations. Had the EPA stuck with its original timeline of finalizing this rule by September 20 of this year, then I would have been able to work with my colleagues to force a Congressional Review Act vote to overturn the rule just weeks before the election. Then people would know the cost of these things. But what we could do right now is vote on a few of the amendments. Our Senator from Missouri was talking about these amendments. We have a bill that is coming up. We have amendments that should be considered-- all having to do with energy, so they are all appropriate amendments to offer, as he articulated for about 10 minutes a few minutes ago. I have some amendments that would do this. He mentioned one of them that he and I are together on. But one of my amendments is amendment No. 2977, entitled the ``Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2014.'' It simply prohibits the EPA from promulgating any greenhouse gas emissions regulations to combat climate change because they are denying this is the reason they are doing it. Of course we know what has happened to the science they are relying on through the United Nations that has now been refuted. The second amendment I have is amendment No. 2979. It would prevent the EPA from issuing any new Clean Air Act regulations--such as those on climate change--until it complies with section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act. Let's keep in mind, this is the Clean Air Act, as shown on this chart. We are talking about decades ago. This is what the Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to do: The Administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement of the provision of this chapter. . . . It is saying they are supposed to already tell the public what the cost is in terms of jobs and money. That is the law, but they are not obeying the law. So I have an amendment that puts teeth in it and says you cannot have any new rules until you comply with section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act. Very reasonable, and it is the law today. Unfortunately, the EPA is not interested in doing this. With the Utility MACT rule, it completely dismissed the rule's cost and did not consider it when putting out the rule. The EPA acted in contradiction to Supreme Court precedents that decisionmakers are required to ``weigh advantages against disadvantages, and disadvantages can be seen in terms of costs.'' That is the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 5 more minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. I have to get to the last part. Rather than to face these issues head-on, I am going to share something that happened last year and then again this year. There is a very wealthy person named Tom Steyer. Tom Steyer has a mansion that overlooks the Golden Gate Bridge. He had a fundraiser for Barack Obama last year, raising a lot of money, but the one I am more concerned about is the fundraiser he had when he announced--this is just within the last month--Tom Steyer, a very wealthy person, said he was going to personally donate $50 million and raise an additional $50 million to try to do two things. One is to resurrect this whole idea on global warming since the people do not care about it anymore. As a result of that, we had an all-night vigil. Remember that? That was right after Tom Steyer made his announcement. The second thing he is mandating is to kill the Keystone Pipeline. There is a lot of money out there. The regulatory burdens already being placed on this country are enormous, and the cost of regulations are, perhaps arguably, the worst problem facing this country. Last week the Competitive Enterprise Institute published a major report calculating the cost of the President's regulations at $1.86 trillion. To put that in perspective, Canada's entire GDP is $1.82 trillion. India's is the same amount. So that is what the cost would be, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute. People know what has happened to the military with this administration, they know what has happened to energy, but the cost of these regulations is something that is going to have to be addressed. Lastly, I would say this. I know there are people out there who legitimately believe greenhouse gas is causing global warming and the world is going to come to an end, but I would suggest this: Lisa Jackson was the Administrator--chosen by Barack Obama--the first Administrator we had for the EPA. I asked her this question, on the record, live on TV. I said: Madam Administrator, if we were to pass bills like the Markey-Waxman bill or regulate by regulation the CO2 in the United States of America, would this have the effect of lowering the CO2 emissions worldwide? She said: No, because that is not where the problem is. It is in China. It is in India. It is in Mexico. In other words, if you believe--as I do not believe--but if you believe CO2 is going to bring about the end of the world, then even if we do something in this country, it is not going to solve the problem. Arguably, it would make the problem worse because as we lose our manufacturing base, they are out seeking electricity and energy from countries where they do not have any of these regulations, and that would have the effect of increasing, not decreasing, emissions of CO2. With that, I yield the floor and thank my friend for not objecting to my additional time.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today marks the 225th anniversary of George Washington's inaugural address to the Nation. I don't think anyone has said anything about it. That is a major thing for us to think about each year. It is the 225th anniversary. It is reported that more than 10,000 people--this is way back 225 years ago--gathered on this day in 1789 to hear from a man who won a war and who is now ushering in an era of peace and freedom in our new Nation. Peter Lillback is a historian, and he pointed out in his book, which I read recently, that our first President, Washington, knew that everything he was to say in the first inaugural address would set a precedent for all that was to come after him in establishing our Nation. It is why Americans should take note at how Washington weaved in with intentionality his belief in the Omnipotent. Washington said: It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe. Washington went on to say: No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. We are here because of the hand of God. Washington's leadership was grounded in his belief in God, His law, and that liberty is God's gift. As we reflect on the anniversary of Washington's speech it is important we are reminded as a nation what our Founding Fathers sought to establish. In this same inaugural speech Washington said: The destiny of the Republic model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people. Washington's conviction was that we as Americans are entrusted by God to preserve basic freedoms established in the Constitution, such as the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. The secular culture we see our Nation embracing today would seek to censor such words from a leader such as Washington. Their intolerance fails to acknowledge it was Washington's convictions and our Founding Fathers' faith values that gave us the public square. On September 27 last year, I talked about this issue on the Senate floor--about how Oklahomans regularly ask me--and I don't think this is unique to Oklahoma; it can be true in any State--why we have an administration that suppresses our Judeo-Christian values while praising Islam. As I said then, I find it sad that our Nation does not have the same belief today that we had back when Washington was President. We have become arrogant, inward-focused individuals. Rather than submitting to God's authority, we define truth, justice, and morality by what feels good at the time. Today, instead of having leaders who protect the church from government, we have leaders who believe it is the government's job to impose on churches what should be universally upheld as truth. As leaders, we should be protecting all Americans' freedom to practice their religion. It is only appropriate that on this anniversary we also consider the words of Washington's Farewell Address in 1796 where he pointed out that the pillars supporting our Republic are morality and religion. In his address he said: Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of particular structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. We have to restore the morality of our Nation given to us by the Founding Fathers, as President Washington articulated 225 years ago. That morality is found in the Judeo-Christian values articulated not just by Washington but by all of our Founding Fathers. As my son likes to say: Without God, the Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the Senator from Texas yielding at this time. Every time I hear people talking about the jobs at stake here I think about my State of Oklahoma, which probably has more jobs at stake than any other state because Cushing, OK, is the crossroads of the pipeline now throughout America. Looking at this chart, just over 2 years ago President Obama came to Cushing to give a speech on national TV with all the pipeline in the background. You can see these tubes over there. He talked about how this is a major breakthrough and that we are going to `` . . . cut through the red tape, break through bureaucratic hurdles and make this project a priority, to go ahead and get it done.'' Yet he has done nothing but obstruct this since that time. The southern leg of the pipeline may be finished, but that was part of the project that the President didn't have any say in. The President could do something when you cross international lines, but he could not do it from that point south. The portion between Canada and Cushing is completely stalled because the President has delayed making a decision, as has been said, for 5 years now. To me the Keystone XL Pipeline is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the way President Obama thinks about the oil and natural gas industry. Today we heard great speeches from many of my colleagues, and they are highlighting the great impact of the Keystone Pipeline's construction and what it would mean to the economy. We know that it would directly create 42,000 jobs and 10,000 more would be supported by the overall manufacturing materials and processes that are required to complete the project, but the real impact on the President's failure to act on Keystone can be seen in this chart. This chart shows the potential around this country. These are federal lands. If we were able to develop these federal lands, what all would be involved here? You know, it is incredible that we have a President who talks about being friendly to oil and gas and denies the war against fossil fuels. While we have had an increase in production on State and private land of some 40 percent, on the Federal land we have had a decrease in production of 16 percent. I don't know how that is even possible, but the midstream infrastructure and the pipelines in particular are one of the most important things we need to fully develop in these resources. We need to be able to move oil and gas from areas where it has been developed to areas where it is refined, processed, and consumed. The need for infrastructure expansion is astounding. ICF International is a consulting firm, and I think their credibility has been established. They released a report last week that says U.S. companies will need to invest $641 billion over the next 20 years in infrastructure to keep up with the growing oil and gas production. That is just what they know about that right now. If you add to that what would happen if they were able to open all of this and end the war on fossil fuels, look at the potential we would have in this country. The increase in oil and gas production we have seen in recent years has occurred solely on State and private lands. There are many things President Obama could do to make the numbers far higher. In fact, we could have total energy independence in a matter of months, not a matter of years, if the President were to lift his ban on federal lands. So the President has continued his war on fossil fuels. The President's efforts have been intently focused on hurting the production of oil and gas resources--be it through stall tactics or efforts to establish complex and confusing regulations on the hydraulic fracturing process. Every way we turn we see President Obama trying to put the oil and gas industry out of business. The Keystone XL Pipeline is the bellwether of energy policy today. It is a simple decision. I know many of my colleagues have talked about it and have had the information, as the leader of our group has here today, on what we could be doing in this country. Yet there is some kind of assumption that if we don't complete the pipeline, they will stop the process up in Alberta, Canada. They are going to continue, but it is going to be China and other countries that are going to benefit from it. So I applaud the Senator for the great work he is doing. We have to let the American people know of the potential we have right here in this country and develop that potential. I thank the Senator from Texas for yielding.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to express my opposition to the nomination of Michelle Friedland to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Although Ms. Friedland has a fine resume, it is not her work experience that concerns me but, rather, her views on many issues-- views that should give anyone reason to question her appointment as a U.S. Circuit Court judge. Most troubling to me is Ms. Friedland's views that the International Court of Justice preempts U.S. law, despite the Supreme Court's repeated rejection of this notion. For those who don't know, the International Court of Justice is the judicial arm of the United Nations and Ms. Friedland believes decisions from this court should be binding on state courts in the U.S. I am thankful that the Supreme Court hasn't agreed with her and I'm fearful that her appointment to the Ninth Circuit will give her the opportunity to surrender U.S. sovereignty to foreign courts and international law. Another reason we, as legislators, should oppose Ms. Friedland is that she has expressed views that indicate judges are free to legislate from the bench. As we all learn in grade school, the legislative branch creates the laws, the executive branch enforces them, and the judicial branch interprets them. Despite this, Ms. Friedland believes laws have no force unless a judge says they do. So when legislators, elected by the people, pass a law or a constitution is amended, the new law has no power until a judge deems it enforceable and a constitution, state or U.S., does not create any rights unless the judiciary says it does. This is a dangerous notion that tells me that Ms. Friedland is likely to only enforce laws and constitutional rights with which she agrees. It is for these reasons that I am opposed to this nomination.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for perhaps more than 2 minutes or such time as I may consume.