Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, point of inquiry: Is this after I speak now or is that starting now? In other words, we would have four Democrats before I speak?

Mr. INHOFE. The Senator already had one and then Senator Coons.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if two of them speak now and then let me speak and then the Senator can speak after that, that is still 2 to 1.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, when we were establishing our time, I would say to my good friend and colleague from California, I was joking around a little bit about using 9\1/2\ minutes. Is it all right if I make that 19\1/2\ minutes, maximum?

Mr. INHOFE. OK. I will do that. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from California I be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I wasn't going to do this, but since my good friend from California is on the floor and it is our favorite subject to talk about, I thought I would. I wish to take the opportunity to talk about the first round of the major global warming regulations the President is set to release this week. These rules will govern the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from powerplants and they are the first round of rules following the President's major speech on global warming in June. The rules represent the most aggressive representation of the war on fossil fuels we have seen in this administration, and we have seen a lot of them. We know the rules will require any coal-fired plant to have carbon-capture and sequestration technology; that is, CSS technology. While the Clean Air Act only allows feasible technology to be mandated, the CSS technology is not feasible. It is really not there yet. No powerplant has ever been built with the technology unless it has been supported by massive taxpayer subsidies. The rule would kill the coal powerplant industry. While the rules may be constructed in a way that allows natural gas- fired powerplants to meet the mandate, we have to know that is coming next. After all, natural gas is a fossil fuel as well. There have been several statements of people saying, Well, wait around until fossil fuel, which is going to be next. The only thing these new rules will do is cause energy prices to skyrocket. I expect the rules to be one of the key issues covered by the media this week. While the exact details of the rule will not be known until it is published later this week, there are a few things that we know right now. First, the science behind global warming is now more uncertain than ever. I spoke about this this morning in our hearing. Just last week it was reported all over the media--the Telegraph--this is in London, one of their largest publications--the Guardian, also in London, the Wall Street Journal, and others, that this year there has been 60 percent more ice coverage in the Arctic than there was this time last year. My colleagues might remember the hysterical people were saying at one time that there would be no more icecaps by 2013. Instead, we find out it has actually increased by 60 percent. This is the equivalent of almost 1 million square miles, and this is being observed before the winter refreeze has even set in. What makes it more interesting is that in 2007, the BBC reported that global warming would leave the entire Arctic ice-free in the summers by 2013. The scientist who made this claim, Professor Wineslaw Maslowski, said, in the typical bravado we have come to expect from climate scientists, that ``This is not a cycle; not just a fluctuation. In the end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.'' That is in 2013. Well, here we are in 2013 and guess what. They are wrong again. There is 60 percent more ice than there was at this time last year. A lot of the yachts and the ships that expected to use the Northwest Passage can't use the Northwest Passage; it is closed, closed because the ice is there. This follows reports earlier this year, notably from The Economist, showing that global warming has been on a pause for the last 15 years. The Economist wrote: ``Over the past 15 years, air temperatures and the Earth's surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.'' The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not expect this development to occur, nor did its models predict that there would be a 15-year stall in global warming. Professor Anastasios Tsonis, at the University of Wisconsin, recently concluded that: We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next fifteen years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped. This reminds me of all the hysteria in the 1970s that a global warming trend is coming. I can't tell my colleagues how many times on the Senate floor I have talked about how these cycles come and go about every 25 years, and here it is, right on schedule, going into a cooling period. Starting back in 1895, every 15 to 20 years, they start out with the new Ice Age is coming, everyone is hysterical, and then in 2007--1970--1919, they went into a period of warming, and then in 1995--or 1945--they went into another cooling spell and that happened to coincide with the year they had the greatest surge in CO2 on our planet. I only want to say this finally has come to our attention that we are looking at a situation that is quite different than we have seen in the past. I mentioned that later in this month the long-awaited event is going to happen. It comes up every 5, 6, or 7 years. That is when the IPCC comes out with its assessment. This just came up--I saw that it is dated today in the Wall Street Journal, and I will read this: Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fifth assessment report. That is what we are talking about. They go on to say they have learned from some leaks what is in that assessment. ``There have already been leaks''--I am reading now--``from this 31-page document which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a senior climate scientist, I have had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document. Keep in mind, this is IPCC, United Nations. The big news is that for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of manmade emissions from carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC expected. This is something we did not anticipate would happen just as recently as a few days ago. Real quickly, it is my hope we get to some of these amendments, and I am going to mention one that is a very significant amendment. A few months ago, when we were debating the continuing resolution, the Senate adopted amendment No. 29, which prohibited the EPA from enforcing this Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure Rule. That is the SPCC rule. As we all remember, they were going to enforce this against farmers. The reason we did this is clear: EPA first threatened to enforce this rule against farmers at the beginning of the Obama administration, but they did very little outreach. Most farmers do not even know today about this rule or what they would have to do to comply. The only reason other Members know about this rule is because of the work Senator Pryor and I have done to highlight the problem for what it is. This rule was originally drafted for compliance by major handlers of oil--refineries, pipelines--players such as the ones that are shown on this chart I have in the Chamber. This chart actually shows part of Cushing, OK, which is a major hub of oil pipelines. Millions of barrels of oil are transported through and stored in this small town each day, and it is incredibly important that the handlers of the oil follow appropriate regulations to make sure accidents do not cause significant environmental damage. They understand why the regulations are in place, and they follow the rules with precision. And we are talking about the people in the adjoining towns. These refineries and tank operators are who the rule was designed for in the first place, and that makes sense. But now EPA wants to enforce that rule against farmers. What would it look like if we did this? First, take a look at this second chart. This is a diesel fuel container on a farm. It is small. It does not hold that much fuel. But right now it is subject to the same regulations you would have for oil companies and refineries. I asked a friend of mine, Keith Kisling, a wheat farmer in western Oklahoma, what it would take for him to comply with this rule that was designed for refiners. He said: First I have to purchase a new double-wall container that would cost thousands of dollars. EPA justifies this by saying it would prevent leaks. Keith, like all other farmers I know in Oklahoma, thinks diesel is expensive. So Keith is not going to let his tanks leak, whatever kind it is. You would sit on a farm and realize that is leaking money. Obviously, they do not want to do that. The next thing he would have to do is build a berm all the way around his tank to contain a spill if all of the diesel fuel came out of it. This would be expensive and difficult to operate.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 3 more minutes and conclude.

Mr. INHOFE. Finally, Keith would have to hire and pay a professional engineer to certify his spill plan, if he can find one. In Oklahoma, farmers cannot find professional engineers because they are all working for oil and gas companies, which makes compliance with this particular requirement virtually impossible. All told, Keith would have to pay somewhere between $10 and $30,000 to comply with the rule, and the environment is not any better for it. After we secured the amendment prohibiting the EPA from enforcing the rule back in March, Senator Pryor and I worked to secure a permanent exemption, and we did this. We put it in, as the Senator from California will remember, the WRDA bill, and, of course, it is not final law yet. This is the amendment that we have right now. Last month, during the August recess, I received word from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association that producers in Kansas and other areas out West were hearing from EPA enforcement officers that they were at risk of having the SPCC rule retroactively enforced against them once the prohibition on enforcement expires on September 23. This comes despite the clear actions Congress has been taking to provide relief to farmers. I honestly do not know of anyone who wants to subject our farmers in the United States of America to the same requirements that refineries and oil companies and these operations have. So I do have an amendment that would go on. It is my hope we will be able to get to the amendments on the bill, the underlying bill that is under consideration today, and I think this is one of two amendments I have that should be accepted unanimously. With that, I thank the Senator from California for giving me that additional time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I sat through the speech given by the junior Senator of California. I have a long list of things with which I disagree and I am going to get to as many of those as I can in a minute. I feel an obligation to make a statement about some important policy issues that nobody talks about, certainly not partisan in any way. I wish to get that out of the way first and then I will have time, on the time that I have been given, to go back and cover as many of the issues that were misrepresented by my good friend, the junior Senator from California. Sri Lanka I wish to encourage the Obama administration to review its current policies regarding the country of Sri Lanka and seek further engagement to assist them as they continue their progress toward reconciliation and reconstruction after 30 years of a bloody civil war against the Tamil Tiger terrorists. Just 4 years ago Sri Lanka defeated the Tamil terrorists and is currently recovering from economic, political, and social upheaval caused by this destructive civil war. I think there are a lot of people who didn't expect this to happen with this new administration, but it is. Good things have happened. Peace has brought historic postconflict recovery and Sri Lanka is bringing the dividends of peace in an exclusive manner, particularly to those in the north and to the east of the country, from where Tamil suicide bombers and other terrorist attacks were once launched. Specifically, since the war ended, those two areas have seen an economic growth of 22 percent compared to an average of 7.5 percent for the rest of the country. Sri Lanka has removed half a million antipersonnel mines, resettled 300,000 internally displaced people, and reestablished vital social services in the areas of health and education. It is also conducting local elections in the formerly Tamil- controlled north on the 21st of September. I see this as an important step toward political reconciliation. Such processes take time, as we learned from our own Civil War. It seems to me that Sri Lanka is developing into a key economy, both in its own right and as a gateway to India. A lot of people don't know where Sri Lanka is. It is that little island at the bottom of India and that part of the world. Sri Lanka's geostrategic location, the deepwater ports, could be vital to the long-term financial and national security interests of the United States. We want them on our side. Some 50 percent of all container traffic, for example, and 70 percent of the world's energy supplies pass within sight of Sri Lanka's coast. U.S. diplomatic efforts there, however, have lagged. As a result, I believe our long-term economic and national security interests are suffering. At a time when the United States is pivoting or rebalancing toward Asia, we may be giving this island nation reason not to consider the United States a friend and strategic partner. Understandably, the policies of the United States toward Sri Lanka have focused on accountability for what happened during the last phases of the civil war, as well as on steps toward political reconciliation and respect for human rights. While these aspects are very important and deserving of support, I also believe there is the opportunity to engage in a wider simultaneous approach that also takes into account economic and national security consideration. Maybe this wider, dual- track approach would have a positive influence overall and make up for lost ground. I have expressed these views in letters to both Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel in recent months. While both of them agree with me about Sri Lanka and its economic and geostrategic importance to the United States, both still point to the lack of political transparency and poor human rights record to reject a review of the administration's position, which restricts military-to-military relations and foreign assistance funding. I take Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel at their word and believe the upcoming September 21 provincial council elections in the north can be a meaningful act of political reconciliation that would be between the Sinhala majority and the Tamil minorities. If they are conducted in a free and fair manner, free of human rights violations, I will strongly renew my request to the administration to reassess our current policies toward Sri Lanka. I know it is a little bit controversial, but we have watched what has happened over the years. We have watched the civil war. Then when you consider the very strategic location of Sri Lanka, it is very important, in my view, that we establish these relationships and recognize them. Let me mention a few things I took issue with. Some of them I had a hard time understanding what the junior Senator from California was talking about when she was singing the praises of this administration. First, I agreed with her on the tragedy at the Navy Yard. I have been down there many times. I was envisioning as I was coming from Tulsa up here on Monday--at that time they said Ronald Reagan Airport was going to be closed. They thought it was going to be closed down because of the proximity to the Navy Yard. It didn't turn out that way and we ended up landing there. When I went down and I saw the scene, which I have seen many times before, and I looked at it, it was gut-wrenching to think that one deranged person could do this. We saw it before in Waco. We have seen it in Boston. We have seen it in other places. It is something that I assume is going to be with us. I don't know how it can be precluded. I will say this, though. I fully expected several of my liberal friends would use that to try to come up with an excuse for more stringent gun regulations. I would only suggest that the District of Columbia has the most stringent anti-Second Amendment gun control laws anywhere in the country, and that is where this took place. You can't say this has anything to do with it, but I knew it was going to happen. Another thing my friend talked about was the debt, all of this, talking about the other administrations. I would only remind you, this is something that is incontrovertible, the amount of debt this President has had up to today. He has increased our deficit by $6.1 trillion, which is more than all of the other Presidents from George Washington on up through recent administrations combined. You wonder where is all of that money, where did it all go? It went to his social programs. My major concern--the Presiding Officer may have heard I was making quite an issue out of the fact the President wanted to send cruise missiles into Syria. I don't think there is anyone naive enough to believe you can do that and not have repercussions. We have heard from Iran, which I consider to be the greatest threat to the United States, in that our intelligence has told us since 2007 Iran would have the nuclear weapon and the delivery system in place by 2015. That is a year and a half from now. Yes, it is something where we would be going in. However, in the disarming of America, as I have referred to, I remember going to Afghanistan 4\1/2\ years ago. It was after the President's first budget. I went there because I knew what was going to happen to the military in spite of all this spending that has given us new debt, $6.1 trillion. Where did it go? I can tell you a lot of places where it didn't go. It didn't go to defending America. I went over there. In that very first budget the President had, the first thing he did was do away with our only fifth-generation fighter, the F-22. He did away with our lift capability, the C-17. He did away with our future combat system, the only advancement of ground capability in some 60 years. He did away with the ground-based interceptor in Poland, which now puts us in a position where we are hustling all over trying to figure out where we can get a third site to protect the United States of America against a missile coming in from the East. We have 33 of them out there but they are all on the west coast. That doesn't help us here. On top of that, this administration, in its extended budget, has taken now already $487 billion out of our defense budget and is talking about another $\1/2\ trillion through his sequestration. I know nobody believes this, and that is why none of the Members on this floor will talk about it, but this disarming of America puts us in a very serious situation. The junior Senator from California was praising this President and all of the things she felt he has been doing, but it is time to hear the truth. She was praising him on ObamaCare and how wonderful this is and how thankful everyone is. Why is it the most recent polling showed 88 percent of the people in America want to do away with the individual mandate, and the vast majority of them say it is a bad idea? Those are the words they use. So it is not working. I can remember back when we were going to have Hillary health care, back during the Clinton administration, and we asked the question--and you can ask any liberal who wants to get to a single-payer system or ultimately have socialized medicine, which I think will be down the road in the vision of this administration--if this hasn't worked in Great Britain, it hasn't worked in Denmark and it hasn't worked in Canada, why would it work here? They will never tell you this, but they were saying if they were running it, it would work here. Anyway, this is something that is not popular, as was misrepresented by the junior Senator from California. Then she said: ``The news is great coming out of Detroit.'' That is fine, except they filed bankruptcy last week. So when we hear all the things that are stated, just keep in mind this is still America, we still have certain values that have been completely reversed by this administration, and it is time to keep that in mind and to move on ahead. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think there is a little confusion on the floor. I have an amendment. I have talked to virtually everyone. In fact, I can't find one person opposed to it. It is very simple. What I would ask is that I be able to set aside the pending amendment for the purpose of considering my amendment No. 1851. Let me make that and see if there is objection to that.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me go ahead and tell the floor what it is all about. I know I am going to be wanting to come back to the floor and get this in the queue. It is very rare in this body that we come up with something everyone is for, something that wasn't a part of the original legislation, for a very good reason. We are talking about geothermal. Right now we all recall in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, there is a provision that requires the Federal Government have a percentage of its energy be from renewable sources. The problem is this: Geothermal doesn't create any new energy. It lets you use the energy that is there, recover it, heat our homes, cool our homes, put it back, and then reuse it again. As I say, it is something everyone is for. It is 100 percent renewable. The only oversight originally was that it did not actually create energy. The amendment would change this to allow geothermal heat pumps to be among the renewable energies that could be used by the Federal Government to meet its obligation under the 2005 Energy law. This amendment doesn't cost anything, it doesn't mandate anything. It simply provides another acceptable way for the Federal Government to meet its obligations in a cost-effective way. It is noncontroversial and something everyone wants. It would be my hope after that explanation the Senator from Louisiana would be willing to let me bring it up for the purpose of considering it, putting it in the queue, and then going back to where we were, acknowledging objections that he might have to other amendments.

Mr. INHOFE. I don't recall this happening before. Regarding the very amendment that is an obstacle, keeping me from the vote, I ask unanimous consent right now to become a cosponsor of that amendment, the Vitter amendment I am talking about. I know what he is trying to do. I know he is going to make an effort to get this done maybe in other legislation if it does not happen here. I will be joining him in his cause. I see this as a separate matter here, as I say. We want to move this along. Everyone agrees to. I will stand by and see if anyone changes their mind. Thank you, I say to the chairman and ranking member. Thank you for the very kind comments on my amendment.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my friend the distinguished Senator from Ohio for including me in his unanimous consent request. I will briefly speak about an amendment. We all understand that the issue is going to come before this body to send activity into Syria. I am very much opposed to any kind of force in Syria, but if it happens, we want to be sure there is some protection there. So I have an amendment that even if my amendment passes, I will still oppose the effort of this President to send activity into Syria, and I believe it would precipitate a war. My amendment is very simple. If the President takes military action against Syria, sequestration of our Armed Forces would be delayed for 1 year. We are talking about the fiscal year where we would take another $52 billion out of our military. What Asad has done and continues to do is reprehensible, but the United States can't afford another war given the current state of our military. The threats from Syria and the Middle East are not emerging threats. These threats have been around for decades. We knew they were there. There is nothing new about them. Yet the readiness capabilities of our military continue to be decimated by drastic budget cuts. Sixteen Air Force combat flying squadrons have been grounded. We finally, after 3 months, put them back in the air again, and right now we know it costs more to get them back in a state of readiness than the money we saved from grounding them for 3 months. Our naval fleet has been reduced to historically low levels, the end strength of our ground forces has been cut by more than 100,000 personnel, and hundreds of thousands of DOD civilian employees have been furloughed. Just in my State of Oklahoma, in one of my installations, 14,000 civilian employees have been furloughed. We can't have it both ways--continuing to cut the funding of our military while still expecting to meet our national security requirements. As military readiness and capabilities decline, we accept greater risk, and, as I have always said, risk equals lives. Every time we have a hearing, we have our combatant commanders come in and talk about the risks. Risk means lives. As I have always said, risk equals lives, and allowing these cuts to continue while proposing to send our forces into harm's way is immoral and reprehensible. Over the last week I have heard a lot from the President and his administration about how any action in Syria will be limited. I suggest there is no such thing as limited war. Once we decide to strike, we can't predict where it will end or how the situation might escalate. Let's not forget that we have troops currently on the ground in Jordan and Turkey, marines guarding our Embassies, and sailors and airmen stationed around the region. We have already heard that Iran is ordering its terrorist proxies to retaliate by attacking U.S. interests in the region, including our Embassy in Iraq. The State Department has ordered nonessential personnel to evacuate our Embassy in Lebanon. The threats to our forces are real. I wish to read for my colleagues excerpts from a letter that was written by two ladies, Rebekah Sanderlin and Molly Blake. These are spouses of two of our servicemen. They are responding--much more eloquently than I could ever hope to--to the immense hardship our military is enduring under sequestration and to the misguided belief that a military strike on Syria can be done in isolation--that it won't affect our troops and their families. I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to quote from the letter I just submitted for the Record, and I ask my colleagues to listen to the quote. These are two ladies who are spouses of servicemen. They said: There is no such thing as a person-less war. Our military cannot afford for Americans to forget that wars and battles and military strikes are fought by troops, that troops are people, and that those people have families. In our military communities this summer we couldn't even afford to pay Federal employees for a five-day work week. Military families can't get doctors' appointments and can't get counseling services needed to grapple with the problems we already have, problems largely created by almost 12 years of war. Today clinic hours are being slashed--along with pretty much every other service military families need. Walking around our communities lately, it doesn't look like we can afford much of anything--and certainly not a whole new war. I am still quoting now these wives of our military men: And maybe someday we will be able to fight whole wars without using a single human, but today, in 2013, we can't have a surgical strike without someone saying where to drop the bombs or where to aim those missiles. And those planes that drop the bombs? The destroyers that carry the missiles? They have pilots, captains, and crews. All humans. Even the ``unmanned'' drones have human pilots, and the psychological wear and tear on them is staggering. Planes take off from airfields in foreign lands and from aircraft carriers, both of which are staffed by thousands of American somebodies, just like those destroyer ships. At every turn in a military operation you will find people. Intel analysts, linguists, flight crews, and cooks. Even war plans . . . rely on thousands of people who will be pulled to a new duty, which causes reshuffling far and wide in the military community. And this, most definitely, affects our military families. Again, that is a quote from two of the wives of our current servicemen. I hope all of my colleagues will read this letter. I hope they understand that the decisions we make this week about whether to go to war in Syria have a human dimension. If we expect the brave men and women in our military to go to foreign lands and risk their lives on our behalf, we have a moral obligation to ensure that they and their families have the support and the resources that are required. Sequestration has already inflicted severe damage on our military, and we are now only a couple of weeks from another $52 billion being slashed from an already devastated military budget. I have been clear that I don't support the President's call for military action in Syria. He still hasn't presented Congress and the American people with a plan for what he wants to accomplish, how he intends to accomplish it, or how he intends to pay for it. Will the President pay for this operation with more furloughs and by grounding more squadrons again? The CNO has already come forward and stated that if operations against Syria extend into October, he won't be able to afford it and will likely require supplemental funding from Congress. Furthermore, the President hasn't told us how a strike in Syria fits into a broader strategy for the Middle East. What we decide to do is not just about Syria. It is bigger than that. This is about the growing threat from Iran, stability in the Middle East, and our commitment to Israel and allies and our ability to respond to other contingencies that are there. I recall knowing what was going to happen. This is 4\1/2\ years ago, back when President Obama was first elected, his first election. I knew that when he came out with his first budget, he was going to do something devastating to the military. So I put myself into Afghanistan, knowing, with the tanks going back and forth, that I would be able to get the interest and the attention of the American people, and it worked. So in that very first budget 4\1/2\ years ago, he did away with the early fifth-generation bomber then, the F-22; did away with our future combat system--the first ground capability increase in about 50 years; did away with our lift capacity, the C-17. Then, the worst thing, which I hope doesn't turn out to create the worst problem for America, he did away with the ground-based operation in Poland. That was just the first budget. That was 4\1/2\ years ago. Since that time, in his extended budget, he has taken $487 billion out of the military, and with sequestration it will be another $\1/2\ trillion. This just can't happen. It is not just me who is saying this. People would expect it more from me. I am the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I have gone there and worked with these guys and noticed the problems they have. I would suggest that not just me but Admiral Winnefeld, who is the second highest military guy, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: There could be, for the first time in my career-- An admiral speaking now, the second highest person in our military-- instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and we will have to say we cannot. And then we go to the very top person, General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said, ``Our military force is so degraded, so unready, it would be immoral to use force.'' I only say this because we are going to be facing this, and I would be opposed to this even with my amendment to postpone the sequestration of the military for 1 year. However, if that passes, I will still oppose this taking place. I don't think many people in America realize what has happened to our military under the Obama administration. Well, I have just stated what has happened. This is certainly not a time when we would use force in Syria. Keep in mind that General Dempsey said it would be immoral to use force, we are so degraded, and that is exactly what we will be voting on in the next couple of days. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to express my opposition to the nomination of Samantha Power to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. As you know, I am very interested in the ability of our American oil and gas industry to compete for business in the country of Myanmar as soon as possible. By virtually every international standard, the U.S. oil and gas industry is the world leader in technical innovation. It is my understanding, however, that Ms. Power, as one of the Obama administration's point persons in pursuing a liberal international agenda attempted to 'carve out' the American petroleum industry from doing business in Myanmar when the United States suspended economic sanctions against this country last year. Fortunately, wiser powers within the executive branch prevented such a carve out from occurring, and now the American petroleum industry can compete with those companies from the European Union, China and Russia, which are already there. Clearly, this carve out strategy would have been a strategic mistake, and it has led me to question seriously Samantha Power's ability to represent adequately U.S. national interests and security needs at the United Nations. I believe that American companies, and especially our oil and gas companies, can play positive roles in the democratic transition in Myanmar by demonstrating high standards of responsible business conduct and transparency, including respect for labor and human rights. Ms. Power's inability to recognize this fact is very troubling. In addition, I find her position on Israeli-Palestinian relations of great concern. Israel is our friend and the sole democracy in the Middle East. It is a nation that we should support and promote in a region that is torn by violence and conflict. Samantha Power does not see it this way. Rather, she believes that Israel should give up its historical right to its land, and that the U.S. should impose a peace plan upon Israel with the Palestinian Authority. She has also repeatedly accused our friend Israel of human rights abuses. This certainly does not represent the views of the people or that of the leadership of the United States. Lastly, in addition to her lack of diplomatic skills, Ms. Power has no management experience, causing me to question her ability to lead at the United Nations. The U.S. Mission to the U.N. is constantly facing management issues, and I had hoped that President Obama would have nominated someone who could effectively promote U.S. initiatives there. Unfortunately, Ms. Power is not such a nominee. It is for these reasons that I oppose Samantha Power's nomination as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I pay tribute today to a true American hero, Army SSG Kirk A. Owen of Sapulpa, OK who died on August 2nd, 2011, serving our Nation in Paktya Province, Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Owen was assigned as a scout to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 179th Infantry Regiment, 45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, Oklahoma Army National Guard. Staff Sergeant Owen died of injuries sustained when the vehicle in which he was riding was attacked with an improvised explosive device in the Lajah District, Paktya Province while conducting combat operations. He was 37 years old. Kirk enlisted in the Oklahoma National Guard at the age of 31 as a Chaplain's Assistant after seeing a recruiting commercial on television and deployed in support of disaster relief operations following Hurricane Katrina. Kirk then deployed again to Iraq in 2007 as an infantryman and rose through the ranks to Staff Sergeant. He served as a full time Army National Guard Soldier. He strived to be the best in everything he did and was repeatedly recognized for his excellence as the Hero of the Battlefield and the outstanding soldier in the 45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team for his performance at the Joint Readiness Training Center, and presented the Unsung Hero Award when he attended the Ranger Reconnaissance and Surveillance Leader Course for his scout training. He also was Soldier of the Cycle for basic training and given Distinguished Honors at Advanced Individual Training. A true warrior and leader, Kirk died while escorting an Explosive Ordnance Disposal team to disarm dangerous explosive devices in Paktya Province. Kirk was a loving husband, endearing father, and faithful friend. His loving presence, strong faith, incredible sense of duty and honor, and his wonderful sense of humor left a lasting impression on every heart he touched. First Baptist Church Pastor Doyle Pryor said, ``Kirk is one of those guys who had a natural sense of duty and honor. He really believed his military service was a calling from God.'' Major General Myles Deering, the Oklahoma National Guard Adjutant General, said, ``He was an outstanding non-commissioned officer, dedicated to loyally serving his country and fellow Soldiers. His loss is being felt across the state and he will be greatly missed.'' His daughter Kylie wrote: My dad was a fantastic leader. All of his guys looked up to him. My nickname for him was Ironman. There was nothing to me that he couldn't do. He loved Jesus with all his heart and that's where my peace is coming from. I can just see him up in heaven following Jesus around wanting to know everything. A few weeks before he left we were at the grocery store and my dad and little sister were walking down the marshmallow aisle and he turned to her and said `Kayci, I think heaven will smell like marshmallows.' I hope it does. The memory of my dad will live on forever and his good looks will too. In July 2012, the town of Sapulpa dedicated a neighborhood park where the Owen family still lives as a tribute to Kirk and his service to our Nation. There is a lasting monument in his honor. Kirk lived a life of love for God, his wife and daughters, family, friends, and country. He leaves behind a wonderful and loving family: his wife, Tiffany and daughters, Kylie and Kayci. He will be remembered for his commitment to and belief in the greatness of our nation. I am honored to pay tribute to this true American hero who volunteered to go into the fight and made the ultimate sacrifice for our protection and freedom. We will keep them in our thoughts and prayers, always.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, regretfully, I am going to oppose this amendment. I am going to have to cover some points which my good friend from Kentucky made that I think are totally wrong. First of all, I don't agree we need to be going up there with Federal dollars bailing out cities that are having problems. Of course, that is a decision that is going to be made, I suppose, by a lot of people. Also, the Senator from Kentucky talks about sending billions of dollars overseas. I agree with my colleague from Kentucky about some of the foreign aid and I would join with him but certainly not in this case. Before I tell my colleagues why, let me clarify something. There are Members of this body and people outside this body who are conservatives believing this is some kind of a conservative program to defund the military in Egypt. Let me assure my colleagues it is not. This is coming from a person who is probably--in fact, I am certain of it. I have been ranked as the most conservative Member of this body more than any other single person. So this is coming from a conservative, not from a liberal and not from a Democrat. We have a unique situation. I wish to respond to a couple of things my friend from Kentucky said. First of all, yes, it probably fits the description of a coup. I know what the law is. The law says we can't send foreign aid after a coup. I have a bill drawn up right now that if this is determined to be a coup, it could pass the House and the Senate and be signed by the President in 1 day. So that is something that can be done. I have the best of intentions of obeying the law to the letter. As far as the situation in Egypt, Morsi is gone. Let's face that reality. There are a lot of things we don't like about this. But I will say this: If you have any feelings at all toward our good friends, our best friends in the Middle East--that is Israel--then you cannot consider this amendment. Israel has all of the interests at stake. It goes back to 1979, the Camp David accords. I remember that very well. The Camp David accords put together something between Israel and Egypt. But keep in mind, it is not Egypt. It is the military, the Egyptian military. They have been our friends. They have been Israel's friends for years and years and years--since 1979. If we turn our backs on the military now, there are others who would love to fill that vacuum. Should they have F-16s? I am glad they have F-16s. They ought to have more F-16s. Some have been purchased and not delivered yet. They should be delivered. But if it is not going to be F-16s, if we should pass an amendment like this, you are going to find yourself with a bunch of MiG-29s coming over from Russia instead of our F-16s. If this were 10 years ago, if this were 15 years ago, I might agree with my friend from Kentucky. But that was before we realized the threats we have in the Middle East. We have some friends in the Middle East. We have Israel. We have Jordan. We have Kuwait, U.A.E., Qatar, Saudi Arabia. If that coalition of friends in the Middle East breaks up, what can happen to us here in America? Our intelligence has said-- and it is unclassified since 2007--that Iran will have the capability of a weapon and a delivery system by 2015. If we do not have our friends in the Middle East to keep that from happening, we could pass an amendment like this, turn our backs on Israel, and that is exactly the thing that could happen. I know a lot of people want to talk on this who are a lot more articulate than I am. But I can say from a conservative--from this conservative--we cannot do this to our friends in Israel and our other allies in the Middle East. Mr. CORKER addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request? I understand the Senator has the floor until 4:30 p.m. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized at 4:30 p.m.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I withdraw my request. I am willing to use time perhaps tomorrow. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think we are going to have a cloture vote in the early afternoon, and I wish to share a few thoughts. The nominee, Gina McCarthy, is a fine person. I have been on the Environment and Public Works Committee since I came to the Senate in 1994. In fact, when the Republicans were in the majority, I chaired that committee, and then, as a minority, I was the ranking minority member. So I was there when Lisa Jackson was the Administrator of the EPA--someone I had a great deal of respect for. In fact, some of my Republican friends criticized me. I was the only one who really liked her because, in spite of the fact we disagreed with each other philosophically, she always answered honestly, even when it was uncomfortable for her to do so. I remember one time I asked her a question during a hearing that was live on TV, as our hearings were at that time. We were talking about one of the cap-and-trade bills that had come up. I don't know how many we have had--10 or so in the last 12 years. I asked her: If you really believe--which I don't--that CO2 is bad, it is a pollutant and all that--if we were to pass this cap-and-trade bill, which is going to cost in the range of between $300 billion to $400 billion-- with a ``b''--would that reduce worldwide emissions of CO2? She said: No, it wouldn't. The reason is very obvious. People hide from this. They are not honest, as she is. Obviously, if we just do this in the United States, where we already have emission controls on a lot of pollutants, but they don't do it in China and India, they don't do it in Mexico, then it is not going to reduce CO2. In fact, the reverse would be true. It would have the effect--if we only had limitations on CO2 in this country--of causing an increase in CO2 worldwide because our manufacturing base and others would go where the energy is and that would be to countries such as China where they don't have any controls on anything. A lot of people say: Oh, well, they are waiting for us. They are going to follow our example. That is garbage. What the Chinese want to do, they are waiting, anticipating, hoping, and praying we will start having restrictions on our emissions because they know our manufacturing base will end up going over there. Here is another thing I can remember also. One of the problems I have with the United Nations is they are trying to become independent. It just kills them every time they have to say or do something because we threaten to withhold our contributions to the United Nations. So they have been attempting for a long period of time to get themselves in a position where they are self-supporting and they do not have to be answerable to anyone or accountable to anyone. Consequently, they are the ones who started this whole global warming matter. If you follow through, going all the way from the Kyoto convention of 12 years ago and up through all these bills, all these pieces of legislation, they are the ones, if that becomes a reality, we will have to turn to. All of a sudden they will have a source of income, so they will not have to be dependent upon the United States, which pays 25 percent of their bills, or any of the other countries. One of the things the United Nations does and has been doing for 10 years or so--I guess longer than that--is they have the biggest party of the year in the most exotic places in the world they can find to have these parties, and they invite all the countries--192 countries-- to come to it. When they have these big conventions, the only price of entering is to agree with the concept of global warming and that you are going to start restricting your CO2. Obviously, these countries are not going to do it, but it is worth lying to be able to go to the party. The biggest one of those parties was held in Copenhagen in 2009. At that time, Lisa Jackson was the Administrator at the EPA. Quite frankly, I don't wish to be disrespectful, but all those who attended from the United States--and I am talking about John Kerry, the President, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and all of them--had said: Yes, the United States of America is going to pass cap and trade. We will be right there with you. That wasn't true and they knew it wasn't true. So I decided to go there. In fact, I went all the way there, stayed 3 hours, and came all the way back, as the one-man truth squad. I can recall right before I left to go to Copenhagen we had a hearing and Lisa Jackson was a witness at the hearing, and I said to her: It is my feeling, as I leave to go to Copenhagen as the one-man truth squad, to let them know we are not going to pass anything over here, and since you know we can't get this done legislatively, that you are going to have an endangerment finding in the United States and then use that as an excuse to pass with regulation what you couldn't do with legislation. She kind of smiled. I could tell that was going to happen. I said: When this happens--when I leave town and you come out with an endangerment finding--it has to be based on science. So what science will you use? She said: The IPCC. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the United Nations. They were formed by the United Nations. They were formed and stacked with scientists who were all preprogrammed to believe all this garbage, and they did. Then something happened, and it couldn't have happened at a better time because it wasn't but a few days after Lisa Jackson had said we were going to be depending upon the IPCC. Here we were, preparing to pass the largest tax increase in the history of America, and doing it through regulations, which was the same thing as cap and trade, only more expensive, and it was going to be based on science and that science was the IPCC. It wasn't but hours after that when climategate came in--and all of a sudden the things we had been saying for 10 years on the floor in talking about the scientists who had been shut out of the process at the United Nations--and they were totally discredited. They had cooked their science, cooked the numbers, and climategate was the result. It was so bad the major newspapers in London characterized it as the greatest single scientific scandal in the history of the world. Now, that is a big deal. Anyway, that went on, and then they started working on doing this through regulation since they couldn't get it done through legislation. The reason I bring that up is because during that timeframe, while Lisa Jackson was the Administrator of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, the one who is coming up for a cloture vote in maybe an hour or so, was the Assistant Administrator of the EPA in charge of air issues. What went on during that time were these huge punitive things. We can forget about the greenhouse gases or the cap and trade they are going to be coming up with, even though that is the largest of all of them, they passed Utility MACT. MACT means maximum achievable control technology. What Utility MACT does is ask the question: What technology is out there to restrict and to reduce emissions? What technology? So what they have done in Utility MACT is put a restriction on emissions--and this was impossible technologically to achieve, but the whole idea was to run coal out of business. Quite frankly, they were able to get it through. I remember at that time there was this little provision that isn't very often successfully used, but it is called the CRA--the Congressional Review Act. That provision says if an unelected bureaucracy that is not accountable to anyone comes out with regulations that are so onerous, so bad that it is going to be very costly and is something that doesn't make any sense, then we in the Senate and House can do a CRA--a Congressional Review Act. We have to get 30 cosponsors--30--and then we have to get a majority--51 in the case of the Senate--to pass it. I did a Congressional Review Act on the Utility MACT, which was to cost us $100 billion and 1.65 million jobs. These numbers, by the way, are not denied by anyone, to my knowledge. So there we were, in a position to get this through. I got my 30 cosponsors and we came within 2 votes of getting it done. So the CRA is something where it does inject something to reflect the will of the people, because we are elected by the people, and we came very close to doing it. Nonetheless, that is now a law, and there are millions of people out there--right now in excess of 1 million people--who have already lost their jobs because of that. Boiler MACT is the same thing--maximum achievable control technology--for a boiler. Every manufacturer has a boiler. So this would do the same thing to manufacturers as Utility MACT did to coal. That involved $63.3 billion and 800,000 jobs lost. The next was cement MACT. That would have been--here they are on the chart. Cement MACT is one that would cost $3.5 billion and 80,000 jobs. That is already implemented. If ozone, the next one, should come up, that would perhaps be even more serious than the top 3--second only to greenhouse gases--and that would mean 2,800 counties in the United States would be out of attainment. In my State of Oklahoma, we have 77 counties. All 77 counties would be out of attainment. I can remember when I was mayor of Tulsa, Tulsa County was out of attainment. That meant we couldn't recruit jobs, we couldn't start new industries, and we had to fire a lot of people who were working there because we were out of attainment in ozone emissions. That had been delayed until after the election. Now that the election is over, they can go ahead with some of these they hadn't done before. Hydraulic fracturing. I have talked from this podium I don't know how many times about the President's war on fossil fuels. It is critical. Here we are in a position in the United States where we can be totally independent of any country--the Middle East or anybody else--if we only will use our own resources, but we don't do that. We are in a position right now where we have, in the last 4 years, increased our production by 40 percent because of getting into the shale areas and the tight formations and using hydraulic fracturing to extract the oil and gas. But that is all on either State or on private land. On Federal land, because the Obama administration will not let us drill on Federal land, it has actually decreased by 7 percent. Is that possible, to increase all of our production by 40 percent except that part which is on Federal lands? Yes. In fact, that is exactly what has happened. When they talk about hydraulic fracturing, this is something that has been regulated by the States, and there is a reason for that, by the way. The reason is my State of Oklahoma has different formations than Alaska, for example, or now with the Marcellus, going through Pennsylvania and New York. That is different--different depths. So the regulation has been very successful. The first hydraulic fracturing job was done in my State of Oklahoma in 1949, and there has never been a case of groundwater contamination in over 1 million applications of it. Again, this gets back to Lisa Jackson. I asked her that question, when I asked: Has there ever been a confirmed case of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing? She said: No, there hasn't been. That is the kind of honesty I like in the answers we get. The only reason I bring that up is the President is trying to use hydraulic fracturing. He will stand, as he did in the joint session, and say: We have an abundance of good, clean, cheap natural gas, and that is what we need to be turning to, but we have to do something about hydraulic fracturing. We can't get to the natural gases necessary without using this technique called hydraulic fracturing. So they are trying to kill it that way. I could go on and on--this is on this chart behind me--but the only reason I bring this up is we do have a vote coming up on a very fine lady, Gina McCarthy. But we have to keep in mind when all these air regulations were conceived, they were done when she was the Assistant Administrator of the EPA for air. These are all air regulations. So she is certainly more than just partially responsible for that. She was the engineer of all these regulations. If we add up all of these regulations, the total figure we had--do we have it on the chart? It was the NAM that did a study that no one has challenged, where they say we now, just because of these air regulations--what we have done already exclusive of cap and trade--have lost $630 billion from our GDP and 9 million jobs have been lost. That is how critical this is to our economy. That is how expensive it is. All these things translate into taxes. I do a calculation every year. In my State of Oklahoma, the $300 billion to $400 billion would cost the average taxpayer in Oklahoma $3,000. Yet, by their own admission, the greenhouse gas cap-and-trading CO2 would not reduce CO2 emissions at all. I am sure a lot of people have been notified by their manufacturers and businesses back home: We can't allow the increase of cost of all these regulations, so we want you to oppose it. Two votes are going to take place today. The first is the cloture vote. It takes 60 to pass a cloture vote. The next vote, if they should be successful to have cloture, will be the vote to put her into office. That would be only 51 votes. I hate to say this about my fellow Senators, but I know there are going to be some Senators out there who say, I will fool the people back home; I will vote against her confirmation, but I will go ahead and vote for cloture, because they have to have my vote to reach 60. So they vote for cloture, and then, to make the people at home think they are against all these regulations, they will vote against her. I am predicting that is going to happen. We will know in a couple of hours. The second vote is not important. The only important vote is the cloture vote. The cloture vote would be the first one that comes at 2:30 today. So you are going to see a lot of people voting for cloture and then end up voting against her. That is what there is to look for. This will be the last time I say this; tThat is if you really want to do something about the regulations and you feel she has demonstrated she will not be helpful in this respect, the one important vote is going to be the cloture vote that takes place at 2:30 this afternoon. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as if in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, last Wednesday I came to the floor and spoke about the President's global warming speech and all that the White House is doing to help frame the debate with his talking points memo which we happened to intercept, and it is very interesting. They also had a secret meeting that took place with alarmist Senators. That is the term used over the past 12 years of those individuals who say the world is coming to an end with global warming. First, they changed the name from global warming because it was not acceptable. Then they tried climate change. The most recent is carbon pollution. One of these days they will find something that sells, but so far they haven't. The first thing they don't want to talk about is cost. We have had several global warming and cap-and-trade bills over the past 12 years. When the first bills came out and the Republicans were in the majority, I was the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and had responsibility for defeating them, and we did. In the beginning, with the Kyoto treaty 12 years ago, and when Al Gore came back from Rio de Janeiro, a lot of people believed this was taking place. Then a group out of the Wharton School did a study and said if we regulate emissions from organizations emitting 25,000 tons or more of CO2 a year, the cost would be between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. As a conservative, I get the most recent information I can from my State of Oklahoma in terms of the number of people filing Federal tax returns and I do the math. At that time, it meant it would cost each person about $3,000 a year if we had cap-and-trade. This kept going throughout the years. The most recent one was authored by now-Senator Markey, who up until yesterday was Congressman Markey. I have a great deal of respect for him, but he had the last cap-and-trade bill regulating those with emissions of 25,000 tons a year or more. The cost has never been debated much, because Charles River Associates later came out and said it would be between $300 billion and $400 billion a year and MIT said about the same. So we know that cost is there. To my knowledge, while no one has actually calculated this, keep in mind the President is trying to pass a cap-and-trade policy for Americans through regulation because he was not able to pass it through legislation. If you do it through regulation, it has to be under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act requires us to regulate any source that puts the emissions at over 250 tons. So instead of 25,000 tons being regulated, it would be 250 tons. That would mean every hospital, apartment building, school, oil and gas well, and every farm would come under this. No one knows exactly what it would cost the economy, but it would be staggering. To pull this off, the EPA alone would have to spend $21 billion and hire an additional 23,000 bureaucrats. Those are not my figures; those are their figures. So you have to stop and think, if the cap-and-trade bills cost $400 billion regulating the emitters of 25,000 tons a year or more, imagine what it would be when you drop it down to 250 tons. The second thing the President doesn't want to talk about is the fact that it is a unilateral effort. If you pass a regulation in the United States of America, it is going to only affect the United States of America. I have always had a lot of respect for Lisa Jackson. Lisa Jackson was the Administrator of the EPA under the Obama administration. While she is liberal and I am conservative, she was always honest in her answers. I asked her this question: If we pass, by either legislation or any other way, cap-and-trade in the United States, is that going to reduce worldwide CO2 emissions? Her answer was: No. Because if you do that, you are doing it just on the brightest sectors of our economy. Without China, without Mexico, without India and the rest of the world doing it, then U.S. manufacturers could have the reverse effect, because they could end up going to other countries where there are not restrictions on emissions, and so they would actually be emitting more. So there goes our jobs, overseas, seeking energy in areas where they are able to afford it. Lisa Jackson's quote exactly: ``I believe . . . that U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels.'' What the President doesn't want to talk about in his lust for overregulation in this country is, one, the fact it is going to cost a lot of money and would be the largest tax increase in the history of America, without question. The second is even if you do it, it doesn't lower emissions. A lot of people say, Why do they want to do it? And I lose a lot of people when I make this statement, but there are a lot of liberals who believe the government should control our lives more. I had this observation back when I was first elected in the House. One of the differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals have a basic philosophy that government can run our lives better than people can. Dr. Richard Lindzen with MIT, one of the most outstanding and recognized scientists in this country and considered to be maybe the greatest source in terms of scientific knowledge, said, ``Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life.'' Tomorrow the Environment and Public Works Committee is going to conduct a hearing on climate change--or whatever they call it. I think they are starting out with global warming and may call it carbon pollution. That is the new word because that is more sellable. A lot around here is done with wordsmithing. Republicans and Democrats both do it. Global warming didn't work, climate change didn't work, so now it is CO2 pollution. They are going to have a hearing, and the chairman of the committee, Barbara Boxer, is going to have people come in and talk about the world coming to an end. However, the interesting thing is that the administration is sending alarmists to talk about how bad global warming is and how we are going to die, but they are not taking the process seriously enough to send any real official. We have no government officials as witnesses. This is highly unusual. This doesn't happen very often, but that is what we are going to be having. It is important for Members to understand that greenhouse gas regulations are not the only EPA regulations that are threatening our economy. Again, it is all the regulations by government getting involved in our lives. If you look at this chart, these are the ones they are actually working on right now in either the Environment and Public Works Committee or the Environmental Protection Agency: Utility MACT. MACT means maximum achievable control technology. So where is our technology right now? How much can we control? The problem we are having is they are putting the emissions requirements at a level that is below where we have technology to make it happen. So utility MACT would cost $100 billion and 1.56 million jobs. That is in the law already. There are a lot of coal plants being shut down right now. But, you might ask, how can they do that when right now we are reliant upon coal for 50 percent of the power it takes to run this machine called America? Boiler MACT. Again, maximum achievable control technology. Every manufacturer has a boiler, so this controls all manufacturers. That is estimated to cost $63.3 billion and 800,000 jobs. The NAAQS legislation would put a lot of counties out of attainment. When I was the mayor of Tulsa County and we were out of attainment, we were not able to do a lot of the things in order to recruit industry. So this would put 2,800 counties out of attainment, including all 77 counties in my State of Oklahoma. That causes emissions to increase, and then the company would be required to find an offset. We are kind of in the weeds here, but the simple outcome would be that no new businesses would be able to come to an out-of-attainment area, and existing businesses wouldn't be allowed to expand. The President is also issuing a new tier 3 standard that applies to refineries as they manufacture gasoline. This rule would cause gasoline to rise by 9 cents a gallon. The EPA is also working tirelessly to tie groundwater contamination to the hydraulic fracturing process so they and the Federal Government can regulate this. They have tried that in Wyoming in the Pavilion case, they tried it in Pennsylvania in the Dimock case, and in Texas they tried several times. I know something about that, because hydraulic fracturing started in the State of Oklahoma in 1949. Since then, there have been more than 1 million applications for hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is a way of getting oil and gas out of tight formations. There has never been a confirmed case of groundwater contamination, but they still want to have this regulated by the Federal Government and the Department of Interior is pressing ahead with regulations which would apply to Federal lands. President Obama has had a war on fossil fuels now for longer than he has been President of the United States. If they could stop hydraulic fracturing and regulate that at the Federal level, then they can stop this boom that is going on in the country. We have had a 40-percent increase in the last 4 years in our production of oil and gas, but that is all on private and State land. We have actually had a reduction in our production on Federal lands. The EPA has been developing a guidance document for the waters of the United States which would impose the Clean Water Restoration Act on the country. They tried to introduce and pass it 2 years ago. Senator Feingold from Wisconsin and Congressman Oberstar were the authors. Not only was it defeated, but they were both defeated in their next election. That effort is something the President is again trying to do, which they were not able to do through regulations. What it means is this: We have rules saying that the Federal Government is in charge of water runoff in this country only to the extent it is navigable. That is the word written into the law. If you take the ``navigable'' out, then if you have standing water after a rain, that would be regulated by the Federal Government. That is a major problem that our farmers have--not just the Oklahoma Farm Bureau but farm bureaus throughout America. The Water Restoration Act and the cap-and-trade are the two major issues they are concerned with. A lot of what the EPA has done is done through enforcement. About a year ago, one of our staff persons discovered that a guy named Al Armendariz, who was a regional EPA administrator, talking to a bunch of people in Texas, said: We need to ``crucify'' the oil and gas industry. Just like when the Romans conquered the villages . . . in Turkish towns and they'd find the first five guys they saw and crucify them . . . . . . just to show who was in charge. This is a perspective not just of Armendariz but the entire EPA to the fossil fuel industry. By the way, Armendariz is no longer there. He is with one of the environmental groups I know, and I am sure he is a lot happier there. The EPA is also dramatically expanding the number of permits they are required to obtain under the Clean Air Act by counting multiple well sites as though they were one site, even though they may be spread out in as many as 42 square miles. All of this is so they can regulate more of what goes on at the wells and underscores how adversarial they have been to us having the fuel we need to run this country. The EPA was eventually sued and lost the case over this issue, the issue of what they are doing right now throughout America to try to force all the multiple well sites into one site as they did. They lost in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. But everyplace outside of the Sixth Circuit the EPA is still using their own regulation. This is one we have been talking to them about. The EPA is also targeting the agricultural community. We talked about what their top concerns are, but in addition to that, the EPA recently released the private sensitive data of pork producers and the concentrated animal feeding operations, that is CAFOs, to environmental groups. The environmental groups hate CAFOs and the EPA knows this, so by doing this the EPA has enabled the environmental groups to target CAFOs and put them out of business. Those are our farmers. It seems to me when people come into my office and they talk about the abuses of this overregulation, all these things, it seems the ones who keep getting hit worse and worse are the farmers. I can remember when they tried to treat propane as a hazardous waste. We had a hearing. This was some years ago. I was at that time the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I can remember when they said this only costs the average farmer in Oklahoma another $600 or $700 a year. We went through this thing and were able to defeat that. Farmers have been hit hard, but they are not alone. All these regulations have been devastating to the entire economy and they are preventing us from achieving our economic recovery. The President is engaged in all-out war on fossil fuels, and he is intent on completing this until his assault on the free enterprise system is completed. The business community knows how bad the regulations are. They have been fighting them tooth and nail since the beginning of Obama's first term. This chart shows the rules that were approved during the President's first term. This is what he did. If you look at it, take some time-- these will be printed in the Record so you need to be looking them up and realizing how serious it is. The greenhouse gas, we talked about that, the EPA, on the diesel engines. All of these regulations are costing fortunes. The second chart--those are the ones that were approved during the President's first administration. The second is more alarming because it shows several of the major rules the President began developing during his first term but delayed their finalization until after the election. They waited until after the election, knowing the American people would realize how costly this was and that could cost his campaign. He is gaming the system using his administration to advance a critical agenda but hiding the truth from the American people and he is doing it with secret talking points and doing it with the secrecy that shrouds bad rules. These are the rules that were delayed until after the election. You can get a good idea of the cost. We take down the cost of each one. It is just an incredible amount. The third chart is--that is what he is doing right now with no accountability to the electorate because he can do anything he wants to right now. Groups are on record opposing this. We have all these groups that are on record opposing this: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, NFIB, American Railroads--all the way down through all the agricultural groups and including a lot of labor unions. Historically, the labor unions go right along with the Democrats and with the liberals, but they realize this is a jobs bill and consequently we have the United Mine Workers and others who are being affected by this and are trying to do something about overregulation. All these groups have opposed the rules being put out by the EPA. Even the unions have opposed the rules because they kill all kinds of jobs, union and nonunion jobs alike. Cecil Roberts, the president of the United Mine Workers, said his organization supported my Congressional Review Act. Let me explain what that was. You may have noticed in the first chart we had the first MACT bill that was passed. That would put coal out of business. What we have in this body is a rule that nobody uses very often--it has not been used very successfully--but it says if a regulator passes something that is not in the best interests of the people, if you get past the Congressional Review Act with just 30 cosponsors in the Senate, get a simple majority, you can stop that from going into effect. I had a CRA on that Utility MACT, and Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers, said his organization supported my CRA to overturn the Utility MACT rule because the rule poses loss of jobs to United Mine Workers Association members. We also had something recently about Jimmy Hoffa that came out. These are jobs. These are important. The national unemployment rate is 7.6, but guess what. In Oklahoma we are at full employment. All throughout America, people used to think of the oil belt being west of the Mississippi. That is not true anymore. With the Marcellus chain going through--you have New York, Pennsylvania--in Pennsylvania I understand it is the second largest employer up there. If we were able to do throughout America what we do in Oklahoma, we would solve the problem we have right now. But the Obama rules are there and Obama wants to pursue more that are even worse. I mention this. We are going to have a very fine lady, Gina McCarthy, who has been the Assistant Director of EPA in charge of air regulations for about 4 years. While we get along very well, she is the one who promotes these regulations. I will not be able to support her nomination. I understand the votes are all there, and we will be having a good working relationship. But I think it is a wake-up call to the American people. They are going to have to realize the cost. The total cost of these regulations is well over $600 billion annually, which will cost us as many as 9 million jobs. The EPA is the reason our Nation has not returned to full employment. All of this is done intentionally by the Obama administration to cater to their extreme base--right now moveon.org, George Soros, Michael Moore, and that crowd from the far left environmentalists, Hollywood and their friends. This is going to have to change through a major education endeavor. We have a country to save. I know there is a lot of partisan politics going on. In this case, the least known destructive force in our country now is overregulation and all of these organizations that are going to pose it are going to have to pay for it. It is going to be paid for in American dollars and American jobs. I see my colleague from Iowa is on the floor. I yield the floor.