Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I asked for unanimous consent to be recognized following the remarks by the Senator from Tennessee. It has been called to my attention that the Senator from Virginia would like to have the floor at this time, so I renew my unanimous consent request that I be recognized at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. INHOFE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, since there is no one seeking time right now, even though I have used my time, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized again for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Let me make one comment to the Senator from Illinois. I am glad he said what he did. It is very significant. People don't look at Iran as seriously as they should. It is not even classified that Iran is going to have the capability of a weapon of mass destruction and a nuclear warhead and a delivery system by 2015. That was the very reason they were going to have a ground-based interceptor in Poland, so we can defend against something coming from that direction, since all our ground-based interceptors are on the west coast in Alaska and southern California. When we see things such as this, and the fact that they are coming out and doing things they haven't done before, that just tells me our expectations of their nuclear capability are very true and it is very serious Jobs Bill That is not what I want to talk about. In the wake of the defeat of President Obama's jobs bill, I wished to give a couple thoughts here and then talk about something we better look out for in the future. That jobs bill failed by a large margin, and we heard the President say: Pass the bill, pass the bill, pass the bill. We didn't pass the bill. I can see why the President wants to consider passing some kind of jobs bill right away, when we stop and remember what he did with the last one. The last stimulus bill was $825 billion. This package was rammed through the Congress shortly after he entered office. The Recovery Act, as it was called, had only $27 billion out of $825 billion for roads and highways. The occupier of the chair is very well aware of my concern over infrastructure in America. I remember when that bill was on the floor and Senator Boxer, from California, and I had an amendment to increase that amount. It was only 3 percent of the total of $825 billion that would go to roads, highways, maintenance, bridges, and this type of thing--only 3 percent. We were trying to raise that to 30 percent. If that had happened, then look where we would be today. We would have the jobs, we would have all the shovel-ready jobs throughout America. In my State of Oklahoma, our portion of that would have been well spent just distributed in the way that we had the formula after the 2005 highway reauthorization bill. Anyway, that actually was only 3 percent. It was only $27 billion out of $825 billion. The one we just defeated was a $447 billion stimulus bill. It only had $27 billion in roads, highways, construction, maintenance--the things that provide jobs and the things this country needs. I have been ranked as the most conservative Member of the Senate seven different times in the past. Yet I readily say I am a big spender in two areas: One is national defense and the other is infrastructure. I think that is what we are supposed to be doing here. We are in a desperate situation with our infrastructure around the country. So one might say, well, the President had the $825 billion stimulus package and only $27.5 billion went to roads and highways. What happened to the rest of it? Well, the rest of it, in spite of what he said--I am going to read what he said--right after the passage of the bill, when he was signing the bill, the $825 billion stimulus bill, he said: What I'm signing, then, is a balanced plan with a mix of tax cuts and investments. It's a plan that has been put together without earmarks or the usual pork barrel spending. It's a plan that will be implemented with an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability. Well, stop and remember as I tell my colleagues what this actually went for. It is clear the most recent example was this loan guarantee with Solyndra. Everyone here is aware of what happened with Solyndra. We know it was a firm that was producing supposedly green energy. We know the people who were behind this loan guarantee of $535 million were big contributors to the administration, and they went ahead and were able to get bailed out--not bailed out, but get their loan guarantee--costing the taxpayers $\1/2\ billion, and that is part of what was in this bill. That is where the money was. The genesis of that was the $825 billion stimulus bill. I am reminiscing a little bit about what happened back in the middle 1990s, back when Bill Clinton was President of the United States, when we had a very similar thing happen at that time. There is a company called the Loral Corporation. The Loral Corporation is headed up by Bernard Schwartz. Bernard Schwartz was one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic national party and to Bill Clinton. Bernard Schwartz, the company, the Loral Corporation, built a guidance system for a missile so that missile could be more accurate. Even though China wanted to have that system so they would be able to guide their missiles more accurately, for obvious reasons we didn't want them to have it. So it took a waiver signed by the President of the United States. President Bill Clinton did it. He signed the waiver and they got the money. I see similarities in here. I think, again, everyone is familiar with that. How did they get the money? Where did it come from? The $825 billion in the stimulus bill. Let's look. Since the President gave that statement, which I will read again--he said: What I'm signing, then, is a balanced plan with a mix of tax cuts and investments. It's a plan that has been put together without earmarks or the usual pork barrel spending. What do we call the Solyndra thing? It is porkbarrel spending. What about the earmarks? This is a confusing thing for most people because my well-meaning conservative friends in the House of Representatives a couple of years ago put a 1-year moratorium on earmarks, and earmarks would be defined, of course, as appropriations or authorizations. By doing that, it totally contradicts what the Constitution, article I, section 9, says we are supposed to be doing here. It says we are supposed to be doing the appropriations and the authorizations. That is specifically precluded from the President in the article of the Constitution. So it is one that was very obvious. We find out later that the person who was behind that was none other than President Obama. There is a reason for this. Because most people don't understand there are two different kinds of earmarks. One is congressional earmarks. That is when a Congressman, a lot of times in the dark of night, will try to put something down that maybe is not in the best interests of the United States but helps his district. That occasionally happens. It shouldn't happen. Under our system, it won't happen if we require all appropriations to be authorized. But the other kind, in addition to the congressional earmarks, are bureaucratic earmarks. That is what the President can do. I will give an example. I am on the Armed Services Committee. The President's budget comes out. He says what we should spend money on to defend America. A couple of years ago, before this moratorium the Republicans put on in the House, one of the lines he had in his budget was $330 million for a launch system called a bucket of rockets. It was a good system, and I would like to have that system for defending America. But we thought in our committee that the same $330 million would be better spent on buying six new FA-18E/F model strike fighters for our Air Force. Well, we could do that, except that would be called an earmark. When we destroy an earmark, we don't save any money, we just say, Mr. President, we are not going to do it, so you go ahead and you do it. Consequently, we were able to take the $330 million and put it in the FA-18s, but after that would pass, that would be called an earmark, and so the President would have all the power. If we look back at the $825 billion stimulus bill, we can look at some of the things that were in there. He said he wasn't going to have any earmarks. These are Presidential earmarks: $219,000 to study the hookup behavior of female college co-eds in New York; $1.1 million to pay for the beautification of Los Angeles' Sunset Boulevard; $10,000 to study whether mice become disoriented when they consume alcohol in Florida; $712,000 to develop machine-generated humor in Illinois; $259,000 for foreign bus wheel polishers in California. It goes on and on. There is $150,000 for a Massachusetts middle school to build a solar array system on its roof; $1 million to do research on fossils in Argentina. Here is a good one. I will not attribute this to my two good friends who are Senators from Wyoming, but $1.2 million to build an underpass for deer in Wyoming. That is what the President put in. Those are all earmarks. Consequently, I think what we are trying to get to here is if he had been successful in the $447 billion stimulus bill earlier this week, then we could anticipate the same type of thing happening. I want the conservatives of America to wake up to the fact that the problems we have, when they talk about earmarks, are not congressional earmarks, they are bureaucratic earmarks. It wasn't long ago that Sean Hannity on his show had a feature, I think it took him several nights to do it. It was the 102 most egregious earmarks. He named all of these earmarks, one after another, and went on and on and on. I came down to the Senate floor the morning after that and I read that same list. There were 102 earmarks, very similar to what I read. The interesting thing about it--and I said this on the Senate floor at that time--what did these 102 earmarks have in common? Not one was a congressional earmark. They were all bureaucratic earmarks. We are going to be attempting to do something about this, because it is something that almost everyone would agree needs to be done. What we are going to introduce and the bill I am working on now, and I am gathering some cosponsors, is legislation that will bring real transparency and accountability to this process. It would do this by involving Congress in the grant-making process. Right now, agencies are required to disclose a lot of information about grant awards, but not until after they are already awarded. We don't know about them. Even we here in this Chamber don't know about them until some unelected bureaucrat actually makes these what I would refer to as bureaucratic earmarks. So it is setting up a system very similar to the Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act lets us look at the regulations and have a process by which we can stop the bureaucrats from passing regulations that we may think as elected Members, elected by the people, are not good. This will do essentially the same thing the CRA does for regulations, it would do for these earmarks. So it is something we will be active in. I think back now, if we had not defeated that $447 billion stimulus bill the first part of this week, we would be looking at right now, and I am sure they would be putting together, their list of earmarks. I think we have an opportunity now to do two things. No. 1, when the President--and I say when, and not if--when the President comes up with another jobs bill, let's look at it very carefully to make sure we have everything specifically in there if it is going to be deserving of our votes. I say that to each individual, Democrat and Republican, in this Chamber. The second thing is make sure we don't open the door for him to be able to come up with another several hundred billion dollars of earmarks as we did in the $825 billion stimulus bill 2 years ago. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 20 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I heard a report today from Senator Murkowski. Apparently, the Energy Committee had a hearing on the 90-day shale gas report. I think this is very significant. I am sure she will come down and talk about it in detail. I didn't even know about it until noon today when she gave her report and I happened to be there, but it is something that is very significant. In this country we talk about energy and the fact that we have enough energy we can produce domestically in the United States of America to run this country for 100 years in terms of gas, with present consumption, and 50 years as far as oil is concerned, and we are dependent upon oil, gas, and coal to run this country, and those are something--a lot of people are saying we have to do away with fossil fuels. Every time I hear people say that, it is kind of laughable, when they say we have to do something about our dependence on foreign oil by doing away with our own production in this country. Our problem is not that we do not have the amount of coal, oil, and gas that we need to be totally independent from anybody. We do. But, politically, we have obstacles. There is not one other country in the world where the politicians will not let that country develop its own resources except for the United States of America. It is kind of interesting. It was not too long ago when President Obama, who is very much in line with some of the far-left environmentalists who want to do away with fossil fuels, was realizing people were catching on, and people knew that with all the shale deposits that are out there--and every week that goes by, we find another great big opportunity for shale; this is both oil and gas--and the President said gas is plentiful, and we need to use more gas, and all that. But at the end of his speech, he said: We have to do something about that procedure called hydraulic fracturing. Anyone who understands energy knows that to get at all of these deposits--these shale deposits of gas or oil--you have to use a procedure called hydraulic fracturing. It happens we know something about it in my State of Oklahoma because in 1948 the first well was cracked, and we have not had one documented case in 60 years of ground water contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing. So it is something that does work. But those individuals who want to make people think they are wanting us to develop our own resources then turn around and say we are going to stop or have the Federal Government regulate hydraulic fracturing. It is totally inconsistent, and I think it is a direct effort to misinform the people. So in this meeting today, Senator Murkowski did a handout, and I am going to read a couple of the quotes from some of the people who had previously testified before the committee. Keep in mind, this is after a 90-day shale gas report. They talked about hydraulic fracturing and all of that. One quote is from Dr. Daniel Yergin, who is chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, and he is a bestselling author. He said: There's a gap in perception--this idea that oil and gas is not regulated. We were all impressed by the quality and the focus, the long experience of the states in regulating oil and gas. . . . There's a strong backbone to it and that is not as well recognized in some circles. So I think there is a very strong fabric here. Here is a quote. This is from Kathleen McGinty. I remember her from when she was an aide to Al Gore. She was chair of the Council on Environmental Quality during the Clinton administration. She said: We didn't come up with any conclusion-- This is the 90-day shale report-- that the deck chairs need to be shuffled around. . . . There was nothing in the testimony that we heard or in the substance that we focused on or in the ``what'' needed to be done that led to a glaring conclusion that there was an actor missing from the scene. Well, this is someone who comes from, completely, the other side. So I think it is very important. The more times you look at this thing, the more there is an awareness of the people--that is heightened almost on a daily basis--that we have all this opportunity, and we are not doing it just because of the political obstacles. Dr. Stephen Holditch is the petroleum engineering department head, Samuel Roberts Noble chair, and professor of petroleum engineering at Texas A&M University. He said: Local control, local understanding of best practices is really the best way to go. . . . There's nothing broken with the system now. My State of Oklahoma is an oil State. A lot of our stuff is pretty shallow. On the other hand, in the Anadarko Basin, we have some of the more deep things. But if you look, for 60 years the States have regulated hydraulic fracturing, and it has worked very well. It is not one of these one-size-fits-all because in some States--when you get in New York and Pennsylvania, now, and the Marcellus Shale, the stuff is pretty deep, but it is abundant. Well, the regulation there would be different than it would be in my State of Oklahoma or in Louisiana or in New Mexico or any of the other oil States. I was really glad to see this come out, and I am glad Senator Murkowski is now letting people become aware of it because we have enough oil, gas, and coal to be totally independent, if we can just get the obstacles out of the way. One of the techniques used in being able to recover this, of course, is hydraulic fracturing. So that is why a lot of the people who are trying to shut down fossil fuels are trying to shut down that process. I had an experience--I wish I could remember the name of the company, but it was in Broken Arrow, OK--during the recess, where I was calling on different people, and there was a young man who started a company. He had been with a larger one. He is making platforms for hydraulic fracturing. Now, a platform is about one-fourth of the size of this Chamber I am speaking in right now. It is a very large thing. On the platform, so they can hydraulically fracture these wells, they have a very large diesel engine. A regulation came through--I was not even aware of this until I sat down with him; this is less than 1 month ago--he said the regulation was that you can no longer build platforms and use them for hydraulic fracturing unless you have a tier 4 engine. Well, we went to check, and he was right. There is no tier 4 engine. It is on the drawing boards, but it is not available commercially now. So that is just another way through regulation they are trying to do away with hydraulic fracturing. So we have to be on our toes, and we have to have a wake-up call for the American people. If we want to have good, clean, abundant, cheap energy, we have it right here in the United States of America, and we need to knock down the political obstacles and develop our own resources like everybody else does. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks by the senior Senator from Ohio I be recognized.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of my remarks that Senator Harkin be recognized.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, recently both the majority leader and the minority leader came down to the floor to talk about the President's jobs bill. There was an effort to bring up this bill by the minority leader, and it was objected to by the majority leader. And I understand that, but all we have heard from the President from the very first time he introduced this was ``pass the bill, pass the bill, pass the bill.'' I know there is some reason he keeps using that phrase over and over. It has probably been tested and is one that I think he believes will move a lot of people. Frankly, I don't think it will because too many people remember what happened the last time he had a stimulus bill. That is something which has not been really discussed on the floor in consideration of what he refers to as the jobs bill. So I can see why he keeps talking about passing the bill, because he doesn't really want to talk about it. His new proposal reminds me so much of that $825 billion stimulus package he rammed through Congress shortly after entering office. It is almost the same thing. The Recovery Act is the $825 billion act. It included only $27.5 billion in highway spending, which was the stimulus portion of that bill. We are talking about 3 percent of the $825 billion. I am particularly sensitive to this since I have in the past been the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I am now the ranking member. We have a Transportation reauthorization bill we are trying to get up and get up on a bipartisan basis. Back during the consideration of the Recovery Act, the $825 billion, I tried to pass an amendment on this floor to increase that to about 30 percent instead of 3 percent of the bill. If that had happened, we would not be in the situation we are today. We would have a lot of jobs out there that would be under construction and good things would be happening. In the case of this $447 billion bill, which is kind of the Recovery Act lite, there is only $27 billion in highway spending, and it is not conceivable that he didn't learn his lesson from the first go-around that that is the main reason people are upset with it right now. That is the reason he keeps saying: Pass the bill, pass the bill. The proposal includes a few different things, but much of it will be sent to the President to spend however he wants. Now, you may be wondering, will Congress tell the President where to spend the money? To a very limited extent, that is right. When Congress does not tell the President exactly what he is to do with each dime he gets, the President gets to decide what to fund. This administration has a history of making incredibly poor spending decisions with the money appropriated to it. The biggest example I can think of is the $825 billion stimulus package. When the President signed this bill in February of 2009, he said--and I want you to hold this thought--he said: What I'm signing, then, is a balanced plan with a mix of tax cuts and investments. It's a plan that's been put together without earmarks or the usual pork barrel spending. It's a plan that will be implemented with an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability. That is what he said. That is a direct quote. For those of you who are watching, I have news for you: Despite the President's remarks, the spending was not balanced, and it had a tremendous amount of porkbarrel earmark spending even though there were no congressional earmarks. This is a distinction not many people make. I tried to get this point across back when the Republicans very foolishly talked about having a moratorium on earmarks. I said: Those are congressional earmarks. That is not where the problem is. The problem is in bureaucratic earmarks. The clearest and most recent example of a huge earmark is the loan guarantee that was given to Solyndra. We have been reading about this and hearing about it recently. It is now a bankrupt solar panel manufacturing company. We have heard about that. Solyndra was a politically connected firm from California that was able to lobby the White House to obtain a loan guarantee of $535 million to fund its green jobs pipedream. This happened despite the fact that some in the administration were warning the White House to give them more time to evaluate the company's finances. It seems they were concerned about the company's long-term viability. But these warnings were ignored by the White House. They wanted to fund the project anyway. Why? I think it was for two reasons: First, the White House has a fascination with green energy; second, political gamesmanship. Some of Solyndra's biggest investors are big fundraisers and have been big fundraisers for President Obama. We now know they made repeated visits to the White House. That is not just a coincidence. Another question is this: How did the White House have the authority to give the loan guarantee to Solyndra in the first place? The short answer is Obama's stimulus package. That was the $825 billion stimulus package. It significantly expanded the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program, and with this expansion the White House was able to select Solyndra for a loan guarantee. While the stimulus package did not include any porkbarrel spending in the way that most people think about it--congressional earmarks--this provides clarity to the fact that when Congress does not explicitly state where taxpayer funds should go, the money is handed over to the administration to spend however they want. They get to earmark every last dime. In the case of Solyndra, the President handed it over to his political buddies who were in favor of the green energy projects. If that isn't a porkbarrel project, I don't know what is. Now the damage has been done, and the taxpayers are going to be on the hook for as much as $535 million in losses. Sadly, Solyndra is just one of many examples of porkbarrel spending in the stimulus bill. We are talking about the first stimulus bill, the $825 billion bill. Not too long ago, Sean Hannity had on his program--I think it took him two programs to get it through--the 102 most egregious earmarks that are recorded. It is really kind of interesting. In fact, I have the whole list here, and I am going to ask that it be made a part of the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. INHOFE. I would love to be able to name all of these. These are just ridiculous. There is $219,000 to study the hookup behavior of female college co-eds in New York; $1.1 million to pay for the beautification of Los Angeles, Sunset Boulevard; $10,000 to study whether mice become disoriented when they consume alcohol in Florida. It goes on and on. Again, there are 102 of these. These are the most egregious. What is interesting is that the day after Sean Hannity exposed these earmarks--102 of them--I came to the floor and I read all 102 of them. I said: What do these 102 earmarks have in common? The answer: Not one is a congressional earmark. They are all bureaucratic earmarks. They all came from the $825 billion. Remember I said a minute ago that he said there will be no earmarks in this package? It is the same thing he is saying about this second go-around for the jobs bill he is talking about today. The administration took $825 billion that Congress gave it and chose to spend it on stupid things such as the ones I just listed, but there are 102 of them. I hope he will take the time, since it will be in the Record, to read all 102 of them. What does this have to do with the jobs bill? To me, the jobs bill is simply the President coming back to Congress to ask for more money to spend however he wants on porkbarrel projects such as these. No one has talked about this on the floor. They have talked about the problems they have with this spending bill and why it is really not a jobs bill, but no one is talking about the fact that this is exactly what he did before. I don't know why we are not talking about this and featuring this because if he said before that there were going to be no earmarks and then he had 102 egregious earmarks, why would he not do the same thing now? The answer is, he would do it. He would like to hand this out to his cronies in ways that would best benefit him. You may remember the President's State of the Union Address from earlier this year. In it, he promised, and I quote, ``If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.'' Well, you have a promise from the President that unless Congress gives him all of the authority to determine how money is spent through the bureaucratic earmark process, he will veto the bill. In other words, he will veto a bill unless he has total authority on how to spend it, and he can spend it on his own earmarks in spite of the fact that he said there will be no earmarks. So for any jobs bill to be considered, Congress is going to have to let the President decide how all the money is being spent. It is a hard concept to get ahold of. ``Earmarks'' has become a dirty word, and people assume that when you say ``earmarks,'' you are talking about congressional earmarks. That is not the problem. I have legislation I am going to be talking about that will correct this and better inform the public as to what is really going on. So we are finding ourselves in the same situation again. What is worse is the fact that the problem of bureaucratic earmarks is not limited to special stimulus packages. It is a normal course of business. On any given day, the administration is making thousands of decisions on how to spend money it has appropriated. Congress first passes laws authorizing the executive branch to do certain things, and then we appropriate the money and go and do it. But unless Congress gives specific instructions as to where to spend the money--a process many people decry as congressional earmarks--the administration gets to decide where to spend the money. In other words, the bureaucracy does the earmark or President Obama does it. I serve on the Armed Services Committee. We are staffed with experts in defending America. We have experts in missile defense, experts in lift capability, all of that. The way it has always happened before is the President--whether it was President Bush or Clinton or any other President--designs a budget, and that budget, the parameters, goes to Congress. Then we in the authorization committees decide if we agree with the President and how he wants to defend America. A good example of that is that right before the prohibition on earmarks came in, the President sent his budget down--I think that was his first budget--and in that budget was $330 million for a launching system. It was called a Bucket of Rockets. It was a good system. It was something I would like to have for defending America. But when we analyzed it, we looked and we thought, with what is happening right now, our greatest need is to expand our F-18 program and buy six new F- 18s. So we took the $330 million he would have spent on the rocket- launching system and spent it on six new F-18s, and it was a wise thing to do. You can't do that now because the President has to make all of the decisions because that would be called a congressional earmark. Earmarks don't increase spending at all. All they do is say: All right, Mr. President, you go ahead and spend it the way you want to. A recent example of this comes from the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior. While I could talk for hours about whether the management of Federal lands is appropriate for government to do, that is not what I want to bring your attention to. That is another discussion for another time. What I am concerned about is how carefully the Bureau of Land Management works to keep its actions aligned with the authorization and power it has been given by Congress. We write laws for a reason. We say the bureaucracy can do certain things and not do certain things. When we do that, we are limiting the bureaucracy and the bureaucracy's authority. We are not saying they can interpret the law in any way they choose, but generally that doesn't stop them from trying. One thing the Bureau of Land Management is authorized to do by a statute is to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements to manage, protect, develop, and sell public lands. In managing public lands, title 43 authorizes the BLM to, among others things, preserve the land's historic value. A few days ago, as I was searching through the government's grants database--by the way, this database is something we put in when Republicans were a majority in our committee. The Environment and Public Works Committee has a database which will show people, if they care to wander through, just what the bureaucracy is spending money on. I was looking through the grants database, and I came across one that shocked me. On September 9 of this year, just a few days ago, the BLM announced its intent to award a grant of $214,000 to the Public Land Foundation to fund a research project to describe in detail why the Homestead Act of 1862 had a significant impact on the history of America. When I asked them to justify that, they started talking about how important history is. Today, my question is this: What part of this grant has anything to do with today's actual public lands? This is not a grant to dust off the historic landmarks at national parks. This is a research project to study history, which may be a noble task, but nonetheless that is what it is for. What the American people need to understand is that this sort of thing happens all the time. The bureaucracy is completely numb to the fact that we have a $1.5 trillion deficit just in this year alone, and while this should inform the way it spends money and help to prioritize accordingly, it doesn't. The bureaucracy takes the money given to it by Congress and spends it on porkbarrel projects that are important to the President. Right now, there is no way around this. There is no accountability or transparency built into it in any way. The bureaucracy earmarks its funds. I believe this needs to be changed, and I am currently drafting legislation that will change the way the bureaucracy makes funding decisions. My legislation will bring true transparency and accountability to the process, and it will require the administration to state explicitly which laws authorize its grant awards. It will also provide a way for Congress to weigh in and challenge the administration's thinking. This is not just for the current administration; it is for any administration. With trillions of dollars in deficits, we cannot afford to give the President another $447 billion to spend on whatever he wants because that is what it would be. We need to reduce spending, but we also need to ensure that the spending we are doing is justified by the laws Congress passes. Because of this, we need to bring more light and accountability to the bureaucratic earmarking process. Further, I warn my colleagues to not be fooled into the idea that whenever we pass money off to the administration, it is in safe hands. The opposite is true, and I urge my colleagues to oppose more blank check stimulus spending because of it. Again, after President Obama stated on February 17, 2009, there will be no earmarks in his $825 billion stimulus bill, it contained more than 100 very egregious, offensive earmarks. I could--again, I am not going to read off the list, but it will be a part of the Record following these remarks I am making now. He will do it again. If we pass another $450 billion stimulus bill, we can be sure it will be full of earmarks as bad as the ones he put in the initial stimulus bill. This is our second blank check for the President. He fooled us once. Do not let it happen again. With that, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Bureaucratic Earmarks in the Stimulus Bill 102. Protecting a Michigan insect collection from other insects ($187,632) 101. Highway beautified by fish art in Washington ($10,000) 100. University studying hookup behavior of female college coeds in New York ($219,000) 99. Police department getting 92 blackberries for supervisors in Rhode Island ($95,000) 98. Upgrades to seldom-used river cruise boat in Oklahoma ($1.8 million) 97. Precast concrete toilet buildings for Mark Twain National Forest in Montana ($462,000) 96. University studying whether mice become disoriented when they consume alcohol in Florida ($8,408) 95. Foreign bus wheel polishers for California ($259,000) 94. Recovering crab pots lost at sea in Oregon ($700,000) 93. Developing a program to develop ``machine-generated humor'' in Illinois ($712,883) 92. Colorado museum where stimulus was signed (and already has $90 million in the bank) gets geothermal stimulus grant ($2.6 million) 91. Grant to the Maine Indian Basketmakers Alliance to support the traditional arts apprenticeship program, gathering and festival ($30,000) 90. Studying methamphetamines and the female rat sex drive in Maryland ($30,000) 89. Studying mating decisions of cactus bugs in Florida ($325,394) 88. Studying why deleting a gene can create sex reversal in people, but not in mice in Minnesota ($190,000) 87. College hires director for project on genetic control of sensory hair cell membrane channels in zebra fish in California ($327,337) 86. New jumbo recycling bins with microchips embedded inside to track participation in Ohio ($500,000) 85. Oregon Federal Building's ``green'' renovation at nearly the price of a brand new building ($133 million) 84. Massachusetts middle school getting money to build a solar array on its roof ($150,000) 83. Road widening that could have been millions of dollars cheaper if Louisiana hadn't opted to replace a bridge that may not have needed replacing ($60 million) 82. Cleanup effort of a Washington nuclear waste site that already got $12 billion from the Department of Energy ($1.9 billion) 81. Six woodlands water taxis getting a new home in Texas ($750,000) 80. Maryland group gets money to develop ``real life'' stories that underscore job and infrastructure-related research findings ($363,760) 79. Studying social networks, such as Facebook, in North Carolina ($498,000) 78. Eighteen (18) North Carolina teacher coaches to heighten math and reading performance ($4.4 million) 77. Retrofitting light switches with motion sensors for one company in Arizona ($800,000) 76. Removing graffiti along 100 miles of flood-control ditches in California ($837,000) 75. Bicycle lanes, shared lane signs and bike racks in Pennsylvania ($105,000) 74. Privately-owned steakhouse rehabilitating its restaurant space in Missouri ($75,000) 73. National dinner cruise boat company in Illinois outfitting vessels with surveillance systems to protect against terrorists ($1 million) 72. Producing and transporting peanuts and peanut butter in North Carolina ($900,000) 71. Refurnishing and delivering picnic tables in Iowa ($30,000) 70. Digital television converter box coupon program in D.C. ($650,000) 69. Elevating and relocating 3,000' of track for the Napa Valley Wine Train in California ($54 million) 68. Hosting events for Earth Day, the summer solstice, in Minnesota ($50,000) 67. Expanding ocean aquaculture in Hawaii ($99,960) 66. Raising railroad tracks 18 inches in Oregon because the residents of one small town were tired of taking a detour around them ($4.2 million) 65. Professors and employees of Iowa state universities voluntarily taking retirement ($43 million) 64. Minnesota theatre named after Che Guevara putting on ``socially conscious'' puppet shows ($25,000) 63. Replacing a basketball court lighting system with a more energy efficient one in Arizona ($20,000) 62. Repainting and adding a security camera to one bridge in Oregon ($3.5 million) 61. Missouri bridge project that already was full-funded with state money ($8 million) 60. New hospital parking garage in New York that will employ less people ($19.5 million) 59. University in North Carolina studying why adults with ADHD smoke more ($400,000) 58. Low-income housing residents in one Minnesota city receiving free laptops, WiFi and iPod Touches to ``educate'' them in technology ($5 million) 57. University in California sending students to Africa to study why Africans vote the way they do in their elections ($200,000) 56. Researching the impact of air pollution combined with a high-fat diet on obesity development in Ohio ($225,000) 55. Studying how make and female birds care for their offspring and how it compares to how humans care for their children in Oklahoma ($90,000) 54. University in Pennsylvania researching fossils in Argentina (over $1 million) 53. University in Tennessee studying how black holes form (over $1 million) 52. University in Oklahoma sending 3 researchers to Alaska to study grandparents and how they pass on knowledge to younger generations ($1.5 million) 51. Grant application from a Pennsylvania university for a researcher named in the Climate-gate scandal (Rep. Darrell Issa is calling on the president to freeze the grant) ($500,000) 50. Studying the impact of global warming on wild flowers in a Colorado ghost town ($500,000) 49. Bridge build over railroad crossing so 168 Nebraska town residents don't have to wait for the trains to pass ($7 million) 48. Renovating an old hotel into a visitors center in Kentucky ($300,000) 47. Removing overgrown weeds in a Rhode Island park ($250,000) 46. Renovating 5 seldom-used ports of entry on the U.S.- Canada border in Montana ($77 million) 45. Testing how to control private home appliances in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts from an off-site computer ($800,000) 44. Repainting a rarely-used bridge in North Carolina ($3.1 million) 43. Renovating a desolate Wisconsin bridge that averages 10 cars a day ($426,000) 42. Four new buses for New Hampshire ($2 million) 41. Re-paving a 1-mile stretch of Atlanta road that had parts of it already re-paved in 2007 ($490,000) 40. Florida beauty school tuition ($2.3 million) 39. Extending a bike path to the Minnesota Twins stadium ($500,000) 38. Beautification of Los Angeles' Sunset Boulevard ($1.1 million) 37. Colorado Dragon Boat Festival ($10,000) 36. Developing the next generation of supersonic corporate jets in Maryland that could cost $80 million each ($4.7 million) 35. New spring training facilities for the Arizona Diamondbacks and Colorado Rockies ($30 million) 34. Demolishing 35 old laboratories in New Mexico ($212 million) 33. Putting free WiFi, Internet kiosks and interactive history lessons in 2 Texas rest stops ($13.8 million) 32. Replacing a single boat motor in a government boat in

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I wanted to come to the floor today because 2 days ago I got the results of an inspector general's report that I requested 18 months ago having to do with the endangerment finding of the EPA. While it is a little bit complicated, I will go back and put this in perspective. Back in the 1990s, we were asked by the then-Clinton administration to ratify a treaty called the Kyoto treaty. This was a treaty that was aimed at the reduction of greenhouse gases--anthropogenic gases and this type of thing. Well, it didn't pass. It went down 95 to 0 because of two reasons: We all declared in this body we weren't going to ratify any treaty that, No. 1, was damaging economically to the country; and, No. 2, we would treat developing countries differently than developed nations. Of course this missed on both those criteria. After that happened, it became popular by some of the more radical environmentalist groups who enjoy the overregulation we have so much of in this country to seek the introduction of different bills. We had the McCain-Lieberman bill of 2003 and again in 2005. We had the Warner- Lieberman bill and several others--the Sanders-Boxer bill--and then, I guess, the last one was a House bill called the Waxman-Markey bill. Anyway, these bills were all aimed at what we can do in this country in order to restrict our use of CO2. Obviously--and there is no disagreement on this--if we in the United States unilaterally reduce our CO2, it will not affect the CO2 emissions worldwide because this isn't where the problem lies. Even when I asked Lisa Jackson, the Obama-appointed Administrator at the EPA, for whom I have a great deal of respect, if we were to pass any of these bills I just mentioned--that would have the effect of the Kyoto treaty but only on the United States in reducing anthropogenic gases--would this have the effect of reducing CO2 emissions, she said, no, because, as I pointed out, this would only affect the United States. I would take the argument one step further and say it would have the effect of increasing, not decreasing, emissions because, as our manufacturing base has to find power to generate itself, they have to go where that is. Anyway, I only wanted to bring that up because that effort is still going on today. With all these bills that have been before us--and at the time of most of them the Republicans were in the majority and I was the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee which had jurisdiction over this subject--I was the one who stood on the floor of the Senate to defeat these bills, and it became easier as each bill came along because people recognized that while the science is in question, the economics are not. It had been determined by a number of sources--including a branch of the Wharton School of Economics, MIT, and CRA, or Charles River Associates--that the range of the cost of a cap-and-trade bill is always in the range of between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. It is confusing when we talk about these large numbers. Peoples' eyes glaze over. They do not understand, and even I have a hard time understanding how this affects me and my 20 kids and grandkids out in Oklahoma. So I have a system--and I recommend it to my friends in the Senate--that I take the number of family income tax returns that are filed each year--get a current figure--and then I do my math. So this range between $300 billion and $400 billion, when we reduce it down to what it would cost each family, is in excess of $3,000 a year. Even if we were to pass something like this, it still wouldn't reduce the emissions, and that is what we need to get over. Anyway, when President Obama saw this, he saw there was no way in the world the Senate or the House would pass a cap-and-trade bill. So he decided to do it just by regulation, and we have been talking about overregulation in the Senate. Sometimes we are inclined to think the antibusiness attitude of this administration is just in overtaxation and this type of thing. That is not true. Overregulation is also a killer. In this case, we are talking about the overregulation of something we cannot sustain. So in order for the President to be able to do through regulation what he could not do through legislation, he had to have what they call an endangerment finding; that is, the Environmental Protection Agency had to come up with a conclusion that CO2 is dangerous to our health. It is called an endangerment finding. I was getting ready to go over to a meeting in Copenhagen they have every year. These people who are promoting these programs have these meetings, and I was getting ready to go over there, and we had Administrator Jackson before our committee. I remember looking at her and saying: I am leaving for Copenhagen tomorrow. Shall I assume you are going to have an endangerment finding as soon as I leave town? She didn't answer, but she smiled. She smiles a lot. Anyway, that is what happened when I left. An endangerment finding has to be based on science, and that is where this inspector general's report came in. Again, this is new stuff, just 2 days ago. I had requested 18 months ago that they look into the endangerment finding to see if this, in fact, is based on science. Of course, they came out with this report, which was just released. It confirms the endangerment finding, which was the very foundation of President Obama's job- destroying regulatory agenda, was rushed--and I am using their words, ``rushed, biased and flawed.'' It calls the scientific integrity of the EPA's decisionmaking process into question and undermines the credibility of the endangerment finding. Keep in mind, we have to have an endangerment finding before we can start regulating all this stuff. Well, the inspector general's investigation uncovered the EPA's failure to engage in the required recordkeeping process leading up to the endangerment finding. That is a requirement by law. So they did not comply with the law at that time. It also did not follow its own peer review procedures. Peer review is something that is required, and they didn't do it. Administrator Jackson readily admitted way back in 2009 that the EPA had outsourced its scientific review to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Now, this is interesting because they are going back to say: All right, you guys. You do the peer review on the very thing you have developed. Well, it doesn't work that way, and I think at that time we were complaining about that. So the EPA still refused to conduct its own independent review of the science, as the EPA inspector general found. Whatever one thinks of the U.N. science, the EPA is still required by its own procedures, by law, to conduct an independent review. Of course, I have long warned about the IPCC process and what they have been doing in the past. In fact, it was 6 years ago that I sent a letter to Dr. Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, specifically raising the many weaknesses of the IPCC's peer review process. But Dr. Pachauri dismissed my concerns, and here is what Reuters said in their article on how Dr. Pachauri responded to my request. I am quoting now from Reuters: In the one-page letter, [Pachauri] denies the IPCC has an alarmist bias and says ``I have a deep commitment to the integrity and objectivity of the IPCC process.'' Pachauri's main argument is that the IPCC comprises both scientists and more than 130 governments who approve IPCC reports line by line. Now, that is what he said, as reported. As I predicted, it all came apart for the IPCC. On the Senate floor last year I highlighted several media reports uncovering serious errors and possible fraud by the IPCC. This is the United Nations we are talking about. They are the ones that started all this. ABC News, the Economist, Time magazine, and the Times of London-- among many others--reported that the IPCC's research contains embarrassing flaws--using their language--and the IPCC chairman and scientists knew of the flaws but published them anyway. Media reports uncovered a number of non-peer-reviewed studies that the IPCC used to make baseless claims, including that global warming would--and listen to this; this is the IPCC stuff that has totally been rebuked--melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. Didn't happen. It had 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest endangered by global warming. It didn't happen. Melt mountain ice in the Alps, Andes, and Africa. It didn't happen. Slash crop production by 50 percent in North Africa by 2020. It is something that is not even going on. These embarrassments led to a number of these same publications to demand that the IPCC come clean on the review process of the IPCC. I am going to read this to let everyone know how serious this is. The Financial Times, talking about the IPCC: Now it is time to implement fundamental reforms that would reduce the risk of bias and errors appearing in future IPCC assessments, increase transparency and open up the whole field of climate research to the widest possible range of scientific views. Time Magazine has always kind of been on the other side of this issue. We might remember, Time Magazine had on their cover this last polar bear standing on the last cube of ice and we are all going to die. Time Magazine, when they talked about the glaciers all melting, said: Glaciergate is a black eye for the IPCC and for the climate science community as a whole. The Economist: This mixture of sloppiness, lack of communication, and high-handedness gives the IPCC's critics a lot to work with. Newsweek came out: Some of the IPCC's most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles, and corporate reports--including claims of plummeting crop yields in Africa and the rising cost of warming-related natural disasters, both of which have been refuted by academic studies. Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments. That was in Newsweek. So their analysis was that they are doing all this stuff, and they resort to name-calling and this type of thing because they don't have a logical response for it. Last year--and keeping in mind this is after I requested the inspector general's report and before; and still 1 year ago in a speech I made right here I said: There is a crisis of confidence in the IPCC. The challenges to the integrity and credibility of the IPCC merit a closer examination by the U.S. Congress. The ramifications of the IPCC spread far and wide, most notably to the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that greenhouse gases from mobile sources endanger public health and welfare. EPA's finding rests in large measure on the IPCC's conclusions--and EPA has accepted them wholesale, without an independent assessment. At this pivotal time, as the Obama EPA is preparing to enact policies potentially costing trillions of dollars and thousands of jobs, the IPCC's errors make plain that we need openness, transparency, and accountability in the scientific research financed by the U.S. taxpayers. That was a year before the IG report came out, and it is almost exactly what the IG report said just this last week. Two months before that speech, I asked EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to delay the EPA endangerment finding based on Climategate. She told me--and I have a lot of respect for her, by the way. I have professed that many times. She is one whom normally I will ask her a question, and she will come out and give an answer, even though it may be an unpopular answer with her boss, President Obama. She said: I do not agree that the IPCC has been totally discredited in any way. In fact, I think it is important to understand that the IPCC is a body that follows impartial and open and objective assessments. She is saying essentially the same thing: Yes, they had concerns about e-mail. I do not defend the conduct of those who sent those e-mails. Here, they are talking about Climategate. We all remember those secret e-mails going back and forth between the principals to somehow fraudulently manipulate the science. She goes on to say: There is peer-review, which is part of the IPCC process. There are numerous, numerous groups of teams and independent researchers all a part of coming up with IPCC findings, such that even the IPCC has said that while we need to investigate and ensure that our scientists are to a standard of scientific conduct that we can be proud of, we stand behind our findings. So they are all whitewashing the work of the IPCC--again, that was before the IG report came out--but it didn't work because there are magazines throughout the world, publications which generally were on the other side of this argument or their side of the argument. The Guardian, for example, talking about Climategate and how they are a disgrace, said: Pretending that this isn't a real crisis isn't going to make it go away. The Daily Telegraph said: This scandal could well be the greatest in modern science. This is what they are talking about with Climategate. The Atlantic Monthly: The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. Let's remember, the economic ramifications of global warming regulations imposed upon the EPA under the Clean Air Act will cost American consumers somewhere in the range of $300 billion to $400 billion a year. This is not to mention the absurd result that EPA readily admits they need to hire 230,000 additional employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement its greenhouse gas regime if they are not given wide discretion to circumvent the law, and all this economic pain is for nothing--no gain at all. As the EPA Administrator admitted before our committee, it would have no effect on the overall release of anthropogenic gases. Also, of note, what happened to the EPA's vow in 2009 that the Agency would commit to high standards of transparency because ``the success of our environmental efforts depends on earning and maintaining the trust of the public we serve'' or Obama adviser John Holdren's promise that the administration would make decisions based on the best science possible because, as the President said, ``the public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public decisions.'' Given what has come to light in this report, it appears the Obama EPA cannot be trusted on the most consequential decision the Agency has ever made. I have already called upon the committees in the Senate--this would be my committee of which I am the ranking member, the Environment and Public Works Committee--to have an investigation. My gosh, I don't ever recall in the years I have been here an IG report coming out where there weren't numerous hearings to find out and to probe into why they came up with the decisions they made. I have tried for 10 years now to pursue this thing with the various bills that were introduced to do legislatively--to implement the requirements. Then, when we see they are unable to do it--and if we look around this Senate, there are only about 30 votes now. They don't have half the number of votes to impose cap and trade. They don't have it. It is not here. That is why the President is trying to do it through regulations. It is kind of interesting, if we put this in perspective. This supercommittee they keep talking about, the 12 people--6 Democrats, 6 Republicans, 3 from the House, 3 from the Senate--their goal is to find $1.5 trillion in 10 years. We have a President in his own budget--and this isn't Democrats or Republicans or House or Senate. This is the President. His three budgets he came out with have just under a $5 trillion deficit. That is inconceivable. I can remember coming down here in the mid-1990s, when President Clinton was in power. The first $1.5 trillion budget we had, I complained this is not sustainable. Now it is $1.5 trillion over and above what it costs to run America. Obviously, that can't be done. So when we stop to think about the fact that it should be fairly easy to find $1.5 trillion, that would just be his deficit for 1 year to find $1.5 trillion. This is kind of hard to follow. But if they were successful in implementing what they could not do by legislation and have a cap and trade, that would cost a minimum of $300 billion a year; or, multiply that by 10, that would be $3 trillion. So we have this supercommittee out there trying to find $1.5 trillion; at the same time, they are advocating increasing the cost to America by $3 trillion. It is not believable. I think it is very important, and I am on the floor now trying to gather support for having a hearing. We can't have an IG report talking about the flawed product of the EPA, of the IPCC, of the United Nations and not have some kind of investigation. I hope we will be able to do that. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the short time I am asking for as in morning business not be taken from either side in this agreement.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me say, as far as the subject is concerned right now, I am very proud to have one of the first signatures on this effort. It is good for every reason the Senator from Texas mentioned. On top of that, we have allies we are dealing with. We have the employment situation. I know this is going to be successful. I appreciate all the effort that has gone forth. Honoring Our Armed Forces Specialist Christopher David Horton Today, I wish to recognize and pay tribute to Army SPC Christopher David Horton from Owasso, OK. That is home of the Rams in case people did not know. Chris was born in Tulsa on October 1, 1984. He was deployed to Afghanistan with over 2,000 Oklahoma National Guard soldiers from the 45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team. There were actually 3,000 initially in this deployment. Some of them actually went to Kuwait at the last minute. He was deployed to Afghanistan. This combat team, the 45th, has probably had more deployments than anyone else, although this was Chris's first deployment. His unit was attacked by enemy forces in Paktia Province on September 9, 2011. Chris and two of his fellow soldiers, SGT Bret Isenhower and PFC Tony Potter, died of injuries sustained from that firefight. He would have turned 27 next week, on October 1. Chris attended the Missouri Military Academy in Mexico, MO, and graduated in 2003. He excelled both militarily and academically during his 6 years at Missouri Military Academy. He was the 2nd platoon leader his senior year, captain of the rifle team, on the honor roll, earning him the Academic Fourragere Award. Chris lived a remarkable life, driven by service and excellence. He often spoke of his desire for America to excel. He was a business owner and a volunteer police officer. He was extremely patriotic and very passionate in his love for America and for its freedoms, knowing they have to be protected. Chris was an accomplished recreational shooter and a professional sponsored shooter through the U.S. Shooting Academy of Owasso, OK. Some of his marksmen awards include the Gus Hadwiger Award of 2009. He received first place in novice pistol in the Oklahoma National Guard, first place in novice pistol in the Governor's Twenty Match. This guy was very good. He excelled and was among the very best. That was something he enjoyed. But in addition to shooting--this is kind of interesting because things bond us together. I came so close to meeting him, but I never actually did. But one of the things we had in common is we are both avid fishermen. He loved fishing. That is one of the things he enjoyed very much. Every opportunity he had, he would fish both ocean and freshwater. His younger brother Nick said: He was the best big brother I could ever have asked for. He taught me how to drive a car and how to fish. That pretty much tells it all. Chris's mother Cherie Horton said: My son's passion his whole life was to be a part of the military. He wanted to be part of the military. He loved his country, and he really wanted to serve his country. He was absolutely made to be a solder. This is a mother speaking. Chris enlisted in the Oklahoma National Guard in 2008, was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 279th Infantry Regiment of the 45th Brigade of the Army National Guard. He attended basic training at Fort Benning, GA, became a sniper- qualified infantryman, and to no one's surprise, graduated at the top of his class. Chris leaves behind his parents, Cherie and David Horton, his brother Nicholas, sister Tenley, and his wife Jane Horton. Chris met Jane while attending the Kings College in New York City. Jane said it was Chris's fiery passion and their mutual love for politics that brought them together. He was the most honorable man I'd ever met in my life. That's why I snagged him and we were engaged within 2 months. We were married very fast. She knew what she was out after. I know this is true because my staff and I got to know Chris through his wife Jane. She was an intern for me. She worked in my office, and we had these exchanges all the time. As could be expected, Jane took a personal interest in operations in Afghanistan. She worked with my legislative staff, responsible for military and veterans affairs. During her time in Washington, she coordinated a campaign that resulted in over 20 care packages being sent to the Oklahoma National Guard Infantry Combat Brigade. I can tell everyone this, having been over there at a time when a lot of these care packages come in, we know, as we go across this country in helicopters, a lot of these packages, even though the people at home do not know it, are dropped to kids on the ground who love what we are doing there. So I think Jane represents the best asset our military has at its disposal; that is, the military spouses. Her zeal and dedication are not uncommon attributes for military spouses who ``hold down the fort'' while their loved ones are deployed. I had looked forward to meeting Chris during my upcoming trip to Afghanistan another week from now. I had a meeting during the break, the recess, in Collinsville, OK, and Jane was there. We talked about how we were going to meet up with Chris in my upcoming trip to Afghanistan. I had looked forward to meeting him during that trip. While this personal conversation will not happen, I am committed to making Chris's desire that our Nation be led down the right path a reality. Chris lived a life of love for his family, friends, and country. He will be remembered for his commitment to and belief in the greatness of our Nation. Here are some of the comments posted online in honor of his life. I think it is kind of neat to read a lot of these. They come from assorted different people. Some are members of the family, some are not. Here is one of them: God's got a good warrior up there with him now. Another one: I want to thank the families of this wonderful young man who was willing to give his life for our freedom. May no one in America take this act lightly. Love and prayers to all of the family and friends. Here is another: Christopher David Horton was the kind of young man who would do anything for anybody. Another one: He is a hero--each and every servicemen/women are--they protect our freedoms and without them we cannot. Thank you Specialist Christopher Horton--may you rest in peace. Prayers being said for your family. But here is my favorite one. It is actually by his brother Nick. He said: You will be missed more than anything brother, especially on the range, you always gave me a run for my money. Till we meet again in heaven! That is kind of great. This tough fight took place and took the life of Chris. But make no mistake, Chris's sacrifice made a difference and will continue to make a difference not just in Afghanistan but here in the United States. We are safe and our country is secure because of Chris and all the service men and women. We have to continue in our unwavering support for them. Although each servicemember we lose hurts, it is because of our connection to Jane that my staff and I are particularly affected by the loss of SPC Chris Horton. I extend the deepest gratitude and condolences to Chris's family. I will say something I will be criticized for--I always am. I have always been a Jesus guy. I find out, of course, that so is Chris. So when something such as this happens, even though we did not personally meet, we are brothers. So, in a case such as this, we do not say: Goodbye, Chris. We say: We will see you later. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Inhofe and Mr. Blunt pertaining to the introduction of S. 1583 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, being from Oklahoma, I can remember back in the days when they called Oklahoma, southern Kansas, northern Texas, and southwestern Missouri tornado alley. I say to my good friend from Oregon that I have been in aviation for many years. I know people who won't even fly airplanes through what we call tornado alley. But by now I think we know that tornadoes are a daily threat to Americans each spring as severe weather rolls across the country. In the past 30 years, over 34,000 tornadoes have touched down somewhere in the country, which means that one touches down, on average, every 8 hours of each day. This chart right here shows that each one of these little green dots represents a tornado. As we all witnessed once again this spring, many of these tornadoes grow into very voracious and dangerous storms that bring significant harm to property and life. This year, 57 such tornadoes struck 14 States and claimed 550 lives. Alabama was the hardest hit. I can remember when Oklahoma was ranked as the hardest hit. They had over 240 killed. Missouri also suffered heavily with the loss of 157 people in Joplin. I say to my friend from Missouri, who is on the floor, I was up in Joplin right after that happened, down close to the Oklahoma border. It is something you have to witness before you understand it. In my State of Oklahoma where we have more than our fair share of violent tornadoes, this spring's storms resulted in the death of 14 people and the injury of many others. Until you have this happen, and you go on site, which I always make it a point to do--after each tornado in Oklahoma, you go down and talk to the people. You think of little kids looking for their toys and this type of thing, but they are gone and gone for good. While this year has seen a large number of fatal tornadoes, they are a nationwide threat each spring. Since 1980, 734 tornadoes have claimed 2,462 lives in at least 37 different States, including 126 in my State of Oklahoma. Unfortunately, many of these lost lives could have been avoided had storm shelters been more widely used. In the past few months, a number of Oklahomans have asked me if there is a Federal program that promotes the installation of tornado storm shelters. They observed that those individuals who have these storm shelters live through it. They may lose their property, but they live through it. So they think, Well, government gets involved in all of these programs; what are they going to do to help us encourage people to build storm shelters? When I looked into it, I came up emptyhanded despite the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars are obligated each year to mitigate the effects of natural disasters. Since death is one of the worst effects of natural disasters, one would think tornado storm shelters, which are the safest way to ride out tornadoes, would be a high priority, but only limited funds have been made available in the past, and it has been sporadic and poorly allocated. Most of the funds have been made available through FEMA's Hazardous Mitigation Grant Program, which is a mandatory program that allocates funds to States to help them better prepare for future disasters. States are able to direct some of this money to residential storm shelter construction, but to do this they have to go through a lot of hoops--through a lengthy process of coordinating a program with FEMA. Needless to say, it is a bureaucratic nightmare and hugely expensive. Oklahoma did this after the devastating tornadoes of May 3, 1999. Fifty people died and many others were injured that day. As the recovery effort took hold, it became clear to public leaders that staggeringly few Oklahomans had storm shelters accessible for their homes. Because of this, Oklahoma's Department of Emergency Management worked with FEMA to create a temporary rebate program to encourage individuals to install storm shelters in their homes. The rebate was worth $2,000, and the funding cap was set at $6 million. Unfortunately, the program didn't perform as well as they would have liked. It was a popular program and funding depleted quickly. But because of the rebate amount, only 3,000 homeowners were able to take advantage of the program, despite its $6 million funding level. We are talking about in the State of Oklahoma. Furthermore, because this program was run through FEMA, it had a lot of paperwork requirements and was time consuming for the State to actually formalize. The ultimate decision of who received the rebate rested with FEMA and the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management and they decided who received the rebate and who did not. If you ask me, that is a pretty expensive, poorly designed program, but that is generally the way FEMA structures these programs when States go to the trouble of requesting them. All told, FEMA's sporadic Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for residential storm shelters has supported the construction of only 15,000 storm shelters at a staggering cost of $35 million. That is $2,000 for each storm shelter. A different approach is needed to encourage a wider group of people to install tornado storm shelters. This would help mitigate the loss of life during tornadoes. To give people the opportunity--I have 20 kids and grandkids. My first concern every time I hear of a tornado coming is for them. That is why we have introduced this bill called the Storm Shelter Tax Relief Act. It provides a tax deduction of up to $2,500 to any individual who installs a qualified storm shelter. The cost of this deduction is fully offset, which I will explain in a minute, where it is coming from, and there are reductions in other areas of spending. First, the deduction can be claimed by any taxpayer. If someone in Oklahoma, Kentucky, or Tennessee decides they need a storm shelter at their house, they can pay to have one installed and then claim the incentive by deducting up to $2,500 from their income when they file their taxes. Claiming this incentive would not require dealing with a big bureaucracy. One doesn't have to fill out the forms. One does not have to go through all the redtape. That is one of the reasons people don't do it under the existing programs. As I said before, previous programs that have been administered through FEMA place the power of the shelter incentive into the hands of an agency and not a family, not individuals. The agency then decides who does and does not receive the incentive. I think it is best when this middleman can be avoided, and a tax deduction does that. The Tax Code is blind and provides the incentive to anyone who decides in their best judgment that they need a storm shelter. Lastly, and probably most importantly, the tax deduction is a better allocation of scarce taxpayer resources. A rebate that covers a large portion of a shelter's cost, as the Oklahoma program did, can foster moral hazard. What I mean is that when free money is on the table, people generally take it. In this case, people may take the rebate to buy a storm shelter because it is free, not because it is what they need. A tax deduction doesn't allow this because the actual incentive is much lower in value. No one is going to go out and spend $2,000 or more on a storm shelter because they get to write that amount off of their taxable income. Nobody does that. A rational individual would only go out to buy a shelter if they know they need one and then it has the added benefit of being deducted from their income, so it is a much better way of approaching it. On the aggregate level, this allows a lot more people to get the incentive at the same cost compared to the rebate programs that have been used in the past. A tax deduction provides a nudge to taxpayers to take practical steps to stay safe in areas where tornadoes are common. It is a commonsense approach and a better way to use taxpayer resources. Further, this proposal's $41 million cost is fully paid for by rescinding funds authorized for storm shelter construction grants through the programs administered through HUD. In other words, we are doing this program and providing countless more shelters at a cost that would merely mean a tax deduction, and it is going to have a lot more people participating in the program. This means that existing unspent HUD funds that are duplicative of other FEMA spending will be redirected to a more effective policy in order to accomplish the same goal: Encourage the installation of more storm shelters to save lives from deadly tornadoes. Many may wonder why this is something the Federal Government should be doing. In reality, this falls squarely within the purpose of the hazard mitigation priorities of the Federal Government. FEMA defines hazardous mitigation as ``any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from a hazard event.'' HMGP regulations state that projects ``retrofitting structures . . . to minimize damages from high winds, earthquake, flood, wildfire, or other natural hazards'' are eligible for the expenditure of program dollars. The main goal of all this spending is to reduce the likelihood of losses of life and property, and retrofitting buildings to lesson the likelihood of damage caused by tornadoes is an eligible expense. That is what this tax deduction does. Furthermore, the threat of deadly and dangerous tornadoes stretches far across the Nation. We saw the first map, but this map shows it is not just the tornado alley I referred to right here. With the exception of mountainous areas here, the danger zone is all across America. Not surprisingly, Oklahoma is right in the center. When we look at where deadly tornadoes have occurred during the past 30 years, it is spread across the entire eastern half of the country. All the States in red have had at least one deadly tornado every other year since 1980, and most of them have had even more. This may be surprising, but the threat is real. It needs to be addressed. More tornado storm shelters need to be constructed around the country and Federal policies encouraging this need to be changed. That is why we are introducing the Storm Shelter Tax Relief Act. The number of this bill, I say to my colleagues, is S. 1583. It was introduced today. I think those of us who have lived in these tornado-prone areas--I can tell stories about tornadoes picking up a horse and replacing it, dropping it someplace. In my personal experience, my wife was after me about 50 years ago when we had a place up in the country--we still have the same place--and I had a red Jeep. That red Jeep was one we had for a long time. She said, How come you don't have that insured? I said, What could happen to a red Jeep in the middle of the country in Oklahoma? Well, a tornado came along, picked up a tree and dropped it right on top of my red Jeep. It cut it in half. So they are totally unpredictable. I can tell more stories about Moore, OK, when we had our 1999 tornado where everything was devastated on one side of the street and nothing was touched on the other side of the street. It is an art to understanding where these are coming from. We now have developed that art. There is not a person who could be in the path of a tornado who doesn't have the facilities and the resources to see what is out there and where it is coming. What they don't have is a way, if it is unavoidable, to protect themselves if it hits them. The obvious answer is a storm shelter. I appreciate the Senator from Missouri, who is going to speak next, cosponsoring this bill. We would like to have more cosponsors. We have every intention of getting this passed. With that, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Point of inquiry, Mr. President. At some point I want 30 seconds, if we can figure out how to do that.

Mr. INHOFE. We have two amendments we are talking about now in a short period of time. First, I will support the FAA amendment. I think Senator Paul has a good idea. I would only say this: I want my Republican conservatives to listen carefully. This is totally different than any other bill because what this is--there is adequate money right now in the highway trust fund to carry out the existing spending until 2013. So I would only say that money is dedicated for that purpose, and it is going to be spent for that purpose. Anything that came from a source other than a gas tax was merely paid back from money borrowed out of the trust fund. So from a moral standpoint, this should be spent on infrastructure on the highway bill--on the extension. Then we will be able to talk about something more important, which is the bill coming up, and that will be the permanent one. So I think it is not going to make any difference. I will oppose it on concept because that money is dedicated for a purpose and paid for by people who believe we are going to improve our highways.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Agriculture is one of the key forces driving Oklahoma's economy. In 2008 alone, Oklahoma's agriculture industry directly supported 188,000 jobs and contributed more than $8.5 billion to the States's economy. The importance of agriculture to the Nation's economy is also difficult to understate, and the industry's products rank among the top exports each year. This year, USDA estimates that U.S. farmers and livestock producers will export nearly $140 billion in goods to nearly every country on Earth. Knowing that strength, it is not surprising that the industry is a hotbed of innovation. The agriculture community has long been involved in the research and development of better crops and farming methods. This work has produced crops that are resistant to drought and certain farming chemicals, are packed with more and better nutrients, and ultimately provide higher yields for every acre farmed. This research will only grow in importance as the global population continues to grow and demand more food. Fortunately, the United States is leading the world in this effort. Oklahoma is also a key agriculture R&D player in the United States. This is in large part due to the work of the Samuel R. Noble Foundation. Headquartered in Ardmore, OK, the Noble Foundation is one of the top 50 private foundations in the United States, and the foundation employs hundreds of scientists, agriculture consultants, and research personnel who are actively researching better agriculture products and practices. Between 2009 and 2010, the foundation spent nearly $80 million on agriculture research activities, and this work has recently resulted in development of Texoma MaxQ II, a cool-weather fescue grass that will reduce the reliance of livestock producers upon costly hay and feed for their livestock during the winter months. I congratulate the Noble Foundation on this breakthrough and look forward to hearing about the future benefits of this research. The Food and Agriculture Organization has estimated that food productivity will need to expand by 70 percent over the next 40 years to meet rising global demand. This underscores the need for continued funding for agriculture research and development so that more breakthroughs like those at the Noble Foundation occur. Today, a substantial amount of agriculture research funding is provided by the Federal Government; however, the government's share is declining. Since fiscal year 2010, Federal funding for agriculture research has decreased by nearly $200 million, and further cuts are likely as we try to tackle the national debt. Because government is scaling down its role, Congress should do what it can to encourage the private sector to fill the gap. One way that we can do this is with the Charitable Agriculture Research Act, of which I am a cosponsor. This bill, introduced today by Senators Stabenow and Thune, will allow the creation of Agricultural Research Organization, ARO, which would extend public charity tax status to entities conducting continuous agriculture R&D in collaboration with land-grant universities and agriculture colleges. Currently, several organizations conducting research focused on agriculture are structured as private foundations. This is one of the two main types of charities that are provided with beneficial tax treatment under U.S. law. Public charities--the other type--are given full tax exempt status, but because private foundations are often very large and supported by a small group of donors, they are not completely tax free and must pay taxes on the investment income earned by their endowments. Donors are also prevented from collecting their full deduction on gifts relative to those made to public charities. Because of these restrictions, the United States is not reaching its full potential when it comes to attracting private dollars for agriculture research. The Charitable Agriculture Research Act seeks to encourage individuals and families of wealth to contribute more of their assets to public agricultural research by working in conjunction with the Nation's land-grant universities and non land-grant colleges of agriculture. This legislation will provide donors with an additional option of where to direct their agriculture research and development donations. This beneficial tax treatment does not come without restrictions. To maintain its tax exempt status, an ARO must conduct research and development on agriculture issues in conjunction with a land-grant university or an agriculture college. An ARO must either commit more than 50 percent of its assets to the continuous active conduct of agriculture research or it must expend at least 3.5 percent of its endowment for the same in each calendar year. These restrictions are put in place to ensure that the ARO structure is not being abused as a tax shelter for the accumulated personal wealth of an ARO's benefactors. Over the past decade many families with a passion for agricultural research have expressed their desire to do for their geographies and their crops of interest what the Noble Foundation has done for Oklahoma, forages, and beef cattle operations. However, the tax code is not conducive to such efforts and discourages them from maximizing their contributions to agricultural research. The ARO tax structure is modeled after the extremely successful Medical Research Organization model. Similar to AROs, these charities must do their medical research in conjunction with a non-profit or government hospital. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Stowers Institute for Medical Research are prime examples of MROs. The MRO structure has made these organizations more effective and productive, and I expect no less from the ARO tax structure. This bill will directly benefit Oklahoma by building on its legacy as a leader in agriculture R&D. As better agricultural methods and crop yields are produced in Oklahoma, the State will continue to serve as a global leader in agriculture. Oklahoma is home to 86,000 farms that occupy 80 percent of the State's land area. The State has the land, the natural resources, and the facilities necessary to enhance agricultural research. The creation of AROs will help attract the necessary private capital to build on this success and boost research at our Nation's land-grant universities and non land-grant colleges of agriculture. AROs will not be provided with a new tax incentive or a benefit greater than existing charitable organizations. They will, however, offer individuals an additional choice of where to send their charitable dollars. When individuals donate to AROs they will have certainty that their money will contribute directly to agriculture research rather than to other causes, which are guarantees not provided by most other charitable organizations. As we face deeper budget cuts on everything from education to agriculture research, we need to take the steps to encourage the private sector to step into the void left by Washington. AROs will help do this in the agriculture R&D community, so I urge its swift passage.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Agriculture is one of the key forces driving Oklahoma's economy. In 2008 alone, Oklahoma's agriculture industry directly supported 188,000 jobs and contributed more than $8.5 billion to the States's economy. The importance of agriculture to the Nation's economy is also difficult to understate, and the industry's products rank among the top exports each year. This year, USDA estimates that U.S. farmers and livestock producers will export nearly $140 billion in goods to nearly every country on Earth. Knowing that strength, it is not surprising that the industry is a hotbed of innovation. The agriculture community has long been involved in the research and development of better crops and farming methods. This work has produced crops that are resistant to drought and certain farming chemicals, are packed with more and better nutrients, and ultimately provide higher yields for every acre farmed. This research will only grow in importance as the global population continues to grow and demand more food. Fortunately, the United States is leading the world in this effort. Oklahoma is also a key agriculture R&D player in the United States. This is in large part due to the work of the Samuel R. Noble Foundation. Headquartered in Ardmore, OK, the Noble Foundation is one of the top 50 private foundations in the United States, and the foundation employs hundreds of scientists, agriculture consultants, and research personnel who are actively researching better agriculture products and practices. Between 2009 and 2010, the foundation spent nearly $80 million on agriculture research activities, and this work has recently resulted in development of Texoma MaxQ II, a cool-weather fescue grass that will reduce the reliance of livestock producers upon costly hay and feed for their livestock during the winter months. I congratulate the Noble Foundation on this breakthrough and look forward to hearing about the future benefits of this research. The Food and Agriculture Organization has estimated that food productivity will need to expand by 70 percent over the next 40 years to meet rising global demand. This underscores the need for continued funding for agriculture research and development so that more breakthroughs like those at the Noble Foundation occur. Today, a substantial amount of agriculture research funding is provided by the Federal Government; however, the government's share is declining. Since fiscal year 2010, Federal funding for agriculture research has decreased by nearly $200 million, and further cuts are likely as we try to tackle the national debt. Because government is scaling down its role, Congress should do what it can to encourage the private sector to fill the gap. One way that we can do this is with the Charitable Agriculture Research Act, of which I am a cosponsor. This bill, introduced today by Senators Stabenow and Thune, will allow the creation of Agricultural Research Organization, ARO, which would extend public charity tax status to entities conducting continuous agriculture R&D in collaboration with land-grant universities and agriculture colleges. Currently, several organizations conducting research focused on agriculture are structured as private foundations. This is one of the two main types of charities that are provided with beneficial tax treatment under U.S. law. Public charities--the other type--are given full tax exempt status, but because private foundations are often very large and supported by a small group of donors, they are not completely tax free and must pay taxes on the investment income earned by their endowments. Donors are also prevented from collecting their full deduction on gifts relative to those made to public charities. Because of these restrictions, the United States is not reaching its full potential when it comes to attracting private dollars for agriculture research. The Charitable Agriculture Research Act seeks to encourage individuals and families of wealth to contribute more of their assets to public agricultural research by working in conjunction with the Nation's land-grant universities and non land-grant colleges of agriculture. This legislation will provide donors with an additional option of where to direct their agriculture research and development donations. This beneficial tax treatment does not come without restrictions. To maintain its tax exempt status, an ARO must conduct research and development on agriculture issues in conjunction with a land-grant university or an agriculture college. An ARO must either commit more than 50 percent of its assets to the continuous active conduct of agriculture research or it must expend at least 3.5 percent of its endowment for the same in each calendar year. These restrictions are put in place to ensure that the ARO structure is not being abused as a tax shelter for the accumulated personal wealth of an ARO's benefactors. Over the past decade many families with a passion for agricultural research have expressed their desire to do for their geographies and their crops of interest what the Noble Foundation has done for Oklahoma, forages, and beef cattle operations. However, the tax code is not conducive to such efforts and discourages them from maximizing their contributions to agricultural research. The ARO tax structure is modeled after the extremely successful Medical Research Organization model. Similar to AROs, these charities must do their medical research in conjunction with a non-profit or government hospital. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Stowers Institute for Medical Research are prime examples of MROs. The MRO structure has made these organizations more effective and productive, and I expect no less from the ARO tax structure. This bill will directly benefit Oklahoma by building on its legacy as a leader in agriculture R&D. As better agricultural methods and crop yields are produced in Oklahoma, the State will continue to serve as a global leader in agriculture. Oklahoma is home to 86,000 farms that occupy 80 percent of the State's land area. The State has the land, the natural resources, and the facilities necessary to enhance agricultural research. The creation of AROs will help attract the necessary private capital to build on this success and boost research at our Nation's land-grant universities and non land-grant colleges of agriculture. AROs will not be provided with a new tax incentive or a benefit greater than existing charitable organizations. They will, however, offer individuals an additional choice of where to send their charitable dollars. When individuals donate to AROs they will have certainty that their money will contribute directly to agriculture research rather than to other causes, which are guarantees not provided by most other charitable organizations. As we face deeper budget cuts on everything from education to agriculture research, we need to take the steps to encourage the private sector to step into the void left by Washington. AROs will help do this in the agriculture R&D community, so I urge its swift passage.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to inform the Chamber that I support the nomination of Wendy Sherman to be Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. I had previously voted against her nomination earlier this week when it was brought before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but I have received information since that leads me to change my vote. My good friend Senator Isakson of Georgia spoke to me about his 30- plus-year relationship with the Sherman family. Ms. Sherman's mother, Miriam ``Mimi'' Sherman, started working for Northside Realty, Senator Isakson's business based in Marietta, GA, in the late seventies and eighties. Mimi Sherman, who passed away in 2005, was a terrific person, and Senator Isakson was very happy to call her a close friend and fellow coworker. He also has known Wendy during this entire time and knows that she embodies the same qualities that her mother did. He is confident that she is qualified for the position and will do a great job at the State Department as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. I have great respect for the wisdom and good judgment of my friend from Georgia. We both serve on the Africa Subcommittee, and as its ranking member, Senator Isakson always ensures that the views of his fellow Republican members are fully represented, even to the point of sharing his own speaking time at hearings with members like me who are passionate about bringing relief to the people on the African Continent. And when he expresses confidence in a particular person like Wendy Sherman, whom he has known personally for over three decades, that is good enough for me. I support Ms. Sherman's nomination to be Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I spoke about the situation in Cote d'Ivoire just last Friday and pointed out that the person responsible for the chaos and killing--a rebel named Alassane Ouattara--met last Friday with President Obama in our Nation's White House. I said then and say now again that this was an unwise and grossly misguided decision by Obama. It is in fact an outrage that our President would welcome, with open arms, a potential war criminal who is responsible for the death of at least 3,000 people and displacement of half a million refugees in the African country of Cote d'Ivoire. Ouattara is an illegitimate usurper who has scandalized Cote d'Ivoire's electoral system, and unlawfully ousted the democratically elected incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo. Now the Associated Press reports just yesterday that the violence in Cote d'Ivoire remains uncontrolled. The title of the AP story says is all. It reads: ``Warlords in Ivory Coast continue to reign, national reconciliation difficult 3 months later.'' The AP story highlights the just released Amnesty International report that I spoke about last week that pointed out that ``Ouattara's rebel Army continues to carry out violence and intimidation against ethnicities perceived as having supported President Gbagbo, and that almost 700,000 people remain in refugee camps for displaced people in the country's remote far west.'' The AP highlights the fact that although Ouattara is telling the world that he is seeking reconciliation; in fact Ouattara is allowing ``a pervading culture of criminality to continue.'' For example, in the financial capital of Abidjan, warlords have taken over parts of the city and death squads roam the streets looking for Gbagbo supporters. In addition, they are committing ``armed robberies, kidnapping and killings almost daily'' without any sign of ceasing. At the very least rebel leader Ouattara has no control over his rebel troops, which in the recent past committed atrocities and massacres on their march to Abidjan, and at the worst he is tacitly approving their actions by not intervening. AP also reports that ``even the French Embassy sent a security message to its citizens warning that `incidents of unequal gravity are still being reported.' '' And this is 3 months after the French themselves militarily overthrew President Gbagbo and installed Ouattara! The French are indeed now reaping what they have sown. I point out again that Amnesty International alleges that these forces under Ouattara's command are continuing to engage in ``documented crimes under international law and human rights violations and abuses, including extrajudicial executions and other unlawful killings, rape and other sexual violence, torture, other ill-treatment and arbitrary arrest and detention; as well as the consequences of high levels of displacement, pervasive insecurity, and intentional destruction of homes and other buildings not justified by military necessity.'' The AP story summarizes the current situation by quoting the conclusion of the Amnesty International report which states that ``if [this situation is] not addressed quickly, the very serious consequences of the recent wave of insecurity and displacement will have further repercussions during the coming years and may fuel growing discontent and unrest, undermining efforts to promote reconciliation in a country torn apart by a decade of ethnic strife and violent conflict.'' This is my ninth time speaking on the Senate floor about the ongoing bloodbath of unspeakable acts of violence that are occurring in the once beautiful and prosperous country of Cote d'Ivoire. I again call for the intervention of the African Union--and not the French--to bring an end to the violence there, and call for new elections that will this time prevent the electoral fraud by Ouattara that allowed him to claim victory. I also call for the release of President Gbagbo and his wife Simone who are being held incommunicado by Ouattara, and either allow President Gbagbo to seek reelection for President or be allowed to go into exile. I have been in communication with a sub-Saharan African country which has agreed to grant asylum to the Gbagbos, and I call upon our State Department to facilitate such a move as it did for former Haitian President Duvalier in 1986. The killing must stop. My recommendations are a path to stop the killing.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for whatever time I shall consume as in morning business.