Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, first let me say I agree with most of what the Senator from New Jersey is saying. He mentioned the profits of the top five oil companies--Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. They are the giants. If we will recall, last week when I objected to the arbitrary figure, the cap of $10 billion, it was because it was arbitrary. I quoted a lot of people in the administration saying we do not want to have--it should not be an arbitrary cap. One of the complaints I had was, if you do have an arbitrary cap and that was at $10 billion, that would mean only the big five plus the national oil companies--Venezuela, China, certainly--would be in a position to do this work offshore. It is my feeling if you take the $10 billion off and make it totally unlimited, that could very well shut out even the five and leave nothing but national oil companies in a position to be doing it. I believe we should increase the cap. I know there is unanimity in that notion. We have to do it. The Secretary of Interior said this about the $10 billion cap: [I]t is important that we be thoughtful relative to that, what that cap will be, because you don't want only the BP's of the world essentially to be the ones that are involved in these efforts. I agree with 90 percent of what the Senator says, and with the Secretary of Interior, what he has said about this--that we need to determine how high that cap should be. It should be much higher. We have plenty of time to do that. Let me emphasize there is no cap in terms of the cleanup damages. We are only talking about economic damages here. There is no cap on cleanup damages. I think there should be. At some point we have to arrive at a cap. A lot of people are working on it. The administration is working on it, the Department of Interior is working on it, and we are working on it. I think we need to increase that. For that reason we need to have the time to get that done, and I do object.

Mr. INHOFE. For clarification, I know he expressed his sentiment that he wishes to stop all drilling offshore. But for the purpose of this amendment, it is confined to two areas, and it is only until such time as the investigations underway are completed; is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I would repeat, it is too early to come up with a figure, and I think the President agrees with that. Let's see what kind of cap should apply.

Mr. INHOFE. I would, yes.

Mr. INHOFE. No. My answer to the question is, as I said, we don't know where that cap should be. You are coming up with a cap that might end up being the appropriate cap for everyone. But my understanding now would be that the only ones who would be able to live up to that cap would be the five majors and the nationalized companies. If that is the case, yes, I would say we need to have that opened so that we are not just allowing the majors as opposed to the independents. But let's wait and see where the cap should be. Maybe it should be that high. We don't know yet, President Obama doesn't know yet, and I don't know yet. That is the reason I object.

Mr. INHOFE. You can ask, but I am going to have to leave here. Go ahead.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I reserve the right to object, and I am going to object in a minute, but I agree with a lot of things that were said by the Senators from New Jersey. I say to the Senator from New Jersey, I was also there 20 years ago at the Exxon Valdez, which was a transportation accident. We were very much concerned about the recovery. We need to increase the caps. I understand that. But I do agree with the President--he left that blank--because we don't know just how high that should be. I disagree with the notion that you are either for or against big oil and all of that. Big oil would love to have these caps up there so they can shut out all the independents. We have independents in my State of Oklahoma, and right now 63 percent of the gulf's natural gas and 36 percent of its oil are produced by independents. What you are going to do if you raise the caps right now, precipitously, this high, you are going to help the five big oil companies, including BP, giving them exclusive rights, and help the nationalized big oil companies, such as those in China and Venezuela, and shut out the small and medium-sized independents. For that reason, I object.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just make one comment. I don't very often agree with President Obama. Right now, he is unsure what that level should be. I am unsure what that level should be. Maybe it should be the level we are talking about right now, and it may end up there, but we just don't know that. We know that what the Senator from New Jersey and I experienced up at Exxon Valdez some 20 years ago was not adequate, so that is why we passed the legislation. It should be upgraded. Certainly, we need to raise these limits. Where it should be raised, I don't know. I don't know where the cap should be. We are going to have to find out as this thing moves along. I would only say this: If you have it up too high, you are going to be singling out BP and the other four largest majors and the nationalized companies, such as China and Venezuela, and shutting out the independent producers. I don't want that to happen. Let's wait and see where that cap should be.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if you have been watching the global warming debate lately, you will notice the supporters of cap and trade are getting kind of nervous. They realize the political environment for cap and trade couldn't be more favorable--they have a majority of liberals in the Senate, a majority of liberals in the House, and liberals in the White House. But they also realize time is running out. The November elections are looming, and there are a lot of people coming up for reelection who don't want to go back to the electorate and say: Look at me; aren't you proud; I voted for the largest tax increase in American history. As Senator Kerry put it, this is the last call to pass the bill, and that is exactly what Senator Kerry is trying to do. But he will not get 60 votes. He will not get the support of the Democrats in the heartland, and he will not convince the American public they need this tax increase. I say this with confidence because the bill Senator Kerry introduced last week with Senator Lieberman is the same old cap-and- trade scheme the Senate rejected in the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2003, the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2005, the Warner-Lieberman bill in 2008, and the Waxman-Markey bill in 2009. Let us keep in mind that cap and trade is cap and trade, and that is a very large tax increase. Don't forget that the Senate support for cap and trade over that time has actually dropped. If you take it from 2003 to the present time, in 2003, they got 43 votes; in 2005, they got 38 votes; and in 2008, they got 48 votes. But you have to keep in mind that 10 of those were for a procedural vote and they said they wouldn't vote for it, so it went down to 38 votes at that time. So that is a far cry from the 60 that will be necessary. The Kerry-Lieberman bill is not going to pass. However, those who still believe in the anthropogenic catastrophic warming--which I don't, but even if you did believe it--should keep in mind that this wouldn't solve the problem. What I am saying is this: There are a lot of people around--not nearly as many as 5 or 10 years ago--who believe that anthropogenic gases--CO2, methane, carbon dioxide--are causing catastrophic global warming. They are still here. They still believe that. But even if you believed it, passing this bill would not help the situation because in this bill, all it applies to is the United States of America. We could go ahead and restrict all the CO2 we want to in the United States, it is not going to lower it at all. I have a lot of respect for the new--not too new, now she has been here for a while--EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson. I appreciate her honesty. I asked her the question back when we had the Waxman-Markey bill before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, I said to the Administrator: In the event we were to pass any of these cap-and-trade bills in the United States, would it have the effect of lowering the CO2 worldwide? She said no, it wouldn't. In fact--we showed a chart. I should have it with me down here right now. She said it would not because this only applies to the United States. I contend it would actually increase world emissions. The reason I say that is if we were to unilaterally do this, restrict our ability to build power in America, then our jobs would have to go to countries where the power is. Consequently, they would go to countries such as Mexico, China, and India, places where they do not have any meaningful restrictions on CO2. That would have the effect of increasing it, not decreasing it. I have a lot of respect for Lisa Jackson. I kind of abused her time during this oilspill. I called her many times. I know she is right on top of things and is doing a very good job. Here we go again. Look closely at the Kerry-Lieberman bill. I am sure you have seen it before. It is the Waxman-Markey bill. You remember that. It passed in the middle of the night in the House of Representatives. We all remember that, passing by 219 to 212. Every kind of deal in the world was made and nobody knew it except the vote finally took place and they eked it out. Democrats, 44 of them, voted no because they knew the cost of the bill. The Waxman-Markey bill, according to the National Black Chamber of Commerce, would lead to a net reduction of 3.6 million jobs, raise electricity rates by 48 percent, and disproportionately affect the West, Midwest, South, and Great Plains, which rely heavily on fossil fuels. The word about Waxman-Markey spread across the country and the American people were listening. Citizens at townhall meetings expressed their outrage. They said no to a bill that would give big government control over how we use electricity and how we live every day of our lives. That is what the public would get with Kerry-Lieberman. They also get a gas tax or linked fee. This is Washington jargon for a thing like gas tax: they don't call it a gas tax, they call it a linked fee for transportation fuels. From what I understand, this linked fee is being pushed by a select group of big oil companies. That is right, oil companies. I said some time ago the only way they can somehow pass any kind of cap and trade is to somehow divide and conquer. In other words, go to some of the oil companies, gas companies, coal companies, nuclear companies, and tell them we are going to pick winners and losers, but guess what. You are a winner. We will pick you and everything is going to be wonderful. The public needs to know a lot of big oil companies are involved. They are pushing a tax they know will be paid for by consumers, the same consumers suffering from an economy with 10 percent unemployment. I will make myself clear: I stand with the consumers, and by that I mean farmers, families, truckers, businesses large and small in rural Oklahoma, who drive long distances. They don't need this tax increase now or ever. It is a sad thing that we have to use those tactics. Then it is even not all that smart, when you stop and think that has not worked before. They tried the same thing, to divide and conquer, before. In this case they brought in some of the refiners and said if you will join with us, this will be fine with you. You have to raise your rates, but then you can pass that on to the consumers. Then we pass a gas tax increase and those consumers will be hit twice, but you will be all right. That is not the way it works. The other provision is crafted and select business groups. Do they think a bill on cap and trade is good for the economy, good for your members? I don't think so. Don't forget what happened with Waxman-Markey; some utilities thought they had a deal. When the language was actually drafted, the deal made Waxman and Markey happy but not the utilities. This is interesting, because they had the great unveiling that took place last week but didn't have the bill language. It had an outline of some things but not the exact bill language. That is exactly what they tried to do with Waxman-Markey. This time we will insist on seeing the actual language. I remind my colleagues of a pattern here. We had the Waxman-Markey vote under the cover of night. We had the ``Cornhusker'' kickback, with the Senate health care bill. Now we have secret meetings with stakeholders and CEOs. There is a sense that what they are doing has little support with the American people. They are hiding and obscuring and evading. I suppose I can't blame them. Remember the August recess of last year? That was the beginning of what we call the tea party movement. This was interesting because this all happened during the August recess when those of us in the House and Senate were back in our States. The people of the tea party movement were objecting to four things. There are four things they are complaining about. No. 1 was the runaway cost of government, the increased deficits. Let's stop and think about it. In the first year of the Obama administration the deficits increased by $1.4 trillion. That is what happened the first year. That was after the tea parties, the August recess of 2009. The second issue then was not to have a government-run health care system. We temporarily lost that. There will be some changes in the Senate and House after the November elections. A lot of that can be corrected. Nonetheless, those are the first two issues of the tea partiers who are out there today. These are people who have not identified with any party but they want to save America from this socialist trend we have right now. The third issue was complaining about the closing of Guantanamo Bay or Gitmo. I look at this and I wonder, we have a President with an obsession to close Gitmo, a place where we have been able to put people who do not fit into a prison system since 1903. It is one of the best deals the government has. I think we only pay a lease of $4,000 a year. It is just like it was in 1903. Here is a place where you can put terrorists, the terrorists who are the detainees. These people are not criminals in the sense of our criminal code. These are terrorists. They don't fit in our court system. There is not an American out there who has not heard about what they are doing with the constitutional rights and Miranda rights and all that. That does not apply in these cases. It should not apply in these cases. But this President has wanted to bring these terrorists--close GITMO, with no place else to put them--bring them back to the United States for either trial or incarceration. At the beginning the President had identified some 17 institutions in America where you could put these terrorists. One happened to be in my State of Oklahoma. It was Fort Sill. Fort Sill has a great artillery installation there and they do have a small prison. I went down after he had made these suggestions of putting terrorists throughout the United States and I talked to--there is a Sergeant Major Carter down there in charge of that prison. She said go back and tell those people in Washington keep GITMO open. She happened to have had two tours of duty in Gitmo. She said that is state of the art. People are treated well; they don't torture anyone; it is the only safe place to keep terrorists; they have a courthouse they can use for tribunals that cannot be found anyplace else in the United States. The third issue of these tea partiers was to reject the idea that we should close Gitmo and bring these terrorists to the United States. That comes to the fourth one, the one of our discussion today, and that is the fact that they were protesting cap and trade. Cap and trade is a tax increase. A lot of people say if you want to reduce CO2 emissions, why don't you put a tax on CO2 emissions? Some of the strongest supporters of the global warming concept are the ones who say let's have a tax on CO2. Do you know why they don't? They don't have it because that way, people know what it costs, and they will reject it. If you have cap and trade, that is a way you can pick winners and losers and convince everyone he or she is going to be a winner. So one of the things they were protesting during the August recess of 2009 was this thing that would result in being the largest tax increase in the history of the country. I have often said the most egregious vote in this Senate's history, up to that time, up to October 1, 2008, was the $700 billion bailout. That led to the AIG bailout and the Chrysler bailout and the General Motors bailout. All of that took place and that was on October 1, 2008; $700 billion to have an unelected bureaucrat to do whatever he wanted without any constraints. As bad as that is, a cap-and-trade bill would end up--at least $700 billion, that is a one-shot deal. With the cap and trade it is every year. I know it is difficult for people in America when you start talking about billions and trillions of dollars, so I always do my math in relation to the State of Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, I take the number of families who file a tax return and do the math. For example, the $700 billion came out that would cost each taxpaying family in Oklahoma about $5,000 for that. A cap-and-trade tax--they have actually done some calculations, the Wharton School of Economics, MIT, CRA, and other groups. The range is always between $300 and $400 billion, but that is every year. That would cost my people in Oklahoma, according to the calculations of CRA, a little bit over $3,100 a year and you don't get anything for it. The opposition has only grown stronger and more intense. Thus, the back-room dealing and secret deals to get 60 votes are not going to work. I should note, if Kerry-Lieberman were successful in passing, which it will not be, but if it were, it would go to conference--that is the way things are worked here--with the Waxman-Markey bill. If this bill passed the House, that would go to conference, and if this goes to conference that means that Waxman-Markey lives. We all remember what it did, the Waxman-Markey bill. The authors of that bill, as well as Senators Kerry and Lieberman, have argued that we need one standard, one framework to regulate greenhouse gases. However, the problem is in addition to imposing what would be the largest tax increase in history, these bills do not preempt other laws now being used to regulate greenhouse gases and drive up costs for industries. This would mean there would be multiple standards, multiple regulations, creating more confusion, more bureaucracy and, of course, more taxes. But we still have a liberal press that is in denial, the same as some of the Senators who are promoting this. I picked up USA Today last Friday on my way back to Oklahoma and I think on page 3 at the top was this article talking about how the lizards are going to become extinct as a result of global warming. They don't say ``alleged global warming,'' they just say it is global warming. So a lot of people, even though they realize the truth of this, because the truth has come out with climate change and all that stuff, they keep reading this over and over so they assume it is true. Today I should have been speaking in Chicago, at the Heartland Institute's climate conference, but because we had votes this afternoon I was not able to do it. I didn't want to miss these votes. I thank my former staffer Marc Morano, who will be speaking at the event, for his efforts at exposing global warming alarmism. At the Heartland Institute, it is my understanding, is the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change. It will be held in Chicago today, held as we speak. The theme of the ICCC-4 will be ``Reconsidering the Science and Economics.'' New scientific discoveries are casting doubt on how much of the warming of the twentieth century was natural and how much was manmade, and governments around the world are beginning to confront the astronomical cost of reducing emissions. Economists, meanwhile-- I am reading now from their statement-- are calculating that the cost of slowing or stopping global warming exceeds the social benefits. The purpose of the ICCC-4 is the same as it was for the first three events, to build momentum and public awareness of the global warming ``realism'' movement, a network of scientists, economists, policymakers and concerned citizens who believe sound science and economics, rather than exaggeration and hype, ought to determine what actions, if any, are taken to address the problem of climate change. They do not all agree on the causes and the extent, but it is kind of interesting because one of the attendees there came out--I just read this. I have it in front of me now. It is a geologist who is a very prominent U.S. geologist--urging the world to forget about global warming because global cooling has already begun. Dr. Don Easterbrook's warning came in the form of a new scientific paper he presented to the fourth International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago . . . That is today. Dr. Easterbook is an emeritus professor at Western Washington University, who has authored 8 books and 150 journal publications. His full resume is here. So today the event is taking place. On his Web site, climatedepot.com, we highlight some of the details. Over the next several weeks, I will be speaking on the EPA's so- called tailoring rule because this all goes back to the Clean Air Act and the Clear Air Amendments. What it says is, they are going to change that, since that belongs to--that would cover almost every church, every small business, everything in America, to only cover the great big giants. It is not going to work. Everyone is going to be in on this deal. That would not be constitutional. I think everyone knows it. Along with the tailoring rule, I will continue to point out that the endangerment finding is based on IPCC's flawed science. By the way, the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is a part of the United Nations. They are the ones that started this whole thing back in 1988. The problem we have with that is they had an agenda when they started. I can recall, over the years, scientists coming to me and I would stand at this podium and I would make truthful statements about how the science is being fixed. I have one, if anyone doubts my sincerity when I say this, it is on my Web site. You can look it up. Five years ago, I talked about how the top scientists in America were coming to me and saying: Look, they will not allow people who disagree with their hypothesis, who disagree with their opinions, to even be part of the IPCC. Well, I was vindicated last December when the Climategate thing came out, and all these people who had been sending stuff in, they uncovered some memos going back and forth on how they were going to try and make people believe that actually anthropogenic gases cause global warming. Anyway, that came at a very appropriate time. I think the people are aware of what is happening. Let me make one last comment about this endangerment finding. We have tried--not ``we'' but those who are promoting the idea of the anthropogenic gases cause global warming, they have been trying to introduce the bills to have a cap-and-trade system for the United States. They have been doing this now about for about 9 years. It has not worked. So President Obama has stated: All right, if the House and the Senate are not going to vote to do this, we will do it administratively. All we have to do is have an endangerment finding, which we could influence, and once the endangerment finding is there, then that would include, with the real pollutants, SOX, NOX, and mercury, CO2. If they do that, then they can start regulating CO2. Well, it is not quite that easy. Lisa Jackson, I have already said some nice things about her, and I appreciated her honesty in response to this question. Right before Copenhagen, I suspected that the Obama administration was going to have an endangerment finding. When they did, I knew it had to be based on science, so I asked her: What science would this, by and large, be based on, if you have the endangerment finding. She said the IPCC. Well, wait a minute. That is the same science that, through Climategate, has been totally rebuffed and no longer is legitimate, either in reality or in the eyes of the American people and people around the world. So while I am concerned obviously that we should try to do something such as this through an endangerment finding, do administratively what he is unable to do through the House and Senate, that is not going to work. So I would only say, I know all the Tea Party people are still out there. Keep in mind, you lost your fight with the government-run health care, you lost your fight with the huge deficit, and so far we have not lost on the closing of Gitmo. I think we will be able to keep it open. But the one issue that is up for grabs right now is this endangerment finding. Let's keep reminding all the people whom you meet with prior to the elections of November, and particularly during the upcoming August recess, that a cap-and-trade system would end up being the largest tax increase in the history of America and it would happen every year and it would not accomplish anything. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I support Senator Sanders' amendment No. 3738 regarding Federal Reserve transparency. As a cosponsor of S. 604, the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009, my support for these efforts is clear. American taxpayers have a right to know how, where, and when their money is spent or put at risk. For too long, they have put up with secrecy and arrogance. That has to stop, and that is why I would have voted for Senator Sanders' amendment had I been able to do so and why I voted for Senator Vitter's amendment when I arrived in Washington. My travel was detained due to severe weather and tornadoes affecting Oklahoma yesterday.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, with all of the trauma that is going on right now with the oilspill and all of the other problems that are out there and, of course, the bill under consideration, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. On April 22, a new EPA lead-based paint rule went into effect that has caused all kinds of serious problems, not just in my State of Oklahoma but throughout the country. My office has received an incredible number of calls and e-mails from constituents, from homeowners, from contractors, to landlords, to plumbers, all trying to get information about a rule that, in most cases, they had never heard of until last week. I think everyone in this Chamber stands strongly behind the intent of the rule, which is to protect women who might be pregnant, children, and others from harmful effects of lead. With over 20 kids and grandkids, I understand that. I appreciate the importance of the rule and the potential it has to future decrease lead exposure. But, as even the Obama administration admits, implementation of the rule has been painfully slow and seriously flawed. Specifically, the rule requires that renovations to homes built before 1978 that disturb more than 6 square feet of surface area have to be supervised by a certified renovator and conducted by a certified renovation firm. In order to be certified, contractors have to submit an application with a fee to the EPA and complete a training course for instruction on lead-safe workplaces. Now, that sounds simple enough. There is one serious problem; that is, there aren't any instructors around to certify these people. What is worse than that, those who violate the rule; that is, they go and they try to do something to their own home, if it was a home that was built prior to 1978, if they violate this, they can be fined up to $37,500 a day. Just imagine how hysterical people are, not just in Oklahoma but throughout the country. There are not nearly enough contractors who have been certified, and that is because there are far too few people certified to teach the classes. That is why today, with 23 cosponsors, I am introducing legislation, S. 3296, to remedy this implementation travesty. This bill provides additional time for contractors and others to get certified so they can become qualified to go ahead and do these things and not be subjected to fines. It actually extends the time for a period of 1 year or until the EPA can have enough people to certify people around the country so that this can be done. The need for the bill is on display in Oklahoma, where, until yesterday, no one was teaching classes publicly. Keep in mind, no one is teaching these classes. Yet, if they try to do any renovation, they can be fined up to $37,500 a day. I am pleased to hear that Metro Tech of Oklahoma City has finally received its certification from the EPA and will begin teaching classes on May 13. I should note that because the demand is so high, they anticipate having full classes until July. Because access to courses is so limited, renovators and contractors cannot be trained and they cannot pass along the benefits of their lead-safe work practices to homeowners and help protect pregnant women and children from further lead exposure. Without enough certified renovators, we will simply not get the benefits this rule can provide. Let me give you a couple of statistics to help illustrate the problem. As of April 22--that was implementation day--the EPA had only accredited 204 training providers. Those providers have conducted more than 6,900 courses. They trained an estimated 160,000 people in the construction and remodeling industries to use lead-safe work practices. This is far too few people to ensure everyone who works on a pre-1978 home, including roofers, plumbers, painters, general contractors, or just individual homeowners, can have access to training to get certification they have to have. Let me share with you a few examples from Oklahoma. Paul Kane, executive vice president and CEO of the Home Builders Association of Greater Tulsa, was in my office with a number of Oklahoma homebuilders the day before the rule was implemented. That would have been April 21. During our meeting, I was pleased that Cass Sunstein, head of the Obama administration's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, was available to hear from my constituents about their concerns with the rule. As the Tulsa World reported: Kane explained the difficulty local contractors are having in getting certified, adding that only one trainer in the entire State of Oklahoma has been certified, and that that person has been certified only a few weeks. Moreover, he told Sunstein, that person is not offering training to the public but is limiting his classes to his own organization. So we have one guy who can teach these classes in the State of Oklahoma. Yet there are literally thousands out there who are out of work until such time as they can go back and start working again. I really appreciate the fact that Mr. Sunstein was listening to the concerns of my Oklahoma constituents. He told us he recognized that the implementation of the rule was causing economic hardship. He raised the possibility of providing a 60-day delay to help sort out of some of the implementation problems. In the end, however, this option was not workable, and we simply ran out of options to stop the rule from going into effect. Now, that was the day before the rule became finalized. But we certainly appreciate his attention, looking into it, and we are going to try to work with his staff. My staff also spoke with a property owner who rents homes to low- income residents in Tulsa. He has been unable to get contractors out to his properties to replace carpet or even paint because they do not have EPA certification, which means they can get fined by the agency if they work without it. So it is no surprise that my constituent is concerned that his housing units could fall into disrepair and that people would lose their access to affordable housing--not not only losing access to affordable housing but exposing people to lead paint. Additionally, we heard from a painter in Oklahoma City who has experienced delays in getting trained for the simple reason that his trainer has not yet been certified by the EPA. This issue reaches far beyond Oklahoma. There are a number of Senators, Republicans and Democrats, who have expressed concerns about the implementation of the rule. Several Members weighed in before the rule went into effect. Senators Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad of North Dakota and a bipartisan group of Members of the House of Representatives sent a letter outlining these concerns to the EPA. During a recent EPW subcommittee hearing, Senator Amy Klobuchar urged the EPA to come up with a solution that will ensure contractors have the opportunity to come into compliance with this rule. We are talking about everybody, Members of the House, the Senate, Democrats, Republicans. They are all affected the same. The issue has also been raised before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. In testimony before the committee on March 11, Bob Hanbury, speaking on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders, raised concerns about potential conflicts between Homestar and the lead rule. Members may recall that Homestar is one of President Obama's signature issues. It is a program that helps homeowners increase the energy efficiency of their homes. But Mr. Hanbury believes the lead rule won't allow the Star program to move forward. As we can see, there were plenty of concerns raised about the lead rule implementation before it went into effect. Nevertheless, EPA repeatedly said, in the 2-year period leading up to the rule, that it could meet these implementation challenges. As the ranking member of the committee with jurisdiction over the EPA, I wrote to the EPA two times that I believed EPA appeared to be far from prepared. In both cases, EPA said they were ready. In a June 3, 2009 letter responding to my concerns, the EPA wrote: I agree that both EPA and the regulated community have a great deal of preparation in front of us as we approach next April's deadline. I am confident, however, that the ten months between now and April of 2010 will allow us to meet these deadlines. That was a year ago. Of course, it didn't happen. In a letter dated December 1, 2009, EPA wrote me explaining: We are confident there will be enough training providers to meet the demand. EPA does not plan to revise the April 2010 effective date [for the] rule. The EPA also stated in the letter: Currently, the capacity for training is in excess of the demand as several training courses have been canceled for lack of attendance. What they are saying is they have been providing all these people, but it is just flat not true. In light of this situation, what can lawmakers do to help provide guidance for constituents back home? First and foremost, we have to get out the word. I have raised the issue both in my travel around Oklahoma and on Oklahoma radio. Last week I sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to all Senators with information to help them navigate the confusion associated with the rule's implementation. Included are Web links to EPA's Web site which take constituents to important information about the lead rule as well as the rule itself. It also provides a link to the EPA and the Ad Council's new Web site, www. Leadfreekids.org, which is a consumer friendly Web page with information on protecting yourself from lead. I wish also to commend the coverage of the rule by the Tulsa World. The paper's reporting has informed the public and even resulted in more classes being taught throughout Oklahoma. Further, along with Senator Coburn and some 23 of my fellow Senators, I have introduced S. 3296 to delay the implementation of the rule by several months, giving contractors, trainers, and the EPA breathing room to get more people through classes. The EPA has said the people have had a year to get ready for this rule. However, the first training class wasn't even held until June 16, 2009. Renovation firms could not apply for certification until October of last year. Our bill would delay the implementation and give people time to comply with this. This is in a way bureaucracy at its worst. We say we are going to demand that no one is going to be able to do something to their very own home if it disturbs as much as 6 square feet. And if they do, they could be fined $37,500 a day. Imagine how frightening that is. Yet they don't have enough instructors to teach people to be certificated. This is one we have to address. I think the only thing we can do right now is to get an extension. That is what I am doing with this Senate bill. I certainly call on my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans. The problem I am pointing out in Oklahoma is not just in Oklahoma; it is in all States. We will have to address this thing, get something done, or we have a lot of risk out there. We have children and pregnant women who could be at risk of exposure to lead and lead paint. Of course, one of the things that is almost as bad is the fact that we have literally, only in Oklahoma, thousands of people out of work because they cannot do renovation. Most of the homes they deal with are pre-1978. It is something that will have to be dealt with. I certainly encourage others to join the cause to relieve us of this problem. The rule will affect more than 70 million homes. The implementation of this rule to date has been a disaster. Congress will have to ensure that enough people are trained and certified. That way, the rule can do what it is supposed to do-- protect the health of young people and pregnant women. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as the co-chairman of the U.S. Senate Taiwan Caucus, I ask for unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the speech of Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou, delivered, via video conference, before the faculty and students at the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard University.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Honorable Dale E. Klein completed his last day as a member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 30, 2010, and has returned to the faculty of the University of Texas, from which he had been on an extended leave of absence as the result of his appointment by former President George W. Bush to the Department of Defense and subsequently to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dr. Klein began his tenure at the NRC on July 1, 2006, having been appointed by the President as the agency's Chairman. He continued to serve in that role until May 13, 2009, when President Obama designated Gregory B. Jaczko as the NRC Chairman. Although Dr. Klein would have preferred to return to the University of Texas at that time, he elected to remain an NRC Commissioner from May 2009 to March 30, 2010, to ensure continuity of the Commission until the President could nominate, and the U.S. Senate could confirm, his successor and two additional new Commissioners to fill existing vacancies on the Commission. Dr. Klein's tenure as the NRC Chairman coincided with the rapid acceleration in the nuclear industry's plans for the development of a new generation of U.S. nuclear power plants. By the time of his departure from the agency, the NRC had received 18 applications for 28 new nuclear power plants after nearly three decades in which no new nuclear plants had been constructed in the U.S. This dramatic resurgence of the nuclear power option created an urgent and very critical need for the NRC to hire an unprecedented number of new staff since many of the agency's most experienced technical staff were nearing retirement age and the agency had critical skill shortages in such areas as construction inspection. Dr. Klein provided oversight and direction to the recruiting effort, which at its peak would result in net annual increases of approximately 250 new staff. In the absence of this effort, the NRC would not have been able to complete its technical reviews of new applications on a time frame that would support the nuclear industry's plans or meet the Nation's growing need for new sources of clean, safe, and affordable energy. At the same time, Dr. Klein recognized that the resurgence in interest in nuclear power was a global phenomenon that was occurring both in countries with established nuclear power programs and countries with no prior experience with nuclear power. He consistently emphasized the critical importance of establishing and maintaining a strong, independent national nuclear regulatory authority in all countries considering the nuclear power option in his numerous meetings with his international regulatory counterparts in foreign countries, in meetings of international organizations like the IAEA, and during his frequent trips to foreign countries. Noting that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere, he also ensured that the NRC provided assistance in setting up national nuclear regulatory bodies when requested by the host country. Dr. Klein understood that for the NRC to continue to be an outstanding regulatory agency that could serve as a model for foreign countries, it needed good people, a strong safety culture, and the right technology. He observed that when he arrived at the NRC in July 2006, the agency had an outstanding technical staff and a strong safety culture, but was far behind the times in its technology infrastructure. He spent considerable time and effort in upgrading NRC's technology infrastructure not only to ensure improved communication within the NRC and with its stakeholders, but also to enable the NRC to attract and retain the young people that would become the core agency staff in the future. As the NRC accelerated its hiring of new staff after 2006, however, the existing NRC headquarters complex, the White Flint Complex in Rockville, MD, could no longer accommodate the headquarters staff, forcing the NRC to rent additional space in four other buildings in the Rockville area. This dispersal represented a return to conditions existing at the time of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, when the NRC was widely dispersed in 11 buildings in the Washington Metropolitan area. A study published after the accident cited the multiple, scattered locations of the agency's headquarters staff as a factor hampering the NRC's response to the 1979 accident. Consequently, Dr. Klein made it one of his highest priority goals as Chairman to reconsolidate NRC headquarters in a single location in the vicinity of the White Flint complex. Most of the preparatory work and obtaining local government, GSA, and Congressional approval for the construction of a third building at the White Flint complex occurred under the guidance and direction of Dr. Klein during his tenure as Chairman. Dr. Klein has made very significant contributions to maintaining the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the world's first and most experienced nuclear regulatory body and has demonstrated over the last 7 years his commitment to public service and protection of the public health and safety. I am therefore pleased to ask my Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing this outstanding public servant and in wishing him and his family success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we just heard from Senator Roberts about the medical devices. I think he pointed out very clearly that there is kind of another hidden tax in this legislation of some $20 billion on medical devices. I think it is important to listen to what Senator Roberts said, that it was not--it is not the device companies that will be paying this; it will be the individuals who would be paying it. Now, the difference between my amendment and Senator Roberts' amendment is that mine excludes those devices for children and those with disabilities. For example, some of our troops coming home have lost limbs, and they have prosthetic devices. This is for them. This is for the 8-year-old whose heart quit beating in the middle of the night and they put a pacemaker in and it saved his life. It is for incubators and this type of thing. It is the same thing. It is the same offset as Senator Roberts and Senator Schumer had, and I would ask that you seriously consider this amendment. This is for the children and those with disabilities.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3588 and make it pending.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent we dispense with the reading of the amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, President Obama repeatedly promised during the campaign that no one making under $250,000 per year would see their taxes increase. However, the Democrats claim to spend $2.6 trillion in new health care at a time when the country cannot afford the promises they have already made and we have a record 1-year budget deficit, $1.4 trillion. We hear President Obama always talking about what he inherited from George W. Bush. What he inherited was nothing like what he did. He actually raised the deficit $1.4 trillion in 1 year. That is more than President Bush did in his last 5 years. The HELP bill, which recently passed the House, represents an unprecedented expansion of government control and increases taxes on Americans during a difficult economic time. But the Democrats did not stop with one expensive health care bill. Now the Senate is debating a fix-it bill which increases taxes an additional $50 billion on the American people. Reading through the legislation, I am struck by a myriad of ways this raises taxes on American citizens, from job-creating small businesses to middle-income families--over a half trillion dollars of new taxes. If you happen to need a medical device--that is what we are talking about right now--you get taxed under the bill. Section 9009 of the recently passed health care bill imposes a new tax on assistive devices, which includes items such as pacemakers, ventilators, and prosthetics, and incubators for premature babies. The fix-it bill--I call this the payoff bill because as you all know the Speaker of the House had to pay off all these individuals. We understand how that works. That is what this bill is all about right now. That is why it needs to be amended. This is what we are currently debating. It actually expands to include more medical devices such as tongue depressors, elastic bandages, most hand-held dental instruments, and examination gloves. I am joining with my Republican colleagues to propose an amendment striking the tax on medical devices. Additionally, I have filed amendment No. 3588--that is what we are talking about now--that will strike this expansion of taxes on assistive devices for two of the most vulnerable populations, children and individuals with disabilities. I have previously spoken on the floor about this new tax and how it hurts Americans. Let me remind you of a couple of examples. My son-in-law Brad Swan installs pacemakers and defibrillators. I know this is true because he lives right across the street from us. At 1 o'clock in the morning he was called to an emergency involving a young 8-year-old boy with no heartbeat whatsoever. He was born with congenital heart disease, was able to have a pacemaker put in that morning, right after he was called, and now he has a full, healthy life ahead of him. My older sister Marilyn faced a similar situation and is alive and healthy today. Additionally, Dr. Stanley DeFehr, a cardiologist in Bartlesville, OK, explained to me that: The cost of a pacemaker [we are talking about $5,000; it is something that lasts 10 years] pales in comparison to the cost of a stroke or multiple fractures. Now with this tax, we are making these medical devices more expensive for families, which may prevent others from accessing the device they need in order to enhance or even save their lives. I have never been through anything like this in the 20 years I have been here. We look at the tax increase in this bill of $569 billion; now it is going to be more than that. Additionally, I was talking this morning in Chickasha, OK, on a radio show, and the person intervening me was talking about his 94-year-old mother and how she depends on Medicare. I explained that there is $523 billion in Medicare cuts in this bill. So, you know, the White House was celebrating. You could hear the champagne corks popping all night long. Yes, they successfully increased taxes by $569 billion. So I encourage people to vote for this amendment to at least relieve part of the problem that is out there. It is amendment No. 3588. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, the reason I proposed the previous amendment is because it would do something about the runaway spending and the deficit we have. It would have had the effect of reducing just under $1 trillion in a 10-year period. This doesn't work. I know everyone thinks they want to jump on the bandwagon on earmark reform, but there is not any earmark that if you kill it, it saves one nickel. To me, it is deceptive to the public. For those people on this side of the aisle, I would only say that if you want to give President Obama that much more money to deal with, this is your opportunity to do it, because if you kill an earmark, it goes back into the bureaucracy and that is where he will have the choice. The other night when we had the 102 earmarks that the ``Sean Hannity Show'' talked about, not one was a congressional earmark. So I don't think the votes are going to change but, nonetheless, nothing will be saved by this. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(g)3 of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for the purposes of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INHOFE. All right. Well, Madam President, I will go ahead and take my minute. This amendment is something that would reduce expenditures, do something about the deficit. I know there are a lot of my Democratic friends and Republican friends alike who would like a chance to do this. I know there is a feel-good vote coming up on earmarks, but that does not reduce anything in terms of the expenditures. If you vote on an earmark, and you defeat the earmark, it does not cut the amount of money, but the underlying bill will go back to some bureaucracy. It can be the Department of the Interior. It can be the Environmental Protection Agency. It can be any number of departments. Then an unelected bureaucrat will be making that decision. It was interesting the other day when, in a three-part series, Sean Hannity had on his program 102 earmarks. When he was all through--and I read all of these Monday on the floor--the interesting thing about it, what they all had in common was not one of those earmarks was a congressional earmark. They were all bureaucratic earmarks. That is where the problem is, not the congressional earmarks. So I am going to urge my friends to support a real effort, a sincere effort, and an effective effort to reduce government spending by voting for my amendment.