Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me first comment on the comments made by the Senator from Georgia, because I was privileged to be in Afghanistan several years ago with the Oklahoma 45th, which actually took a great responsibility in the training over there and also turning over some of the training to the Afghans. They have done a good job, but as the Senator pointed out, this takes resources and it takes equipment and it takes money. I applaud him and join him in this effort to provide the resources necessary to make that happen. Let me make a couple of comments. We will have some amendments coming up concerning the C-17. I wish to share maybe an opposing view to some of the things we have heard. I was deeply distressed, I guess it was in April, when we got the defense portion of the President's budget and the termination of such programs as the F-22, next generation bombers, the Future Combat System, and particularly doing away with our commitment to Poland and the Czech Republic to have an opportunity there to knock down a missile, an ICBM coming to the United States from Iran, when we know they should be having that capability by around 2015. Today I want to mention a couple of things about the C-17. The Air Force budget justification documents state: The C-17 can perform the entire spectrum of airlift missions and is specifically designed to operate effectively and efficiently in both strategic and theater environments. I can remember when the first C-17 came in. The training takes place actually in my State of Oklahoma at Altus Air Force Base, and in 1995, it was the spring of 1995, the first C-17 swept into Altus Air Force Base. At that time the chief was General Fogleman, and I was honored to accompany him and actually sit in the right seat and see what this new spectacular airplane was. We never dreamed at that time we would have the use of the C-17 to the extent we did in Bosnia and Kosovo, missions we did not dream at that time we would have to be confronted with. Every time you watch the news or see a disaster or emergency of some type anywhere in this Earth where our military is involved, you are going to see the C-17. The country and its military must be able to engage globally, and the C-17 enables that engagement. In my 22 years on the Hill, I have seen our airlift requirements increase, not decrease. I have had experience. Sometimes you talk about a system, a platform such as the C-17. Our dealing with that doesn't happen in a vacuum. Right now we have other lift vehicles. We have the C-130s, better ones, the C-130Js and the C-130Es, which are getting old and outdated. I actually had two experiences on two of my trips coming into and out of Baghdad. One experience was when we actually lost not one engine but two engines. We are talking about some pretty old, beat-up E models that should not be flying right now. The very next trip, I remember, was the first trip of our recently retired Senator from Florida when we actually received some SAM activity. We had to fire the flares. The reason we did, it was 8 minutes after taking off from Baghdad and the engines should have had us out of SAM's range. However, the E models are getting old and tired. So it is life threatening. I say that even though I am here to talk about C-17s. We can absorb a lot of deficiencies we have in other areas by increasing our number of C-17s. Currently it is the only aircraft capable of performing every airlift mission, whether ferrying troops and supplies to remote airfields overseas or returning wounded servicemembers back home. The Congressional Research Service has indicated that the C-17 was designed to fly 1,000 hours a year over 30 years. However, as our overseas commitments have grown since 2001, the fleet has averaged 1,250 hours per year instead of 1,000 hours a year. Some aircraft have even reached as high as 2,400 hours in a single year. A November 2008 GAO study stated the C-17: --production line is currently scheduled to close in September 2010 with the supplier base and portions of the line closing sooner. The study concludes that: Analysis indicates that once closed it would not be feasible or cost effective to restart the production due to the costs for hiring and training a new workforce, reinstalling tooling, and reestablishing the supply base. That is what the study concluded. The GAO estimates that restarting the line could cost up to $1 billion. This is something we are always concerned with when you talk about altering the life of a particular platform, but this is one I don't see how we can get along without. I know we have the C-5. I remember the old C-141--a lot of lift capacity--a lot of tired C-130s, but the prize of all these capabilities is the C-17. While the administration objects to funding 10 additional C-17s based on 205 C-17s and the existing fleet of C-5 aircraft, the Air Force has cut the number of C-5s it plans to fully modernize by more than half because of substantial cost increases in the modernization efforts. In testimony to the House Armed Services Committee in May of 2009, the Air Force said it will fully modernize only 52 of the 40-year-old C-5s. While we are upgrading some of these aircraft, some of these, specifically the C-5A, had to be retired. However, this Congress, by bill language, is preventing the Air Force from retiring any of the C- 5s. In terms of cost, the GAO calculated ``the DOE would need to fully modernize 7 C-5s to obtain the equivalent capability achieved from acquiring 1 C-17 and the costs would be 3 times more.'' It found the unit cost of modernizing one C-5 is $132 million, while the unit cost of one new C-17 is $267 million. To put it another way, it would take seven modernized C-5s to provide the capability equivalent to one new C-17, or $924 million worth of work on modernizing the C-5 to provide the capability equivalent to procuring one additional new C-17 at $276 million. I am hoping when this issue does come up we will have a chance to think that through. I would say this: Even if we were inclined to do that, to go along with the smaller number, it would seem to me that we should not be doing that until we have the Quadrennial Defense Review and the upcoming Mobility Capability and Requirements Study. It is my understanding these would come sometime early in 2010. I suggest we at least wait until we have the benefit of that report before taking such drastic action. Let me mention one other thing that happened last night, for clarification. At midnight last night the highway program of the American people suffered a major loss because of a calculated decision that politics should trump common sense. I have often thought that congressional inaction is a good thing sometimes, but in this case we failed miserably to do our job. As a result, we are unable to pass the 3-month extension of the highway program that Senator Boxer and I were pushing. It is very interesting when you have a combination such as that. Senator Boxer is a very proud liberal Democrat, I am a very proud conservative Republican, and we both agree one of the major functions of government is infrastructure, and right now we have a crumbling infrastructure. So our failure to work together to fix the rescission, which was $8.7 billion of highway money, before midnight yesterday has resulted in the following: Up to 17,000 jobs could be lost because States may be forced to cancel $500 million worth of projects. We are now stuck with a 30-day extension that cuts highway spending by 25 percent compared to 2009. The 3-month extension would have funded the 2010 equal to 2009. The short length of this extension is now going to create uncertainty and erratic funding for States that are going to delay projects and gear down the letting of contracts. I have to say this, too. There will be contracts, due to this 25- percent reduction, that are going to have to be defaulted. There are going to be lawsuits. There will be all kinds of problems that will result from this. It is not just my State of Oklahoma. I am sure the State of Alabama and other States have a crumbling infrastructure that needs to be addressed. I was on the phone with Gary Ridley, who was our highway director for many years, and I always said he was the best highway director in the country. He is now Oklahoma's transportation secretary. He gave me the impact of our failure to act, just on my State of Oklahoma. He said we would normally receive $53.6 million of Federal money but instead are likely only to receive $36 million. That is the 25-percent reduction. They have a $28 million bond obligation which leaves them only about $8 million for letting projects, instead of $26 million. This means that they will likely only be able to let three or four projects in November, the first letting of the year, and probably none in December. That is my guess. That was his guess. Here is the real-world impact of what we do here. This will be devastating for construction workers in Oklahoma and will be repeated in every State. This may come as a surprise to those in the other body who have said that this will have no effect on States. They are the ones over there in the House who have made it impossible for us to send something over there and get it complied with. I have been trying to pass a long-term extension with rescission fix since July. At that time opposition from Congressmen and Senators from both sides of the aisle prevented taking care of the problem. Our attempts to set a prudent length for highway extension has been plagued by some people's unrealistic expectation that we can complete a 6-year transformational highway bill and plug a $150 billion shortfall in the next 3 months if we ``keep the pressure'' on. We do not even have the 3 months now, as of midnight last night. We are looking at 30 days, so it obviously cannot be done. We may have to repeat what we did a few years ago. Between the years of 2003 and 2005 we had a series of short-term extensions where you can't do any funding, planning in advance. That is kind of where we are today. I was proud to be the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee in 2005 when we had a very robust transportation reauthorization bill. Taking up an extension is always problematic. Unfortunately, some view this as an opportunity to make a point. There are those on my side of the aisle who will not hesitate to hold the entire highway program hostage in order to enumerate yet again their distaste for congressionally directed spending on highway projects. At the same time, the majority leadership has known for months this was coming but was unable to force the issue and take the time to have votes on this important issue. This could have been resolved weeks ago if they had been invested in it. Fixing the rescission would increase the deficit by just under $500 million. This is very significant. The other body wanted an offset for this, and they were right. So did I. I wanted an offset. I think the most reasonable offset is the unused stimulus funds. I have stated all along that there was not enough there in the stimulus bill to actually stimulate the economy. In fact, I had amendments during the debate on the stimulus bill that would almost triple the amount of money that would go into highway construction. Those are real jobs. That would be very meaningful. But according to CBO's most recent analysis that was done a month ago, only $85 billion of stimulus funds has actually been spent. Furthermore, less than 60 percent of the stimulus funds has even been obligated, leaving $150 billion in unobligated balances. Money being unobligated means they do not have a plan for how they are going to spend it and are now nowhere near doing so. This is clearly not stimulating the economy. It makes sense to move a fraction of this money to something that will actually save jobs--in this case, 17,000 jobs we can identify. It is something that would stimulate the economy and give us something at the end of the day for our money. It is a perfect source to pay for fixing the rescission. In fact, Senator Vitter's approach from last July was to actually give President Obama's OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, the discretion to pick which stimulus funds would be cut. So he did not care which ones were cut; just we need to put these stimulus funds to work to create jobs. So they couldn't cut the things that were not working or were just congressional pet programs. This is simply cutting the worst 1 percent of the stimulus--something everybody should be able to agree to whether or not you voted for the stimulus, which I did not. But the other side blocked this approach in a show of partisanship. So Senator Boxer and I brokered a bipartisan agreement to use TARP funds, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. To me, this made sense because this would have offset the amount of money that would be lost in the rescission fix, as a way of doing it, and it would have actually taken care of the problem. Some people thought this would have somehow affected the deficit, but it would not. It meant we would reduce TARP authority by $8.7 billion, which would reduce the deficit by $4.35 billion, according to CBO. Putting aside politics, penciling this out shows that $4.35 billion in deficit reduction, minus the cost of the rescission--$500 million-- means a deficit savings of just under $4 billion. I thought this was a good thing. We would preserve up to 17,000 jobs and reduce the deficit--clearly a win-win solution, I thought. I thought this up until late last night because I thought we were going to be able to do it. But there were objections. We reduced funding for a program that was a bad idea from the inception. I opposed it initially. We are talking about TARP. I voted against it. A lot of those people who are complaining about the amount of money being spent voted for a $700 billion bailout, as it has been referred to. But I did not. I opposed it. Some people supported it, thinking the government buying so-called toxic assets was necessary. But then, when this money was given to unaccountable bureaucrats, it was used for buying insurance companies, car companies, and bailing out banks. But some of my conservative colleagues opposed this approach because they want to use TARP money for debt reduction. I agree with that. As I pointed out, the compromise Senator Boxer and I were pushing would have resulted in a net reduction of the deficit of about $4 billion. Even as I say this, I honestly don't understand their opposition. Those who talk about using TARP funds were willing to stimulate the funds, but the Democrats refused to do that. So we came up with another idea: Let's go ahead and use stimulus funds. If we used stimulus funds, I tought that would have overcome the objections that were on the floor last night, and I thought that was a good idea. Unfortunately, the Democrats did not want to do that. So I think we have tried. I think it kind of demonstrates that it is a serious problem. We had a fix, and the Republicans and the Democrats were equally responsible for not getting it. Now we are going to pay the price. I don't know that the problem is worse in Oklahoma. It is probably not. It is about the same throughout the Nation. But speaking now as a conservative, one who is always ranked in the top two or three conservatives, I have always felt conservatives can be big spenders in some areas. One is defending America, as I talked about a few minutes ago, and the other is in our infrastructure. That is a function our government is supposed to perform. So I think we failed last night. Hopefully, we will find some way to overcome this problem and get back on track. I thank Senator Boxer and Secretary LaHood. They both tried very hard. We talked and worked for many hours. There are countless others on both sides of the aisle who worked together and tried to fix this problem. We didn't do it. Let's hope we can do it shortly. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee--a position I held at one time, but I am the ranking member for the minority. This is a huge issue. This is one we cannot let go unattended. Tonight at midnight this thing expires. So we have to do it. Let me compliment Senator Boxer in being willing to go to some extremes that, quite frankly, I did not know she would be able to agree to. What is at stake right now is about $500 million of projects that will have to be canceled. If you cancel these projects--these contracts have already been let--we are talking about lawsuits. We are talking about around 17,000 jobs being lost unless we are able to fix this recision thing and to get it offset. Well, that is what is going to happen. We are drafting an amendment right now. I know the hour is late. I know we are going to come back for a vote at 6:30. But I think this absolutely has to be done, and I think it will be done. I am looking right now for any of the Republicans who might be objecting to this so I can talk to them. Quite frankly, I do not think there will be objection on our side. The highway money at risk would put people to work, unlike much of the so-called stimulus. So I think we have an opportunity now to do this, and it is only going to be done because of the cooperation between the chairman of this committee and myself as ranking member. So let's do everything we can. I say to the Senator, I think you have come up with a solution. We have, together, come up with a solution. Let's make it happen.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I only want to be here to thank the Senator from Alaska and Senator Thune for trying to bring to our attention the issue of the endangerment findings. I have been discussing the incoming economic train wreck that can result from these regulations since the case of Massachusetts v. EPA was decided back in 2007. The EPA's regulatory reach could go everywhere. It could go into schools, hospitals, assisted-living facilities, and just about any activity that meets the minimum thresholds of the Clean Air Act. Despite the attempts to draft an exemption for small businesses by the senior Senator from California, this effort would be hollow at best. Upon issuance of mobile source regulations the EPA has proposed in its light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards, the farmers and small sources still retain the obligation under the Clean Air Act, and this obligation is enforceable through citizen suits which we have confirmed through environmental groups will follow. So we know that is going to happen. I would have to say, as the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, the more we get into this, the more complications we find. In the process of coming up with some type of an endangerment finding, we find that the information science has been suppressed. We know of the case of Dr. Alan Carlin, who claims his assessment of the latest science on global warming wasn't considered in the endangerment proposal. So we have the endangerment proposal. And some people are not aware of how this process works; that ultimately, if the findings are there, that is when they reach into every life in America. However, this Dr. Carlin has been with the EPA for a long period of time, and he was upset that his information was intentionally suppressed. Then we find out that information concerning the economics, such as we found through the U.S. Treasury's assessment when they were trying to say, during the consideration of, perhaps this modified bill that it would be the cost of a postage stamp a day, that in fact it would have been some $1,761 per family every year--we tried to relate that back to what kind of a tax increase this is. If you remember back in the year 1993, we had the Clinton-Gore tax increase--the largest tax increase in decades. It was the inheritance tax, marginal rates, capital gains, and every kind of tax imaginable. If you add all that up, that was a $32 billion tax increase. This would be almost 10 times that much. So I think, as we progress along the lines of the endangerment finding, we know how it will be life changing for every element of our society. So I appreciate the efforts of both Senator Murkowski and Senator Thune to bring this issue of endangerment findings to the forefront. I am not sure it is the best idea to try to get a 1-year moratorium because in a way that might suppress some of the activity that is going on to expose how bad this is to the public. Having said that, I appreciate being yielded a small amount of time, and I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2549

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me thank the Senator from California for allowing me to go first in this group that I am sure will appear down here to talk in morning business. As the cap and trade continues to languish in the Senate, President Obama is trying to salvage international climate change talks that are on the brink of collapse. So he gave a climate change speech at the United Nations, hoping to inspire hope in the process marred by failure. His speech, however, fell short of expectations, offering only to talk of rising sea levels and climate refugees, sort of resurrecting things that have been refuted in the old Gore speeches. President Obama's speeches have been delivered against a backdrop of confusion and disagreement in the international community over climate change. The European Union is angry that the Senate is stalling cap and trade. China and India refuse to accept binding emissions cuts. The New York Times admits that global temperatures ``have been stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.'' In other words, we are actually in a cooling period right now, maybe not as dramatic as the one I recall back so well in 1975, when they said another ice age is coming, nonetheless it is cooler. We are not involved in global warming right now. He was addressing the global economic recession that has taken precedence over climate change in countries throughout the world. This global economic recession is one that has captured the interest of the people all over the world and has them looking to see: Is this science really there that they were talking about, going all the way back to the late 1990s and the Kyoto treaty? This is deja vu all over again. These are some of the same issues that have stymied climate talks ever since Kyoto. We were told all rancor and disagreement would evaporate once the new administration assumed power in the United States. After all, the failure to achieve an international climate pact was simply George Bush's fault. President Obama would bring change and the ability to persuade the likes of China and India to transcend their national self- interest for the global good. That has not happened and is not going to happen. I was surprised President Obama failed to define what success will mean in Copenhagen, so I will have to do it for him. From the standpoint of the Senate, success will not mean a vague, open-ended commitment on the emissions from India or China, the world's leading emitter. Success can only mean that China and other developing countries agree to mandatory emission cuts comparable to those required in America and that any treaty or agreement that did not avoid causing harm to our economy would not be acceptable. Unless those conditions are met, no such treaty or agreement will be approved by the Senate. I remember the Senate resoundingly rejected exempting developing nations such as China way back in 1997. That is still alive today. It passed 94 to 0. It said we will not agree to any treaty. At that time, Vice President Gore had signed the Kyoto treaty. They were trying to encourage us to ratify that treaty. President Clinton never brought it to the floor. It is because we had spoken loudly and clearly with a unanimous vote in the Senate that said we are not going to ratify anything that either doesn't force the developing countries such as India and China to have the same requirements as we have or that hurts us economically. That is the position--it was then and is today--of the U.S. Senate. I think that still commands support in the Senate. Any treaty the Obama administration submits must meet that resolution. We hear that China is making progress in reducing emissions and that the administration will persuade China to agree to more aggressive steps in Copenhagen. By the way, that is where they have the annual meeting, the big bash the United Nations puts on. I went to one of those back in about 2003, I guess it was, in Milan, Italy. The administrations's climate change envoy, Todd Stern, is saying something different. On September 2--he is the person from the Obama administration--on September 2, he said: ``It is not possible to ask China for an absolute reduction below where they are right now'' because, as he said, ``they are not quite at that point to be able to do that. And, in that respect, developing countries are different''-- totally violating the intent of the 1997 agreement that this Senate had. This is the first time someone from the administration has said let's treat developing countries different from developed countries. Let me restate a bit. Stern is saying China simply can't make reductions that would be comparable to anything the United States accepts domestically. This is not a surprise considering China is now the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide while U.S. emissions have remained relatively stagnant. Make no mistake here, China is unapologetic for its refusal to accept binding emissions cuts, and it will pursue an all-of-the-above strategy, including burning coal as it deems necessary; all of the above: oil, gas, coal, nuclear; they are very big in nuclear over there. China also stated that before it accepts absolute, binding emissions reductions, developing countries must reduce their emissions by at least 40 percent by 2020. Let me say that again. China won't accept absolute reductions until developing countries--that is, the United States, including the United States--reduce their emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. This is really astounding considering that the Waxman-Markey bill only calls for a 14-percent reduction and they are saying they expect us to have a 40-percent reduction. Accepting the Chinese position would mean certain economic disaster for the United States, for jobs and businesses--not to mention emissions--going to China. Over the coming days and weeks, we will hear much about China's national mitigation plan, its 5-year plan to reduce emissions. We will hear stern warnings that China is outpacing the United States on clean energy. But this is a smokescreen to hide the chaos and failure of international climate change negotiations. In the coming weeks, President Obama will reach some sort of bilateral agreement with China on climate change, but it won't require China to do anything other than business as usual. We have gone through this before. I can understand China's position. If I were in China, in that government, I would say the same thing. I would say: Let's go ahead and let's get the developed nations to have some kind of reductions so that will move manufacturing jobs to us, to China. I have to say this about the new Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, in her honesty the other day in a public hearing--I asked her the question: If we were to pass one of these bills where we unilaterally pass something in the United States, like Waxman-Markey, if we did that, would that have any reduction in worldwide reductions in CO2? She said no, it would not have any effect. Obviously, it wouldn't. Anyway, you could argue that if we were to pass Waxman-Markey, it would have the effect of increasing worldwide emissions because our manufacturing base would go to countries where they didn't have any emission requirements. So, in the final analysis, President Obama's speech to the United Nations was a failure to define success, a failure to provide real solutions for international energy security, and a failure to sketch the outlines of a meaningful international climate change agreement that will pass the Byrd-Hagel test of 1997. I think surely after the August recess, after so many people were beaten up on the fact that they did not want to have any type of a government-run health system, they certainly did not want to pass something that would be a cap and trade that would have the effect of providing the largest single tax increase in the history of America, a tax increase in the range of $300 to $366 billion a year. I can remember back when we passed that very large tax increase in 1993. It was called the Clinton-Gore tax increase. It increased the marginal rates, increased capital gains, it increased the death tax, all of the other taxes. I was pretty upset about it at that time. I talked on the Senate floor. I said that was a $32 billion tax increase. This would be 10 times that size. So I do not think it is going to happen. This commission will listen to the speeches between now and Copenhagen. I plan to make a few myself. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Jones Academy was founded over 100 years ago, in 1891, on the site of an earlier school operated by the Choctaw Nation. Its sister institution was the Wheelock Academy for Girls, founded earlier than Jones and providing an academic curriculum for girls. Both programs were federally funded through the Office of Indian Affairs--later renamed the Bureau of Indian Affairs--with many private and tribal donations. Until 1950, the situation worked. While the Bureau of Indian Affairs technically ran the school, the relative isolation of the school and the constant presence of a large Indian Tribe meant that the children at Jones Academy received an education adequate for their academic and personal needs. In 1952, the Federal Government instituted the termination policy. In 1953, the BIA approached the Public School District of Hartshorne, OK. They offered to close the academic programs for Jones Academy and totally close Wheelock Academy. The children were to be bused to Hartshorne School District, in exchange for local public education of these children. The school district agreed, provided they continued to receive Johnson-O'Malley payments as well as impact aid payments for Indian students. Over tribal objections, this arrangement was instituted and Jones Academy became a dormitory-only program. It has remained such for 45 years. An agreement between the Choctaw Nation and the Hartshorne School District was reached in 2003 to allow children in the lowest grades, 1- 6, to attend classes on campus, at Jones Academy, thus receiving better support and avoiding lengthy busing. As part of this agreement, and to assist the children through better programs, the Choctaw Nation has constructed and equipped state-of-the-art facilities, and it did so without any Federal assistance. In recent years, the programs at Jones Academy School site have won numerous awards for being one of Oklahoma's highest achieving schools. However, the Choctaw Nation is not able to implement control over the Jones Academy program or exercise self determination as other tribes do. They wish to do so, as a normal extension of Jones' recent success and the Choctaw Nation's desire to improve continuously. This can only be done if the tribe is allowed to actually operate Jones Academy academic program under its own policies and programs, reflecting its push for excellence. Because of a moratorium enacted in 1995, which prevents any tribal school from receiving Federal academic program support for any program not operated at that school, the Jones Academy is prevented from reestablishing their programs and entering the Federal grant schools system. This moratorium was originally enacted as a ``temporary'' halt to changes to allow the BIA time to develop and institute a new construction and facilities system. However, the moratorium has been continued as a provision of the law. My Oklahoma colleague in the House, Mr. Boren, has been working on this issue, and the House committee report accompanying the proposed fiscal year 2010 Interior appropriations bill contains language to address the issue in the form of a BIA study. I support the inclusion of this language and support the prompt completion of the study. I support the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and Chief Pyle on this issue.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, could I inquire as to the regular order?

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, if the Senator controlling the remainder of the majority time would like to reserve his time, I will go ahead and start.

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

Mr. INHOFE. I ask when the majority would then be recognized?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, as we speak, there is an announcement coming from the White House, it is my understanding, that they are going to cancel the Eastern European sites we have been working on for such a long period of time. I think it is appropriate to quote something I saw many years ago and was foreseen by President Reagan when he was President. He said: Since the dawn of the atomic age, we have sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control. Deterrence: Making sure the adversary who thinks about attacking the United States or our allies or our vital interests concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won't attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression. I wish people today would understand those words of Ronald Reagan quite some time ago and how prophetic they were as we look right now and see the administration is talking about canceling this program. I arranged to be in Afghanistan at the time Secretary of Defense Gates announced the budget, I believe last February, the Obama budget, so far as defense was concerned. I was very much concerned. I was concerned about what happened to the F-22. Initially, we were going to have the only fifth-generation fighter that this country has. We, initially, were going to have 750 of them. He terminated the program at 187. I was concerned about the termination of the C-17 program. I was concerned about the termination of the Future Combat System. The Future Combat System is the only ground system that has gone through a major change in probably 50 or 60 years. So we will not have that improved ground capability for our young men and women who go into harm's way. Also, I made the comment that I suspected at that time, when he suspended the radar site in the Czech Republic and the interception capability in Poland, that that was easing into terminating that program. I think we are finding out today he is terminating that program. On February 3, 2009, Iran launched a satellite, on the 30th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. On July 9 of 2008, Iran tested nine missiles, including the Shahab-3, which has a range of 1,240 miles. I recognize the threat to Western Europe--this wouldn't quite do it. It is 1,240 miles. I think the range in order to be able to get something to Italy would be about 2,000 miles. On the other hand, we never guess these things right. I remember so well, in 1998, the Clinton administration made a statement in response to a question I asked on August 14, 1998: How long will it be until they have the multiple-stage capability in North Korea? The White House responded it was going to be between 10 and 15 years. Seven days later, on August 13, 1998, they fired it. This is how far off we are in our intelligence. We don't know. I don't want to guess this thing too close. Riki Ellison from the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance said: The Islamic Republic of Iran has just proved for the first time that it has the capability to place satellites in space by successfully launching a 3-stage liquid fueled rocket that has placed two objects in low-Earth orbit. . . .Iran has demonstrated the key technologies of propulsion, staging, and guidance to deliver a weapon of mass destruction globally. I am hoping the White House doesn't come out and say that is launching a satellite. It is the same technology, launching a nuclear warhead. This is getting very serious right now. The U.S. intelligence community has estimated Iran may have long-range ballistic missiles capable of threatening all of Western Europe and the United States by 2015. Madam President, 2015, that sounds reminiscent of August of 1998, when they said it would be 10 to 15 years. Delaying this creates all kinds of problems for us. Our credibility in Eastern Europe is something that bothers me. I was recently in the Czech Republic. President Vaclav Klaus--they were cooperative in saying yes. The Parliament debated it and decided we could put a radar site there which would allow us to see something coming in; otherwise, we would not be able to do it. Then, next door in Poland, to have an interception capability--they agreed to do that. Parliament didn't want to do it. They were concerned about Russia's response and a lot of opposition that there might be. The thing I do not understand is why Western Europe is not lining up with us and saying we have to have those two sites. They are the ones who are naked now if we don't have that. I am very much concerned about that. MG Vladimir Dvorkin, who is the head of the Center for Strategic Forces in Moscow, said: ``Iran is actively working on a missile program,'' adding that Iran is ``1 or 2 years'' from having a nuclear weapon. This concerns me. We have those individuals we seem to be catering to, the Russians, in order to leave ourselves without a type of defensive system to protect Western Europe and the Eastern United States. It is troubling to me. In April 2009, North Korea furthered their missile and nuclear development by a Taepodong-2 missile in the China Sea. That has a range of over 2,000--about 2,500 miles. That would reach Rome. That would reach Berlin. There has to be a concern that they have this capability, they have demonstrated this capability very clearly. NATO leaders stated in December of 2008, last Christmas, that: Ballistic missile proliferation poses increasing threat to allied forces, territory and populations. Missile defense forms a part of the broader response to counter this threat. We therefore recognize the substantial contribution to the protection of allies from long range ballistic missiles to be provided by a planned development of the European-based United States missile defense assets. That is what we are talking about. In Poland, the site in Poland would include up to 10 silo-based, long-range interceptors capable of shooting down hostile missiles from Iran in their midcourse. Let's put the chart up here. A lot of people do not realize this is very sophisticated. Our missile defense system takes into consideration three courses. For the segment here, the boost phase, we don't have anything there yet. We are supposed to be working on it. I was disturbed that one of the things that was terminated by this administration is that effort. The terminal defense segment is one we are working on right now. The airborne laser in the boost phase is one of the programs I believe the administration is canceling. The site in Poland would include up to 10 silo-based, long-range interceptors. The radar site in the Czech Republic would house a narrow beam midcourse tracking radar that is currently used by our missile defense system in the Pacific. These are things we know work. I am very concerned about it. I have not heard the statement from the White House, but I have a feeling we are going to hear the same thing we heard back in 1998, and it is very troubling. This is something that can be--should be an act of desperation in terms of Western Europe at this time. Cap and Trade Having said that, this is some good news. That was the bad news. The good news is we have notice this morning that the Democratic caucus, as reported in Politico, is split over the bill, the cap-and-trade bill we are talking about, with coal-, oil- and manufacturing-State Democrats raising concerns that a cap-and-trade system would disproportionately spike electricity bills for consumers and businesses in their regions. There is a recognition now that this thing we have been talking about ever since the Kyoto treaty--the threat at that time that they were talking about is now. Everyone realizes that is not what it was. Science has changed dramatically and most scientists now are saying this is something that was overstated that one time. The cost, though, is the big thing. I quit arguing about the science a long time ago. I gave a speech from this podium not too long ago. If anyone is interested, I ask my colleagues to go to the Web site inhofe.senate.gov, where we listed 700 scientists who were on the other side of the issue who are now on the skeptics' side, recognizing the science is not there. David Bellamy from Great Britain is one who was always talking about--he was on Al Gore's side on this thing. After going through and restudying and reevaluating the science, he agreed everything wasn't there. The same thing is true with leaders in France and Israel. But what we have now is something people do understand and that is the cost of this, the consistent cost. Kyoto's cost, if we lived by the emission standard, would be somewhere, according to the Wharton Econometric Survey, I think it was called back during the Kyoto days, would be between $300 billion and $330 billion every year. As bad as the stimulus was, at least that is a one-shot deal and the people would not have to pay for it every year. This will be every year. Then along came McCain-Lieberman in 2003 and 2005 and the same estimates came about that it would be a $300 billion tax increase. I remember 1993 when we had the Clinton-Gore tax increase, which was the largest tax increase in three decades. During that time we looked at it, it was a $32 billion tax increase: increasing inheritance taxes, marginal rates, capital gains, and all of that. That is only $32 billion. This is 10 times that size. Well, the White House was trying to say, and several of them on the other side in our committee--in fact, the chairman of our committee--it is going to cost a postage stamp a day. People are willing to pay for that. Those postage stamps must be getting pretty expensive. Now we have found out there is an analysis released by the U.S. Department of Treasury that was held down, not released. Now we know what it is. They said the cost would be between $100 and $200 billion a year. The cost--this is according to their figures now--to an American household would be an extra $1,761 a year. This is their analysis. I think that is right. In fact, we have seen the CRA report that shows the cost of this--and MIT agrees with this, I might add, because they evaluated the Warner-Lieberman bill 12 months ago--right now being closer to $366 billion a year, with a cost per family, the study has shown, in my State of Oklahoma and in the State of Texas, we would be the highest taxed. It would be $3,300 a year per family. That is huge. I know the east coast and the west coast is a little bit more than half of that, but still it is a huge tax increase. Finally, this report that was put together by the Department of Treasury has been released. And they admit it. So we can quit talking about some of these things that are not realistic. We know what the cost is. We know also the likelihood of it coming up this year is most unusual. I do not think it is going to happen. The Senate majority leader stated, I think 2 days ago, that the Senate may not act on comprehensive energy and climate change legislation. Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska, a Democrat, I might add, said: We have enough on our plate at the moment. With the fight over health care reform, it is questionable to open another front. The Senate majority whip, Dick Durbin, last week added that: It is a difficult schedule. Members are already anxious about health care reform. So I do not think it is going to come up. And I frankly will be ready here to fight to make sure it does not come up when the new year comes in. I do not think there are too many people in the Senate who want to go into their reelection in 2010 having voted for the largest tax increase in the history of America. This is exactly what it would be. Let's keep in mind, what was the largest tax increase in the history of America was the 1993 tax increase. This would be 10 times greater than that. And the people now realize that. That was good news today.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I wish to add my comments to a few other comments on Mel Martinez whom we all loved so much. I do not think I have ever seen anyone since Jesse Helms who was loved by so many people as Mel Martinez. He had a way of smiling, and in talking about things in a way that others did not understand. My colleagues have already come to the floor and talked about his escape from Cuba and how he came over and how then he was able to get his father over. It is a story that America will always remember. It will always be in our history books. He was always such a great guy. He will be missed around here. One of the things that was not said much about him was his sense of humor. I have to say I enjoyed being around him because he was, in his own subtle way, a very humorous person. I can remember, and I have had the occasion, probably more than any other Member, going into the areas in Iraq and Afghanistan and Africa where there were hostilities. But I was making probably my 12th or 14th trip into Baghdad on a C-130. It happened to be Mel Martinez's first trip. So we were talking about: Once you get out, you are going to run over to the helicopter, and they are going to take you to the Green Zone, all of the things to anticipate. I said to him: One of the problems we are going to have is that when we leave, we have these old C-130E models. They should be re- engined. We should have J models, but we do not. Because of the cuts in the military, we have not been able to upgrade those systems. So I said: When we climb out of here, it is going to be in a C-130E model. We are not going to be able to climb as high and as fast as we want, and there are surface-to-air missiles out there that we have to be concerned about. And, of course, they are all set up. We have very capable pilots and crews in these C-130s. So I said: We will be well taken care of if something happens. Sure enough, it happened. The first thing you do when you get out of your helicopter in Baghdad to get on a C-130 to come back to Kuwait or wherever you might be going is you take your helmet, your life jacket, your vest off, because they are so heavy and uncomfortable--you get in there and you take them off. Well, we all did that. I was sitting up with, as I do quite often, the pilots, when all of a sudden the explosion came, the light was there, and we deployed the heat-seeking devices that are on a C-130. Of course, that is already very loud. Someone who has never gone through that experience before would assume we were about to go down. I ran downstairs and I saw Mel Martinez sitting there without his helmet, without his protective vest by him; he had put them back on. I said: Mel, what are you doing putting your vest and your helmet back on? He said: Well, I assumed that we were going to be shot down. And if Kitty--that is his wife--if she found out that I did not have my vest and my helmet on, she would kill me. Well, that is Mel Martinez. He had all of those jewels. I think he is going to be missed by a lot of us for all of the reasons we have articulated on the floor. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today with my colleague, Senator Ron Wyden, to introduce the Improving Access to Clinical Trials Act, I-ACT, a bill to allow patients with rare diseases to participate in clinical drug studies without losing their eligibility for public assistance like Supplemental Security Income, SSI, and Medicaid. This bill provides potentially lifesaving treatments through clinical trials for those suffering with rare diseases, like cystic fibrosis, CF, a life-threatening genetic disease that affects about 30,000 people nationwide. This hits especially close to home for me because I have a staff member, Sage Streck, with CF, and she has participated in some of these trials that further drug research as they seek better treatments for rare diseases. About half of these patients are on Medicare or Medicaid and are eligible for SSI benefits. Cystic fibrosis used to be primarily a childhood disease because people simply didn't live long enough to reach adulthood. But now, thanks to the many treatments discovered through clinical trials, the average life expectancy is 37 years old. Additionally, these advances in science allow CF patients to live more normal lives and not spend all their lives in hospitals or using respiratory machines. The more CF patients can participate in clinical trials, the faster scientists can discover new treatments and eventually a cure. Sage has personally seen in her lifetime five drugs that started in clinical trials and are now available to CF patients. Each medication has increased her quality of life and decreased the amount of time she has spent in the hospital or on IV antibiotics. There are more than 30 promising drugs in the research pipeline right now that the CF Foundation is calling miracle drugs so it is imperative that patients have access to clinical trials so these drugs can get on the market. Under current law, the small compensation provided to trial participants, which averages around $500, is included as additional income that could cause a person to lose their public assistance benefits, like Supplemental Security Income, SSI, and Medicaid. These benefits are crucial for patients living with rare diseases. For instance, nearly 50 percent of the CF population uses SSI or Medicaid. As a result, patients choose not to enroll in clinical trials that could dramatically improve their lives out of the fear that they may lose the benefits on which they rely. This bill allows patients with a rare disease to disregard up to $2,000 of compensation received for participation in a clinical trial in their SSI and Medicaid income calculations. Though it will have a negligible impact on the Federal budget, it will make a dramatic difference in the lives of those who will gain access to potentially life-saving treatments by enrolling in clinical trials as well as all those in the future whose lives will be improved by the medical advances that arise from this research. Please join me in supporting this legislation that will provide patients with rare disease access to potentially lifesaving clinical trials without losing their public assistance health benefits.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today with my colleague, Senator Ron Wyden, to introduce the Improving Access to Clinical Trials Act, I-ACT, a bill to allow patients with rare diseases to participate in clinical drug studies without losing their eligibility for public assistance like Supplemental Security Income, SSI, and Medicaid. This bill provides potentially lifesaving treatments through clinical trials for those suffering with rare diseases, like cystic fibrosis, CF, a life-threatening genetic disease that affects about 30,000 people nationwide. This hits especially close to home for me because I have a staff member, Sage Streck, with CF, and she has participated in some of these trials that further drug research as they seek better treatments for rare diseases. About half of these patients are on Medicare or Medicaid and are eligible for SSI benefits. Cystic fibrosis used to be primarily a childhood disease because people simply didn't live long enough to reach adulthood. But now, thanks to the many treatments discovered through clinical trials, the average life expectancy is 37 years old. Additionally, these advances in science allow CF patients to live more normal lives and not spend all their lives in hospitals or using respiratory machines. The more CF patients can participate in clinical trials, the faster scientists can discover new treatments and eventually a cure. Sage has personally seen in her lifetime five drugs that started in clinical trials and are now available to CF patients. Each medication has increased her quality of life and decreased the amount of time she has spent in the hospital or on IV antibiotics. There are more than 30 promising drugs in the research pipeline right now that the CF Foundation is calling miracle drugs so it is imperative that patients have access to clinical trials so these drugs can get on the market. Under current law, the small compensation provided to trial participants, which averages around $500, is included as additional income that could cause a person to lose their public assistance benefits, like Supplemental Security Income, SSI, and Medicaid. These benefits are crucial for patients living with rare diseases. For instance, nearly 50 percent of the CF population uses SSI or Medicaid. As a result, patients choose not to enroll in clinical trials that could dramatically improve their lives out of the fear that they may lose the benefits on which they rely. This bill allows patients with a rare disease to disregard up to $2,000 of compensation received for participation in a clinical trial in their SSI and Medicaid income calculations. Though it will have a negligible impact on the Federal budget, it will make a dramatic difference in the lives of those who will gain access to potentially life-saving treatments by enrolling in clinical trials as well as all those in the future whose lives will be improved by the medical advances that arise from this research. Please join me in supporting this legislation that will provide patients with rare disease access to potentially lifesaving clinical trials without losing their public assistance health benefits.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, on behalf of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation, I would like to congratulate Richard P. Rush on his retirement from the Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce. Dick will be leaving the State chamber next spring after serving as its president and chief executive officer for 24 years. Dick has made a positive contribution to the State of Oklahoma and has been characterized as ``the State's leading pro-business advocate.'' Dick's success is evident in both his internal administration of the State chamber and his work leading key probusiness campaigns which have made a positive impact on Oklahoma creating jobs and increasing business development. Due to Dick's work, the State chamber now operates debt free. During his tenure, Dick has built the State chamber to over 2,000 members. He has been named Executive of the Year by the Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce Executives and is already a member of the Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce Hall of Fame. Through leading key campaigns advocating new business opportunities and job creation such as Right-to-Work and tort reform, Dick has been credited with saving the business community in Oklahoma over $2 billion. In fact, the State chamber recently earned the Nation's highest honor from the American Tort Reform Association and the U.S. Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform. Just this year, the State chamber was awarded the ``The State Legislative Achievement Award'' by the U.S. Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform and the first annual ``Gold Medal for the Best State Civil Justice Legislation'' by the American Tort Reform Association. Dick has also led international outreach serving as Executive in Charge of sister chamber work between the Oklahoma State Chamber and both the Gansu, China Provincial Chamber and the Liaoning, China Provincial Chamber. Dick was a presenter at the VI Hemispheric Sister Cities Forum in Iquique, Chile, and he is the recipient of the ``The George Nigh Global Trade Award.'' Dick's involvement in Oklahoma business development has been extensive. Dick's success is due in part to his long history in chamber management. Before coming to Oklahoma, Dick worked in chambers throughout the country from California to Texas before coming to Oklahoma in 1986. His experience also extends internationally as Dick worked as a project adviser for the U.S. Chamber's Center for International Private Enterprise serving as a consultant to the National Chamber of Commerce of Zimbabwe, Africa. Oklahomans can appreciate Dick's service to the Oklahoma State Chamber and the entire State of Oklahoma, and we wish him the very best in his retirement and all future endeavors.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been here this afternoon and hope to get a little more time than we are getting. Right now we are into the final debate on the vote that will take place at 5:30. The Senator from Nevada, Senator Ensign, has agreed to let me have 10 minutes, so I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I was given an additional 5 minutes from our side, Mr. President.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair. I will conclude with this. During the time that all the hearings--over 30 hearings--that Senator Boxer has had on the subject of global warming were taking place--and it was not just the Republicans but a total turnaround--the Democrats started to look into this and realized the Democrats, as a party--who always supported cap-and-trade systems, such as the 2003 bill and the 2005 bill and the 2008 bill--are now looking at it and they are cutting to the chase. I will give a few quotes here. These are all quotes from Democrats. President Obama said: Electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket. Democratic Representative John Dingell from Michigan said: Cap and trade is a tax and a great big one. Democratic Representative Pete DeFazio said: A cap and trade system is prone to market manipulation and speculation without any guarantee of meaningful GHG emission reductions. The best is from my good friend from North Dakota, Senator Byron Dorgan, when he said about cap and trade: The Wall Street crowd can't wait to sink their teeth into a new trillion-dollar trading market in which hedge funds and investment banks would trade and speculate on carbon credits and securities. I totally agree with my good friend, Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan. Democratic Senator Cantwell from Washington: A cap and trade program might allow Wall Street to distort a carbon market for its own profits. We learned, of course, from Lisa Jackson, who is the new Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, when I asked her this question in a public hearing. I said: If we should pass the Markey bill in the Senate and it gets signed into law, will this reduce carbon emissions in the world? She said: No. Logically, obviously, she is right. If we drive our jobs overseas to places such as China and India, where they have no intention of having any kind of emission requirements, then that would have the effect of increasing, not decreasing, the amount of emissions in the air. Senator Kerry said: There is no way the United States of America acting alone can solve this problem. So we have to have China; we have to have India. I say we are not going to have China and India. Senator McCaskill said: If we go too far with this cap and trade, then all we are going to do is chase more jobs to China and India, where they have been putting up coal-fired plants every 10 minutes. Not quite true. I would say to my good friend, Senator McCaskill, it is about two coal-fired generation plants that are built every week in China. We haven't done one in 12 years here. So we know what their intentions are. So we have had all these hearings, and we have recognized that things have changed now. You look at the groups now, and you have the agricultural community, the American Farm Bureau, and a vast majority of the agricultural groups who oppose it. The GAO says it will send our jobs to China and India. The very eloquent chairman of the National Black Chamber of Commerce did a great job of testifying before our committee and said it would destroy over 2 million jobs. The EPA and the EIA--that is the Energy Information Agency--said it would not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The EPA said it will do nothing to reduce global temperatures. So when all is said and done, the American people will reject it. We are sure a lot further now. I have to say this: This was a breath of fresh air, to listen to the American people standing up at these townhall meetings all around the country. In my 12 or 14 meetings I had in my State of Oklahoma, people know the right thing is going to happen. We are here to make that happen. With that, I thank the Senator from Nevada for allowing me to have 15 minutes of his time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair. Well, first of all, I had a few stories I was going to tell about my very good friend who is deceased now, Senator Kennedy, and if there is time before my time expires I will get into that. I have a feeling more will take place on that tomorrow or later on tonight. Let me mention one thing because I think it is so fresh on our minds now, having come back from the August recess. I did my town meetings in smaller communities in Oklahoma. I was in Stigler, Coweta, Chickasha, Grove, Woodward, Guymon, McAlester, and Lawton. I did this because so many times smaller communities are left out, and I wanted to know what kind of response they had. I made the comment when I was in Grove, OK, that the very institutions that have historically set America aside from the rest of the world are the ones that seem to be under attack by this administration. I am talking about free enterprise, talking about the fact of little government, big people, and all these things. Since the junior Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, is one of the two medical doctors in the Senate, I decided to talk about the other issues. My fear is this: There was concern about socialized medicine. Everyone is concerned about what this President wants to do with the health issues in America, but we are forgetting there are other very serious issues. So I covered these, as opposed to the health problems, because these are things we are going to be dealing with in the Senate in the next few days or weeks, and they are very significant. One of them is the cap-and-trade issue that we have talked about at some length, and I will get into that in a minute; the other is the closing of Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, or Gitmo as it is known to most people, and the other is what has happened to our military. So let me, real briefly, get into these areas. These are three areas where I will be providing leadership. These are the areas of specialty I have and I am very much concerned about. First of all, I positioned myself in Afghanistan in February, when Secretary of Defense Gates came out with his announcement as to the portion of the President's budget dealing with defense because I knew I was going to be opposed to it, and I thought that would give me a national forum, and it did. I was concerned about such things as the F- 22. Right now, the only fifth-generation fighter we have is the F-22. Initially, we were going to have 750 of them. We now have 187, and the President, in his budget, stopped it right there. He didn't say terminate, but I will use the word ``terminate,'' because when you suspend something for an undetermined period of time, I think it is terminated. At the same time that happened, we know that China is now working on their J-12s and Russia on their PAK-FAs. These are fifth-generation fighters they are going to be using to export to countries that could be potential enemies of ours. I have looked at the C-17 program-- stopping that program--the future combat system. We haven't had in America a transition in ground capability in quite some time--about 60 years. So we have been working on the future combat system. That system has been terminated. I think the one that probably has the greatest danger on the lives of Americans could probably be the system we had negotiated with the Parliaments of Poland and the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic was asked if they would agree to have a radar system to see any kind of incoming missile which might have been coming from Iran, and they agreed to do that. Then Poland agreed to have an interception capability that would knock down such a missile coming from Iran. I don't think there is anyone in America who doesn't realize that Iran is going to have their nuclear capability and delivery systems just as soon as they can. For the sake of Western Europe and the Eastern United States, I think it is critical we put ourselves in a position to have that capability. Well, he stopped that. So we will be talking about that for quite some time. Gitmo. I think most people realize now that Guantanamo Bay is an asset we have had since 1903. It has all kinds of capabilities. It is the only place in the world you can put terrorist detainees where you can have a facility built for them--some seven degrees of security. We have a system there where we use military tribunals. I will never understand why President Obama is obsessed with bringing these detainees into the United States either for trial or for incarceration. For a trial, it would be the worst plan in the world because, by definition, a terrorist trains people to become terrorists. We don't need to have terrorists in our prison system teaching other people how to become terrorists. Some of the places the President talked about sending them included my State, at Fort Sill. We will talk about that maybe some other time. But I do think, when we see just a matter of days ago, the release of Mohammed Jawad from Gitmo, nobody knows--or at least I don't know, and I should know, being the second-ranking member on the Armed Services Committee--why he would be released. We also know Mullah Zakir, who was killing American marines in the Helmand Province for quite some period of time, was released and is now back. He went into Gitmo in 2006, they released him in 2008, and he is back. Now we have received evidence that is conclusive that he is fighting on the side of the Taliban. So you can't turn these guys loose. The third area I was concentrating on is one I will go back to 8 years ago. Redemption is kind of good for the soul, I think, because 8 years ago I was looking at the science on the notion that manmade gases--anthropogenic gases, CO2, methane--caused global warming. It was something everybody believed. Until I looked into the science, frankly, I believed it too. Now we see the science is not there. I made the statement 8 years ago that perhaps those liberals-- mostly from Hollywood and that type of mentality--who want us to believe in the notion that manmade gases cause global warming is the most significant hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. I think now there are a lot fewer people today who are upset with the statement I made 8 years ago than there were then. This is something that is critical. I wish to conclude with that, but first of all I wish to mention that there is a document that is too long to put in the Record. It is some 65 pages. I will have it on my Web site. This is a brave paper done by Robert P. Smith. He has a Ph.D., he is a petroleum engineer, and he talks about the energy crisis and what we can do in the United States to resolve that energy crisis--such commonsense things as continuing to conserve, to continue to support the free market, to oppose the cap- and-trade taxes--which I will talk about in a second--to oppose the alternative energy subsidies because we have to continue to develop and to supply energy for America while we are developing the technologies, so we need to continue coal-powered generation. We need to fast-track oil and gas exploration and use natural gas wisely. It includes nuclear plants. I would suggest to anyone who is interested in getting into the best piece I have seen on this subject to go to my Web site-- inhofe.senate.gov--and we have a lot of that information on this. But he does have only 3 pages out of the 65 pages detailing the idea that global warming is caused by manmade gases, and I think it is done in a way that is very understandable by people who are not necessarily scientists or don't have a background in it. So I strongly recommend this document--called ``Energy: Present and Future,'' by Robert P. Smith--to the reading list of the American people or anyone who is concerned about that issue. Lastly, prior to the Republicans losing the majority in the Senate, I was the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. That chairman is now Senator Barbara Boxer. She took over the committee from my leadership.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me confess that I feel totally inadequate standing here tonight and talking about the subject of the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor. I am not a lawyer. I am amidst these brilliant lawyers. I listened to Senator Hatch and Senator Sessions. They have the kind of background where they can really get into this and look constitutionally and legally and evaluate, and I am not in that position. I would like to speak on this nomination for the following reasons. I want to reaffirm my opposition to her confirmation. I was the first Member of the Senate on the day she was nominated who announced I would not be supporting her. I recognize, as Senator Hatch said, that she will be confirmed. We know that. I remember what Senator Schumer, the senior Senator from New York, said shortly after she was first nominated. He made the statement that Republicans are going to have to vote for her because they don't want to vote against a woman, vote against a Hispanic. He was right. But I would suggest that after the hearing, that statement is not nearly as true as it was before the hearings because of some of the extreme positions she has taken. I have to say that from a nonlawyer perspective, I look at it perhaps differently than my colleagues who are learned scholars in the legal profession. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court requires not only a respect for the rule of law but also for the separation of powers and an acknowledgment that the Court is not a place where policy is made. The Court is about the application of the law and not where judges get to make the world a place they want it to be. I saw that all throughout the hearings I watched with a great deal of interest. In May of 2005, Judge Sotomayor asserted that the ``court of appeals is where policy is made.'' She also wrote in a 1996 law review article that ``change--sometimes radical change--can and does occur in a legal system that serves a society whose social policy itself changes.'' The Constitution is absolutely clear: Policy is made in the Halls of Congress, right here--that is what we do for a living--not in the courtroom. Legislators write the laws. Judges interpret them. We understand that. Even those of us who are nonlawyers remembered that all the way through school. Sotomayor is correct that societies change, but the policies that are made to reflect these changes are done through Members of Congress who are elected to represent the will of the people. Obviously, we are talking about a lifetime appointment. There is no accountability after this point. When judges go beyond interpreting the laws and the Constitution and legislate from the bench, they overstep their jurisdiction and their constitutional duty. Allowing judges who are not directly elected by the people and who serve lifelong terms to rewrite laws from the bench is dangerous to the vitality of a representative democracy. Simply put, judicial activism places too much power in the hands of those who are not directly accountable to the people. That is what we are talking about, a lifetime appointment. Judge Sotomayor has overcome significant adversity to achieve great success, and I agree with Senator Hatch in his comments that we admire her for her accomplishments under adverse conditions. However, while her experiences as a Latina woman have shaped who she is as a person, they should not be used, as she affirms, to affect her judicial impartiality and significantly influence how she interprets the law and the Constitution. In 2001, Judge Sotomayor gave a speech at the University of California, Berkeley in which she stated: I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. She has on several occasions conveyed the same idea. Between 1994 and 2003, she delivered speeches using similar language at Seton Hall University, the Woman's Bar Association of the State of New York, Yale University, the City University of New York School of Law. It is not a slip of the tongue once; this is a statement that has been reaffirmed and reaffirmed. Quite frankly, that was the reason for my opposition back in 1998 when she was nominated to be on the circuit court of appeals. The statements she made show a very biased opinion that someone who is not a lawyer sees and thinks should disqualify someone for the appointment. She further stated in 1994, in a presentation in Puerto Rico, that: Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that ``a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion'' in deciding cases . . . [however] I am also not sure that I agree with that statement . . . I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion. That is pretty emphatic. There is no other way you can interpret that. She thinks that a woman with her experience can make a better conclusion than a White male. I consider that racist. Sotomayor not only suggests the possibility of judicial impartiality but also that gender and ethnicity should influence a judge's decision. Furthermore, President Obama said that in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee, he would use an empathy standard. While judges may and should be empathetic people, they must be impartial judges first. If empathy was a guiding standard, with whom should a judge empathize? Should more empathy be shown to one race, one gender, one religion, one lifestyle? True justice does not see race, gender, or creed. We are all equal in the eyes of the law, and the law must be applied equally. That is why she wears a blindfold. It is supposed to be blind justice. Rather than looking to factors beyond the law, judges must solely examine the facts of the case and the law itself. Their ability to equally apply justice under the law is the standard by which we should select judges. So we have two different standards right now with which I disagree. One is that judges should make policy and, secondly, that gender and ethnicity should influence decisions. Another belief on which Judge Sotomayor and I fundamentally disagree is that American judges should consider foreign law when deciding cases. This probably concerns me more than any of the rest of them--the fact that we have this obsession in these Halls, in this Senate, that nothing is good unless it somehow comes from the United Nations or is coming from some multinational origin. In 2007, in the forward to a book--and I read this myself--titled, ``The International Judge,'' Sotomayor wrote: [T]he question of how much we have to learn from foreign law and the international community when interpreting our Constitution is not the only one worth posing. This past spring, Judge Sotomayor gave an alarming speech at the ACLU which addressed this topic. She said: [T]o suggest to anyone that you can outlaw the use of foreign or international law is a sentiment that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding, what you would be asking American judges to do is to close their minds to good ideas. . . . No, Judge Sotomayor, it is sovereignty that we are talking about. Statements like these make it clear that President Obama has nominated a judge to our highest Court who believes our courts should rely on foreign decisions when interpreting our Constitution. And I have to say, whatever happened to sovereignty? This obsession with multinationalism has to come to an end. I believe America will reject this type of thought. Americans do not want the rest of the world interpreting our laws, and neither do I. Finally, Mr. President, Judge Sotomayor's record on the second amendment is constitutionally outrageous. Maybe it is because I come from Oklahoma, but that is the thing I hear about more than anything else down there, and my own kids, I might add. I do not believe Judge Sotomayor can be trusted to uphold the individual freedom to keep and bear arms if future second amendment cases come before her. I have received no assurances from her past decisions or public testimony that she will be willing to fairly consider the question of whether the second amendment is a fundamental right and thus restricts State action as it relates to the second amendment. It is incomprehensible to me that our Founding Fathers could have intended the right to keep and bear arms as nonbinding upon the States and instead leave the right to be hollowed out by State and local laws and regulations. History and common sense do not support this. I have to tell you, this has been more of a concern in my State of Oklahoma than anything else. I cannot confirm a nominee who believes the second amendment is something other than a fundamental right and instead treats it as a second class amendment to the Constitution. I do not know what a second class amendment to the Constitution is. This is not in line with my beliefs and not in line with the beliefs of the majority of Americans--certainly from my State of Oklahoma. Today, I am persuaded the confirmation hearings served only to highlight many of my concerns. The numerous inconsistencies of her testimony with her record have persuaded not only me but the American people that Judge Sotomayor is not qualified to serve as a Justice on the highest Court, the U.S. Supreme Court. I say that because a recent Zogby Poll--and as several other polls have also consistently confirmed--following the confirmation hearings revealed that only 49 percent of Americans support Judge Sotomayor's confirmation, with an equal number opposing it. This is significant because she played the race card all the way through this thing and was talking about the Hispanic effect. But the same poll showed that among Hispanic voters, only 47 percent say they are in favor of her confirmation. In other words, there are fewer people in the Hispanic community who are favoring her confirmation than in the non-Hispanic. These numbers are evidence of the fact that Judge Sotomayor has not gained the approval of the American people during her confirmation hearings, and she certainly has not gained mine. I was the first Member of the Senate to publicly announce my opposition to Judge Sotomayor after her nomination to the Supreme Court on May 26. On that date, I stated I could not confirm her. In addition to all the above, there is another reason. While I do not often agree with Vice President Biden, I do agree with his statement that once you oppose a Federal court nominee, you cannot support that nominee for a higher court because the bar is higher. I think that is very significant to point out here because there are several who are still serving today, as I am, who opposed her to the circuit court in 1998. I think Vice President Biden is correct. As the standard goes up, once you get to the U.S. Supreme Court, that is the end. So that should be the very highest standard. So it is unconceivable that anyone who would have opposed her in 1998 could turn around and support her now. I have to say there are a lot of reasons I have pointed out. One is judges making policy. I object to that; I find that offensive. Gender and ethnicity should be a consideration; that is wrong. The international thing, that we have to go to the international community to see that we are doing the right thing in interpreting our Constitution; that is a sovereignty issue. The second amendment, that is a concern. So even though Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed, it will be without my vote. I would have to say for the sake of my 20 kids and grandkids that I will oppose Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as a neighboring agriculture State, it is a pleasure to work with the Senator from Kansas, in fact both Senators from Kansas, on numerous issues that provide for important research, relief, and aid to our States. I ask that language be included in the conference report indicating the urgent need for additional scientific personnel at the Southern Plains Range Research Station in Woodward, OK, near our joint borders, through the Agricultural Research Service in order to establish a Center for Warm-Season Grasses Research at the station in fiscal year 2010. The Southern Plains Range Research Station is a research unit of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service. It has a mission to conduct research that addresses the challenges and opportunities associated with managing America's rangelands through innovative production practices and improved plant germplasm. The current research program at the station includes a team of three scientists: a ruminant nutritionist for range-livestock production research, a research agronomist for germplasm evaluation, and a geneticist for breeding improved plants. The goal of establishing and developing a Center for Warm Season Grasses Research would be improved plant materials management alternatives for rangelands and pastures in the southern plains. This center would provide a focused effort in native and introduced warm-season grass research to address issues with biofuels and feedstock production which is a critical issue to farmers and ranchers throughout the country. Additional personnel are needed to accomplish this mission. The addition of these two essential scientists will assist the Southern Plains Range Research Station in working towards its goal of establishing itself as the Center for Warm-Season Grasses Research in the south central United States.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have worked with the chairmen of the Environment and Public Works, Banking, Commerce and Finance Committees over the last month to put a bill together to address two urgent issues facing the Nation's highway program. First, the highway trust fund is going to run out of money sometime in the next few weeks and will require an infusion of $5 to $7 billion to get us through the rest of fiscal year 2009. Second, SAFETEA the 2005 highway bill, is set to expire in 9 weeks. With no realistic chance of Congress passing a fully funded reauthorization before the program expires, it is essential to provide funding certainty with a longer term extension. States cannot afford to move forward with transportation development activities without confidence in long-term and consistent future Federal reimbursements. Unfortunately, the House chose not to address both issues, but rather just provide the money necessary to ensure that the highway trust fund does not go broke over the August recess. Their decision has put the Senate in a situation of taking or leaving their bill. I do not like it and frankly think the responsible thing would have been to take up the Senate bill, which would have provided for an 18-month extension of the existing program. The House has been short sighted in forcing the Senate to only address the trust fund fix; with so many other important issues facing Congress, the Senate now must return in 30 days to do this all over again before the program expires at the end of September. I also did not like the added provisions of the loans to unemployment insurance fund or the increase in the Federal Housing Administration cap on loans they can authorize under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program. Finally, I thought all the amendments offered by my Republican colleagues were improvements to the bill, but unfortunately, none of them were adopted. Nonetheless, I supported final passage and most importantly voted to waive the point of order that was raised because we cannot afford to allow the highway trust fund to become insolvent. While the bill we adopted today only addresses the immediate trust fund shortfall I look forward to taking care of the extension of the program when we return in September along with the fix of the $8.7 billion rescission as proposed by Senator Bond's amendment. Given the fiscal pressures on states and the current economic downturn, I agree with the administration that this uncertainty would be devastating to States and would translate into job losses, and so we need to provide certainty until we are able to pass a comprehensive bill. I am hopeful that as soon as we return from August recess that we will immediately consider the extension legislation introduced earlier this week by all the relevant committees.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this is a very significant vote. I am very upset that we have a lot of things in here I didn't want--the unemployment insurance loans, the Federal Housing Administration loan limit increase. That should not be there. The amendments failed. I wish they had passed. I voted for them. The thing that bothers me more than anything else is the House put us in this position. They said: Here is the bill; you do it; we are leaving town. That is exactly what happened. So this is the final vote. We have to have 60 votes. For all practical purposes, this is the final vote. I urge my Republican friends to support waiver of the point of order.

Mr. INHOFE. That sounds good.