Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up amendment 1505 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I want to explain this amendment, but first I will yield to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, the senior Senator from New Mexico.

Madam President, reclaiming my time.

Madam President, I appreciate having had the opportunity to yield to the Senator from New Mexico for his explanation. I think it is very important that we understand there are a lot of good things we are looking at in this bill. But he so accurately points out that the big problem we have today--not 10 years from now--is supply. We need to do something about the supply. The bill doesn't adequately address that.

The amendment I have called up, No. 1505, is essentially the same amendment we considered in my Environment and Public Works Committee during the years I served as chairman. It is one of these things where it is very difficult to figure out why anyone could vote against it, because it is permissive, it allows States to do things; it doesn't mandate.

I was pleased to hear the majority leader recognizing that the United States has become too reliant on foreign sources of energy. Unfortunately, the majority's bill presently doesn't improve the situation. Indeed, it could actually worsen it. The fact is that Americans are paying more at the pump because we don't have the domestic capacity to refine the fuels consumers demand. So we are talking about two ways to resolve the problem of supply. One is production, and the other is you can have all the production in the world, but if you don't have the refining capacity, you cannot get it refined and into use.

Some Members' answer is more hybrids than SUVs, but that ignores the profound impact high fuel prices have on our economy. According to the Department of Labor's recent numbers, about 3 percent of the Nation's inflation is directly attributed to high fuel prices. That means whether your constituent drives a gas guzzler, a hybrid, rides a bicycle, or walks, they are paying the same for high fuel prices.

In order to lower those prices, we have two options. We can increase the capacity at home or import more from abroad. The LA Times wrote in May 25, 2007, that ``gas supplies are tight because the United States lacks refining capacity, and every time a refinery shuts down for maintenance, or because of an accident, prices rise. Americans are starving for affordable energy, and the majority's bill tells them to go on a diet. That is good. We want to have these things to help with our consumption. But the Energy bill really does nothing today in terms of taking care of the supply problem we have.

The good news is it is not too late to do something to improve the situation. It is in that good faith to improve the energy security position of our country that we are offering the Gas Price Act. The lack of domestic refining capacity is not new to many Members, the public, or even to the Federal Reserve. In May of 2005, Chairman Alan Greenspan stated:

The status of world refining capacity has become worrisome

and the industry is straining to meet markets which are

increasingly dominated by transportation fuels that must meet

ever more stringent environmental requirements.

While chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I held a series of hearings to look into this issue. The very same month I held one of those hearings, the senior Senator from California, who was on the Senate floor speaking a moment ago, Mrs. Feinstein, made this statement in a letter to the Governor of California. It says:

I can see where the cumbersome permitting process, with

uncertain outcomes, would make it difficult to plan and

implement projects . . . I encourage you to improve the speed

and predictability of the permitting process, and believe

that this will allow business and government to focus on

their limited resources on actions that most benefit the

environment.

That is the statement Senator Feinstein made in a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

The amendment that Senator Thune and I are offering today will improve the energy security of the United States, and it will do so in complete compliance with environmental laws and in concert with State interests.

In her letter to Governor Schwarzenegger, the senior Senator

from California was correct in recognizing much of the permitting decisions are by States and not by the Federal Government. That is why we work very hard to recognize the importance of State and local groups in making those decisions.

The Environmental Council of States, which represents State departments of environmental quality, said as much. Keep in mind, this is the council that represents all the different State departments of environmental quality, as well as noting that the Gas Price Act does not weaken the environmental laws.

Similarly, the National Association of Counties stated:

It goes a long way in addressing the concerns of local

governments during a refinery siting, ranging from the

importance of considering local needs, concerns, and honoring

a county's land use authority.

It is important to point this out because it seems that time and time again, some of the Members of this body hide behind the vague concerns over the environment in defending their failure to improve U.S. energy security. After working with a variety of stakeholders, this bill achieves both goals. It increases energy while preserving local governments and environmental quality.

The fact is, like it or not, the United States needs to increase its domestic refining capacity if we are to solve the economic struggles facing every family.

The amendment we are offering today redefines and broadens our understanding of a refinery to be a domestic fuels facility. Oil has and will continue to have a role in the U.S. economy, but the future of our domestic transportation fuel system must also include new sources, such as the ultraclean synfuels derived from coal and cellulosic ethanol derived from homegrown grasses and biomass.

Expanding the existing domestic fuels facilities or constructing new ones is a maze of environmental permitting challenges. This is what the Senator from California was talking about a few minutes ago in trying to encourage Governor Schwarzenegger to streamline this permitting process.

This amendment provides a Governor with the option of requiring the Federal EPA to provide the State with financial and technical resources to accomplish the job and establishes a certain permitting process for all parties. The public demands increasing supplies for transportation fuel, but they also expect that fuel to be good for their health and for the environment.

To that end, the amendment requires the EPA to establish a demonstration to assess the use of Fischer-Tropsch diesel and jet fuel as an emission-control strategy. Initial tests found that Fischer- Tropsch diesel significantly reduces criterion pollutants over conventional fuels and could easily be transported with existing infrastructure.

It should be noted that the ongoing tests at Tinker Air Force Base in my home State of Oklahoma found that Fischer-Tropsch, or coal-to-liquid aircraft fuel, reduced particulates 47 to 90 percent and completely eliminated the SOX emissions over fuels that are used today.

I might add, this is a technology that is here. It needs to be improved upon. We are currently flying a B-52 that has eight engines using this type of fuel.

Good concepts in Washington are bad ideas if no one wants them at home. As a former mayor of Tulsa, I am a strong believer in local and State control. This is something that is controversial in Washington. There are a lot of people in this body who don't think any decision is a good decision unless it is made in Washington. I am the opposite. I feel closer to the people. They should be more involved, and that is why we structured it the way we did.

The Federal Government should provide incentives rather than mandates on local communities. Increasing clean domestic fuel supplies is in the Nation's security interest, but those facilities can also provide high- paying jobs to people in towns in need.

Our amendment provides financial incentives to the two most economically distressed communities in the Nation, towns affected by BRAC and Indian tribes, to consider building both liquids and commercial scale cellulosic ethanol facilities. Here we are talking about people who have gone through the BRAC process, people who have in their States facilities that were military facilities that were closed during the base realignment and closure process.

I am very proud my State of Oklahoma is the leader in the development of the energy crops for cellulosic biofuel. The key now is to promote investment, and nothing would speed the rapid expansion of the cellulosic biofuels industry more than investments by the Nation's traditional providers of liquid transportation fuels.

We have in the State of Oklahoma the Noble Foundation, Oklahoma State University, and Oklahoma University--all very much involved in the development of cellulosic biofuels. It is a technology that is coming. We know it is. I guess what we need to do is understand, while it is coming, we still need to run this great machine called America.

Many integrated oil companies have formed and substantially expanded their biofuels divisions within the past year to prepare for the eventuality of cross-competitive cellulosity biofuels. Oil companies invest in exploration because their stock prices are affected by their declared proven reserves. Creating a definition of renewable reserves would create a similar incentive for them to invest in cellulosic biofuels.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Department of Energy to accelerate the commercial development of oil shale and tar sands. Given the country's interest in developing renewable alternatives to fossil fuel, it is logical that the SEC would develop criteria in cooperation with biomass feedstock sources in its hierarchy at the same time.

This is Congress's least expensive way to jump-start the cellulosic biofuels industry. Increasing capacity to produce clean fuels at home is critical in making America more secure. Passing the Gas Price Act would be a material and substantive action toward this majority's stated goal of energy independence. To vote against it underscores something altogether. They like higher gas prices at the pump.

What we are talking about is something that is permissive. It allows States to opt out, if they want, and it streamlines the permitting process. It requires EPA to establish a demonstration to assess the use of Fischer-Tropsch diesel and jet fuels. It will help in our refining capacity, if we are talking about refineries for petroleum or refineries for biofuels or any other kinds of refineries.

To have a comprehensive Energy bill, we need to do what we have done, what we have already done in this bill, but the problem is here today, as was pointed out by the Senator from New Mexico. We have a supply problem, and that supply problem is here and now. The gas price amendment to expand our refining capacity would dramatically and immediately relieve that problem.

Again, there are two supply problems--one in production and one in refining capacity.

I will be glad to yield.

I will be happy to do it. Let me repeat what I told Senator Bingaman privately. I have no intention of bringing up this amendment for a vote now. We will set this amendment aside for other amendments and then hopefully we will have several lined up tomorrow. I think tomorrow we will start these votes.

Madam President, I will stay in his stead.

I yield the floor.

Let me respond.

I am not sure what bill the Senator from California is talking about. She didn't really describe this bill at all. Let's go through very quickly her four points, if the Senator from California would like to listen.

First of all, the EDA portion provides grants to local communities, not oil companies. This is not grants going to oil companies. Maybe the Senator from California has not gotten emotional in experiencing what has happened when there are BRAC closings and some of the bases have had to close. But when that happens, the EDA does have the function, and the EDA in this case can provide grants if local communities apply for these grants. If they do not want to apply for them, they do not have to do it. The fund seeks to promote development of future fuels, coal to liquids, cellulosic biomass, not just oil.

This is not the same amendment, I might add, as we tried to pass unsuccessfully by a one-vote margin in the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Second, this idea that there is a rollback in environmental laws--the association representing the environmental

concerns of every State, the Environmental Council of States, clearly states this will not do any such thing. Here is the Environmental Council of the States. Every State belongs to this, including California. It says in here:

This bill does not weaken the standards and allows each

State to choose its best course on most of the matters

detailed in the bill.

So there you have it. On this matter, the organization that represents all the environmental groups is strongly supporting this.

Will do nothing to increase energy independence? The reason the United States is vulnerable, in a vulnerable position, is because we don't have an adequate supply to meet the demand. Supply--that is what I have been talking about since we started talking here. Reducing demand is only one part of the equation. We want to reduce demand. We also want to increase supply.

I would say probably the most damaging thing that has been stated by the junior Senator--here is a quote by the senior Senator from California. When she talks about streamlining permitting, yes, that is one of the big problems. So I used a quote by Senator Feinstein in a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger. I will read it again because I think maybe the junior Senator wasn't in the Chamber when I talked about this. This is a quote out of the letter:

I can see where a cumbersome permitting process, with

uncertain outcomes, would make it difficult to plan and

implement projects . . . I encourage you to improve the speed

and predictability of the permitting process, and believe

that this will allow business and government to focus their

limited resources on actions that most benefit the

environment.

That is exactly what we want to do. That is a very acute observation by the senior Senator from California.

With that, I yield the floor.

This is a quote. Would you like me to read it again?

I will read it again.

No, no; I am saying she is concerned about the permitting process.

``I can see where a cumbersome permitting process, with uncertain outcomes, would make it difficult to plan and implement projects . . . I encourage you to improve the speed and predictability of the permitting process, and believe that this will allow business and government to focus their limited resources on actions that most benefit the environment.''

This is exactly what this bill does. We have a section in here that allows States, if they want to do it--and there is nothing wrong with allowing States to do what they see is in their best interests. I agree with Senator Feinstein that this would allow States to overcome this cumbersome permitting process, as she states in her statement.

Let me respond again. The distinguished junior Senator from California can say over and over and over again as many times as she wants that it is giving money to oil companies. It is not.

Specifically, the EDA portion provides grants to local communities if they want them. If the local community doesn't want them, they don't have to have them.

At this point in the Record I want to have printed a letter from the EDA that says:

No for-profit entity is eligible to receive EDA assistance.

Then, also, the permitting process is a small part of this amendment, but it is a very important part. It is a part that we have, subtitle A, about 4 pages, talking about trying to make the permitting process more streamlined. And that is where I used the statement from Senator Feinstein, who certainly agrees when she says: I can see where a cumbersome permitting process with uncertain outcomes would make it difficult to plan and implement projects.

Well, that is just one of the many things that we are trying to correct with this bill. Again, I have responded to all of the other statements that were made. I would repeat in terms of the environment, I am going to go ahead and submit for the Record at this point, along with the letter on the EDAs, a letter from the Environmental Council of the States, when they state very specifically: The bill does not weaken the standards and allows each State to choose its best course for most matters.

I think there is a basic, as I said before, problem in disagreement on the floor of this body when there are a lot of people who do not think that decisions, good decisions, are made unless they are made in Washington, DC.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would observe that the junior Senator from California is not going to support my amendment. However, I would also observe that you can't keep saying the same thing over and over and over again and make it true.

We have quoted the Environmental Council of the States. They all say there is nothing in here that is going to be damaging to the environment. Anyway, it is my understanding that I am going to be willing to set this aside for other amendments, so we can perhaps get in the queue and have several votes tomorrow, whenever the appropriate time is.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today for myself and on the behalf of my colleague, Dr. Coburn, to reintroduce a bill to honor the memory of an American hero and proud son from our great State of Oklahoma. Ernest Childers was the first Native American to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. This is our Nation's highest military award and it was awarded to him by Congress ``for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty in action.''

Ernest Childers was born in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, on February 1, 1918 as the third of five children. His father died when he was young and he grew up mostly on a farm. His hunting skills in his youth provided much of the food for his family and formed the basis of a great military career.

Ernest Childers enlisted in the Oklahoma National Guard in 1937 while attending the Chilocco Indian School in north-central Oklahoma. He then went to Fort Sill in Lawton, Oklahoma, for basic training before being deployed to Africa in World War II. On September 22, 1943, despite a broken instep that forced him to crawl, Second Lieutenant Childers advanced against enemy machine gun nests in Oliveto, Italy, killing two snipers and capturing an enemy mortar observer in the process. His actions were instrumental in helping the Americans win the Battle of Oliveto and won him the Congressional Medal of Honor. He continued his career in the Army earning several other military awards including the Combat Infantry Badge, Europe and Africa Campaign Medals, The Purple Heart, The Bronze Star, and the Oklahoma Distinguished Service Cross. He retired from the Army in August of 1965 as a lieutenant colonel in Oklahoma's 45th Infantry Division.

Ernest Childers passed away on March 17, 2005, and was Oklahoma's last Congressional Medal of Honor winner still living in the State. He was an honored guest of many Presidential inaugurations and as a Creek Indian, was named Oklahoma's Most Outstanding Indian by the Tulsa Chapter of the Council of American Indians in 1966. He once said ``The American Indian has only one country to defend, and when you're picked on, the American Indian never turns his back.'' I am proud and believe it is only appropriate to introduce once again this year a bill to rename the Department of Veterans Affairs' Outpatient Clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Ernest Childers Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic to honor the enduring legacy of a true hero and fine soldier. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today for myself and on the behalf of my colleague, Dr. Coburn, to reintroduce a bill to honor the memory of an American hero and proud son from our great State of Oklahoma. Ernest Childers was the first Native American to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. This is our Nation's highest military award and it was awarded to him by Congress ``for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty in action.''

Ernest Childers was born in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, on February 1, 1918 as the third of five children. His father died when he was young and he grew up mostly on a farm. His hunting skills in his youth provided much of the food for his family and formed the basis of a great military career.

Ernest Childers enlisted in the Oklahoma National Guard in 1937 while attending the Chilocco Indian School in north-central Oklahoma. He then went to Fort Sill in Lawton, Oklahoma, for basic training before being deployed to Africa in World War II. On September 22, 1943, despite a broken instep that forced him to crawl, Second Lieutenant Childers advanced against enemy machine gun nests in Oliveto, Italy, killing two snipers and capturing an enemy mortar observer in the process. His actions were instrumental in helping the Americans win the Battle of Oliveto and won him the Congressional Medal of Honor. He continued his career in the Army earning several other military awards including the Combat Infantry Badge, Europe and Africa Campaign Medals, The Purple Heart, The Bronze Star, and the Oklahoma Distinguished Service Cross. He retired from the Army in August of 1965 as a lieutenant colonel in Oklahoma's 45th Infantry Division.

Ernest Childers passed away on March 17, 2005, and was Oklahoma's last Congressional Medal of Honor winner still living in the State. He was an honored guest of many Presidential inaugurations and as a Creek Indian, was named Oklahoma's Most Outstanding Indian by the Tulsa Chapter of the Council of American Indians in 1966. He once said ``The American Indian has only one country to defend, and when you're picked on, the American Indian never turns his back.'' I am proud and believe it is only appropriate to introduce once again this year a bill to rename the Department of Veterans Affairs' Outpatient Clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Ernest Childers Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic to honor the enduring legacy of a true hero and fine soldier. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, let me make an inquiry. It is my understanding that under the UC, all of the eight amendments that will be considered on the floor have been called up and are in order to be considered; is that correct?

Mr. President, let me tell you something procedurally that is going to happen here in about an hour at 10 o'clock. There is a list of amendments. First, there are two of them, and then the Salazar amendment will be considered. After that, the Inhofe amendment will be considered.

Now, I want to get something understood procedurally because I think it is very important for everyone, particularly the occupant of the chair at this time, who has the Salazar amendment, to know what is going on.

A year ago, we debated the Inhofe amendment that would make English the national language for the United States of America. We debated it at length, hour after hour. We talked about that every President back to and including Theodore Roosevelt in 1916 made comments that English should be the official and should be the national language of the United States of America. We talked about the 50 countries that have English as a national language, one being in west Africa--Ghana--and one being in east Africa--Kenya--but not the United States of America.

Now, one of the things that happened a year ago is I had my amendment up, which is essentially the same amendment that will be up tonight. I would like to have you listen carefully. It is really a one-sentence amendment. All it says is:

Unless specifically provided by statute, no person has a

right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the

United States or any of its officials or representatives act,

communicate, perform or provide services, or provide

materials in any language other than English.

In other words, this is an entitlement.

Now, it has exceptions in there for laws that are on the books, such as laws protecting the sixth amendment, which would be the Court Interpreters Act and other such things. However, it

was aimed--I don't want to act as if I am hiding this because we talked about this a year ago. One of the things has been very controversial: At the very end of the Clinton administration was when he passed Executive Order No. 13166, and 13166 essentially said that if you are a recipient of Federal funds, then your documentation can all be done in whatever language you desire, so it could be Swahili, it could be Spanish, or any other language.

Now, what happened a year ago was they passed my amendment--and my amendment was exactly the same as it is today--and it passed by a vote of 62 to 35. Does that sound right? So, 62 to 35. Then right after that, the Salazar amendment--and I see the Senator from Colorado is preparing to respond--was passed, which gutted my amendment, did away with it.

So those individuals who voted for my amendment and then voted for the Salazar amendment--and there are quite a few Democrats and Republicans who did that--voted to make English the official language and then, in the next vote, 3 minutes later, voted to take it away.

Now, I see that this is happening again tonight because, unfortunately, I have to offer my amendment first. I anticipate it will be adopted because it is very popular. Right now, the polling shows that 91 percent of the people in America want English as an official language, and 76 percent of Hispanics believe English should be an official language.

Now, I am prepared to go on and debate this issue. I should not have to do it since 62 Members of this body already voted in favor of it. What I am going to say now, though, is very significant because if you vote for the Inhofe amendment when it comes up tonight, then vote for the Salazar amendment, you are essentially saying you are gutting the Inhofe amendment and you do not want English to be the official or the national language of the United States of America.

The Salazar amendment is exactly the language in the underlying bill. I have it before me. I would be glad to read it. In fact, I am not sure how this time is going to work out. If we have time equally divided, I am going to run out of time. So I will just state that the language is precisely the same in the underlying bill. The underlying bill actually puts into law executive orders, and this specific executive order of 13166, which gives anyone an entitlement to any language he or she wants, will become law. That is the language which is in there right now.

I am attempting to change that language. If my amendment is adopted, it will change. However, the next vote is going to be on the Salazar amendment. I am just saying to you, as my friends out here, do not vote for both of us because if you vote for both of us, you are voting to make English the official language, and then, in the very next vote, you are taking it away and reinstating the original language in the bill.

So I hope no one is going to think it is going to go unnoticed if anyone votes for my amendment and then votes to kill the amendment they just supported. That is what is going to happen tonight. I look forward to the vote.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Yes, I understand that. Parliamentary inquiry: Since we are talking about two amendments, the Salazar amendment and the Inhofe amendment, then I would assume there would be another 10 minutes equally divided later on this evening if it is the desire of the offerors; is that correct?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Colorado and I have each had 5 minutes on my amendment. I have not had 5 minutes in rebuttal of the amendment of the Senator from Colorado. Let me tell you what is going on. I know a lot people in this Chamber are going to think no one is going to figure this out. I am going to say it over and over again after this is over if the outcome is as I anticipate it will be.

First, this is probably the first time in 20 years we have had an honest effort where we can make English our national language in the United States of America. This is something all the polling data shows is in the nineties--91 percent, 93 percent of the people in America who want to have this amendment adopted.

In fact, a Zogby poll last month in May showed 76 percent of the Hispanics in America want to have English as the national language.

The Salazar amendment is precisely what the underlying bill is. The underlying bill--and I can read it to my colleagues, but I have done it three times on the floor already--yes, it does put into law the controversial Executive Order 13166. My colleagues have heard a lot about this from their constituents.

It says you are entitled to have your information, if you receive Government money, in any language of your choosing--Swahili or any other language. That is what is in the underlying bill. That also is in the Salazar amendment.

This is what is going to be happening. My colleagues have a chance to change all of this when they vote on the Inhofe amendment, which is I believe the third amendment in line tonight. What I don't want my colleagues to do is vote for my amendment and then vote for the Salazar amendment. All that does is put it right back where the bill is now. In other words, it would do away with my amendment and put it back as the language is in the underlying bill.

So there is no reason in the world to do it, unless someone is trying to cover up their true position. If my colleagues believe we should join the other 50 countries, such as Kenya, Ghana, and other countries around the world, that have English as their official language, then this is a chance to do it. If my colleagues do not believe it, then this is their chance to vote against the Inhofe amendment.

It is an act of hypocrisy if colleagues vote for the Inhofe amendment and then vote for the Salazar amendment to undo the Inhofe amendment. That happened a year ago. Democrats and Republicans did that. However, this time it will not go unnoticed.

It is interesting that every President back to and including Teddy Roosevelt in 1916 said very emphatically that we should have English as our official language, as our national language. It was said by President Clinton, it was said by the other President Roosevelt, by both President Bushes, and everyone has been for it.

I have a listing I wish to make part of the Record that shows all of the polling data in the last 5 years. It shows that between 85 and 95 percent of the American people want this amendment adopted. My colleagues can turn their backs on them or they can try the old trick they do around here all the time: Vote for the Inhofe amendment, and then turn around to vote to undo it if they want.

One thing that was stated by the Senator from Colorado was there are a lot of statutes this would negate. I remind my colleagues, if they read this bill, it says: Unless specifically provided by statute, no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform, or provide services or provide materials in any language other than English.

I have a list I also want to be made part of the Record that shows there are many statutes where they mandate languages other than English. A good example is the Court Interpreters Act. That is put in there to protect the sixth amendment to the Constitution, so people can be advised of their rights.

Again, my colleagues are going to have the opportunity to vote to make English our national language. I hope they will adopt this. They will certainly be serving their constituents well if they do. But if they do, they shouldn't turn around and undo what they just did because that is not going to go unnoticed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the polling information and the list of selected Federal laws requiring the use of languages other than English be printed in the Record.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Parliamentary inquiry, before the Senator speaks: Is the 2 minutes equally divided?

I object.

Mr. President, this is very simple. I hope everyone understands and is listening. We are going to have an opportunity in a few minutes to vote on another amendment which we will describe at that time with 2 minutes equally divided.

If you are opposed to English as the national language of the United States, then vote for the Salazar amendment. That is exactly what it does. His amendment says anyone who receives Federal money is entitled--this is an entitlement--to have the documentation in any language he or she chooses. It could be in Swahili, French, any other language.

So if you are opposed to English as the national language, go ahead and vote for this amendment. But keep in mind, when you do, that 91 percent of Americans are on our side of this issue and want English to be the national language, and 76 percent of the Hispanics, as a result of a poll that was taken in May of this year--a Zogby poll--are for English as the national language.

I ask you to defeat the Salazar amendment.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I object.

Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. President, last year, a year and a month ago, we had this same vote. Sixty-two people in this Chamber voted in favor of it, and I will ask them to do the same again. This, very simply--we talked about this many times--makes English the official, the national language of the United States as opposed to giving an entitlement to anyone, to any other language, which is in, of course, the amendment we passed.

If this amendment passes, it will go to conference, and we will have an opportunity to do something in conference to decide whether it is a combination of these or one or the other should prevail. So I ask that you do what 90 percent of your constituents want you to do and that is vote yes on the Inhofe amendment to make English the national language of the United States of America.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution honoring the efforts and contributions of the members of the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives Program under the Civil Affairs and Military Government Sections of the U.S. Armed Forces during and following World War II. This group, known as the ``Monuments Men,'' was responsible for the preservation, protection, and restitution of priceless artistic, and cultural treasures in countries occupied by the Allied armies.

In 1938, the Nazi party in Germany began a wide-scale confiscation of millions of pieces of artwork and other cultural artifacts throughout continental Europe, including masterpieces by Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Rembrandt. Much of the art was confiscated from Nazi- conquered Europe, as well as from Jewish private collectors who were forced to relinquish their property rights.

In 1944, with the Allied armies rolling across Europe, the Monuments Men began their work. They were given the

charge of protecting the cultural treasures of Europe, which proved to be a daunting task, given that they, at times, had to protect these treasures from friend as well as foe. Their first task was to prevent Allied forces in the field from damaging national monuments and from damaging or looting public or private collections. In the spring of 1945, the Monuments Men began discovering large caches of Nazi- confiscated artwork and artifacts. They began the arduous process of cataloging and repatriating the artwork and artifacts to their rightful owners.

I would like to take this moment to recognize the efforts of a couple of my fellow Oklahomans who served as Monuments Men. CPT Walter Johan Huchthausen served as a Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives officer with the U.S. 9th Army in Europe. Captain Huchthausen was born in Perry, OK on December 19, 1904. He earned a master of architecture degree from Harvard University in 1930 and went on to become the director of the Department of Design at the Boston Museum School of Fine Arts before joining the faculty at the University of Minnesota. Captain Huchthausen enlisted in 1942. He served as a Monuments Man in France and Germany before he was tragically killed by gunfire in April of 1945 while working to salvage an altarpiece in a German town.

Technical SGT Horace V. Apgar of Oklahoma City was transferred to the Monuments Men in Frankfurt in 1945, where he was involved in the retrieval and restitution of Jewish property. He was then assigned to the Rothschild home in Paris, which was being used as a depository for recovered Jewish artifacts stolen from synagogues and temples. Mr. Apgar returned home after the war and sought a career in music. He graduated from the Eastman School of Music at the University of Rochester in 1949 served as a bass teacher at the University of Oklahoma from 1951 to 1955. He went on to a 56-year career with the Oklahoma City Philharmonic Orchestra.

It is in large part due to the tireless efforts of Captain Huchthausen, Sergeant Apgar, and the many brave American men and women who served as Monuments Men that over 5 million works of art and other cultural treasures were protected and preserved following the collapse of the Nazi regime.

Madam President, I got a very early phone call from my daughter in Italy. Of course, their time is 6 hours ahead of ours, and they heard about Craig before we did.

I have listened to some of my colleagues talking about Craig. You know, there are some people you have more in common with than others. I can recall Craig and I both came to the House of Representatives about the same time. Then we both decided we would run for the Senate in 1994. That was a decision we made. We talked to each other and we decided that that would be the best thing for us to do and perhaps we would be able to articulate our concerns a little bit more.

He was a marine, I was in the Army. We had a lot in common. I think it was Mitch McConnell or perhaps Harry Reid this morning who talked about his calm toughness, his way of expressing himself. I have always been very envious. I would come down, and I would watch Craig Thomas on the floor. He would say things as antagonistically, as offensively as I would, except people loved him when he said it and they hated me when I said it. I was never able to master that. I watched him day after day, month after month, and year after year being able to do that.

I think Mike Enzi is right when he said Craig Thomas was the voice of the Senate. Let me correct Senator McConnell on one thing he said. I chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee when Craig Thomas was on that committee. This morning Mitch McConnell said he was as much at home on a horse as he was in a committee meeting. Well, let me correct you because he was much more at home on a horse than he would be in that committee meeting. I can remember seeing him staring off, and then I would go over and visit while some people were testifying, perhaps on the other side, and he would tell me his stories. He was a real cowboy. A lot of us ride horses in parades; he was a real cowboy and such a great guy.

Many years ago, I was mayor of Tulsa. We had our annual meeting in Ketchum, ID. I was flying a plane up there, when we were weathered in in Saratoga, WY. Saratoga, WY, is a town that Lewis & Clark came through at the bend of the river. I fell in love with that town. For the next 7 years that I served in the capacity of being mayor, I always purposefully stayed in Saratoga, WY.

I went up to him in the House of Representatives in the 1980s, and I said: Craig, you know when I was in--when I would stop, make my stop in Saratoga, WY, and stay at the Wolf Hotel--I might add, I would stay at the Wolf Hotel in the presidential suite; it was the only one with a bathroom in it. I told him almost everyone I would run into on the streets of Saratoga, WY, reminded me of Craig Thomas. These are salt- of-the-earth people, wonderful people, people I learned to dearly love.

Kay told me this morning, when we heard about Craig, she said: You probably forgot this, but when you were in voting on the day that we had the spouses dinner, that was 2 weeks ago today, on Tuesday, I saw him walking across the parking lot while I was waiting for you to vote, and he was walking a little slower than usual. I said: Hey, handsome. And his whole face lit up. And he came over and he embraced Kay. That is the way that he was to a lot of people. So let me say this to Peter, Paul, Patrick and Lexie and Susan. Susan, you have some people you have heard from this morning who dearly love you and would love to have some way of comforting you. We know how difficult it is. We will pray for you, for your kids. I have to say this also, I do not think it has been said yet about Craig.

Craig Thomas was probably the most consistent Member of the Senate prayer breakfast because he was always there. Mike Enzi knows this because he is the chairman now. He was always there. I give the Scripture at this thing. So we knew that if we did not see Craig Thomas anyplace else during the week, we would see him at the Senate Prayer Breakfast.

The Senate Prayer Breakfast is similar to a lot of these things. It is based on Acts 2:42. Acts 2:42 is the genesis of these meetings you do on a regular basis. You get together and you do four things: eat together, pray together, fellowship together, and talk about the precepts of Jesus together. We talked about the precepts of Jesus together every Wednesday morning.

That is the comfort I had with Craig Thomas. Some people, you wonder if they are going to be there. But Thomas

you didn't wonder, you knew. So, Craig, all I can say is, this is not goodbye, this is, ``We will see you later.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Gas Petroleum Refiner Improvement and Community Empowerment Act or Gas PRICE Act. While chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I sought to move a similar measure. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle managed to block the bill at that time.

Today, motorists are facing record high gas prices and according to Labor statistics, those higher fuel prices are hurting the national economy as a whole. Unfortunately, the pain at the pump, the grocery store, and the shopping mall were predicted long ago and are largely a function of politicking, rhetoric, and finger pointing, actions that continue today.

According to Deutsche Bank energy experts Paul Sankey and Rich Volina, who testified May 15, 2007 before the Senate Energy Committee, ``Anybody who blames record high U.S. gasoline prices on ``gouging'' at the pump simply reveals their total ignorance of global supply and demand fundamentals.'' Yet yesterday the House narrowly passed a bill that; goes just that; goes after so called ``gougers'' while doing nothing to affect supply.

I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will join me and quickly pass the bill I am introducing today. Our constituents elected us to solve problems and make their lives better, not to name call and demagogue.

I have been talking about the lack of adequate refining supplies for some years. In May 2004, while chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I held a hearing on the environmental issues regarding oil refining. The committee received testimony about the lack of adequate refining capacity and the obstacles the industry faced in order to meet consumer demand.

In a May 2005 speech, then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated, ``The status of world refining capacity has become worrisome as well. Of special concern is the need to add adequate coking and desulphurization capacity to convert the average gravity and sulphur content of much of the world's crude oil to the lighter and sweeter needs of product markets, which are increasingly dominated by transportation fuels that must meet ever-more stringent environmental requirements.''

The fact of the matter is that, like it or not, the U.S. needs to increase its

refining capacity if we are to solve the economic struggles facing every family.

The bill I am introducing today redefines and broadens our understanding of a ``refinery'' to be a ``domestic fuels facility.'' Oil has been and will continue to play a major role in the U.S. economy, but the future of our domestic transportation fuels system must also include new sources such as ultra-clean syn-fuels derived from coal and cellulosic ethanol derived from home-grown grasses and biomass.

Expanding existing domestic fuels facilities like refineries or constructing new ones face a maze of environmental permitting challenges. The Gas PRICE Act provides a Governor with the option of requiring the Federal EPA to provide the state with financial and technical resources to accomplish the job and establishes a certain permitting process for all parties. And it does so without waiving environmental laws and working with local governments.

The public demands increasing supplies of transportation fuel, but they also expect that fuel to be good for their health and the environment. To that end, the bill requires the EPA to establish a demonstration to assess the use of Fischer-Tropsch FT diesel and jet fuel as an emission control strategy. Initial tests have found that FT diesel emits 25 percent less NOX, nearly 20 percent less PM1O, and approximately 90 percent less SOX than low sulfur petroleum diesel. Further, U.S. Air Force tests at Tinker base in my home state found that blends of FT aircraft fuel reduced particulate 47-90 percent and completely eliminated SOX emissions over contemporary fuels in use today.

Good concepts in Washington are bad ideas if no one wants them at home. As a former Mayor of Tulsa, I am a strong believer in local and state control. The Federal Government should provide incentives to not mandate on local communities. Increasing clean domestic fuel supplies is in the nation's security interest, but those facilities can also provide high paying jobs to people and towns in need. My bill provides financial incentives to the two most economically distressed communities in the Nation, towns affected by BRAC and Indian tribes consider building coal-to-liquids and commercial scale cellulosic ethanol facilities.

I am very proud that my home state of Oklahoma is a leader in the development of energy crops for cellulosic biofuels, and specifically coordinated programs through the Noble Foundation in Ardmore. The key now is to promote investment in this exciting area, and nothing would speed the rapid expansion of the cellulosic biofuels industry more than investment by the Nation's traditional providers of liquid transportation fuels.

Many integrated oil companies have formed or substantially expanded their biofuels divisions within the past year to prepare for the eventuality of cost-competitive cellulosic biofuels. Cellulosic biorefineries will want to create an assured supply of feedstock and will enter into long-term contracts with surrounding biomass producers.

One of the incentives for oil companies to invest in exploration is that their stock prices are affected by their declared proved reserves. Creating a definition of renewable reserves would create a similar incentive for them to invest in cellulosic biofuels.

In 1975, Congress directed the SEC to promulgate a definition of proved reserves. At that time, the SEC based its definition upon broadly-accepted industry standards established by the Society of Petroleum Engineers 1978 FASB System. While no broadly accepted industry standards yet exist for thinking about dedicated energy crops, industry, growers and agronomists could be brought together to agree on standards and practices. Agronomists could play a similar role in estimation of renewable reserves to that of petroleum engineers in proved reserves by providing independent projections of biomass yields.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Department of Energy to accelerate the commercial development of oil shale and tar sands. As these unconventional fuel sources reach viability, the SEC will be pressured to develop methodology to incorporate them into its reserves hierarchy. Given the country's interest in developing renewable alternatives to fossil fuels, it is logical that the SEC would develop criteria for the incorporation of biomass feedstock sources into its hierarchy at the same time.

This is Congress's least expensive way to jumpstart the cellulosic biofuels industry.

Much has changed in Washington since I was chairman of the Environment Committee and held hearings on the need to improve our domestic transportation fuels system. I hope that the new majority joins me in quickly passing the Gas PRICE Act doing so would be a material and substantive action toward their stated goal of ``energy independence'' and would go far beyond more partisan symbolism.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Gas Petroleum Refiner Improvement and Community Empowerment Act or Gas PRICE Act. While chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I sought to move a similar measure. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle managed to block the bill at that time.

Today, motorists are facing record high gas prices and according to Labor statistics, those higher fuel prices are hurting the national economy as a whole. Unfortunately, the pain at the pump, the grocery store, and the shopping mall were predicted long ago and are largely a function of politicking, rhetoric, and finger pointing, actions that continue today.

According to Deutsche Bank energy experts Paul Sankey and Rich Volina, who testified May 15, 2007 before the Senate Energy Committee, ``Anybody who blames record high U.S. gasoline prices on ``gouging'' at the pump simply reveals their total ignorance of global supply and demand fundamentals.'' Yet yesterday the House narrowly passed a bill that; goes just that; goes after so called ``gougers'' while doing nothing to affect supply.

I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will join me and quickly pass the bill I am introducing today. Our constituents elected us to solve problems and make their lives better, not to name call and demagogue.

I have been talking about the lack of adequate refining supplies for some years. In May 2004, while chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I held a hearing on the environmental issues regarding oil refining. The committee received testimony about the lack of adequate refining capacity and the obstacles the industry faced in order to meet consumer demand.

In a May 2005 speech, then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated, ``The status of world refining capacity has become worrisome as well. Of special concern is the need to add adequate coking and desulphurization capacity to convert the average gravity and sulphur content of much of the world's crude oil to the lighter and sweeter needs of product markets, which are increasingly dominated by transportation fuels that must meet ever-more stringent environmental requirements.''

The fact of the matter is that, like it or not, the U.S. needs to increase its

refining capacity if we are to solve the economic struggles facing every family.

The bill I am introducing today redefines and broadens our understanding of a ``refinery'' to be a ``domestic fuels facility.'' Oil has been and will continue to play a major role in the U.S. economy, but the future of our domestic transportation fuels system must also include new sources such as ultra-clean syn-fuels derived from coal and cellulosic ethanol derived from home-grown grasses and biomass.

Expanding existing domestic fuels facilities like refineries or constructing new ones face a maze of environmental permitting challenges. The Gas PRICE Act provides a Governor with the option of requiring the Federal EPA to provide the state with financial and technical resources to accomplish the job and establishes a certain permitting process for all parties. And it does so without waiving environmental laws and working with local governments.

The public demands increasing supplies of transportation fuel, but they also expect that fuel to be good for their health and the environment. To that end, the bill requires the EPA to establish a demonstration to assess the use of Fischer-Tropsch FT diesel and jet fuel as an emission control strategy. Initial tests have found that FT diesel emits 25 percent less NOX, nearly 20 percent less PM1O, and approximately 90 percent less SOX than low sulfur petroleum diesel. Further, U.S. Air Force tests at Tinker base in my home state found that blends of FT aircraft fuel reduced particulate 47-90 percent and completely eliminated SOX emissions over contemporary fuels in use today.

Good concepts in Washington are bad ideas if no one wants them at home. As a former Mayor of Tulsa, I am a strong believer in local and state control. The Federal Government should provide incentives to not mandate on local communities. Increasing clean domestic fuel supplies is in the nation's security interest, but those facilities can also provide high paying jobs to people and towns in need. My bill provides financial incentives to the two most economically distressed communities in the Nation, towns affected by BRAC and Indian tribes consider building coal-to-liquids and commercial scale cellulosic ethanol facilities.

I am very proud that my home state of Oklahoma is a leader in the development of energy crops for cellulosic biofuels, and specifically coordinated programs through the Noble Foundation in Ardmore. The key now is to promote investment in this exciting area, and nothing would speed the rapid expansion of the cellulosic biofuels industry more than investment by the Nation's traditional providers of liquid transportation fuels.

Many integrated oil companies have formed or substantially expanded their biofuels divisions within the past year to prepare for the eventuality of cost-competitive cellulosic biofuels. Cellulosic biorefineries will want to create an assured supply of feedstock and will enter into long-term contracts with surrounding biomass producers.

One of the incentives for oil companies to invest in exploration is that their stock prices are affected by their declared proved reserves. Creating a definition of renewable reserves would create a similar incentive for them to invest in cellulosic biofuels.

In 1975, Congress directed the SEC to promulgate a definition of proved reserves. At that time, the SEC based its definition upon broadly-accepted industry standards established by the Society of Petroleum Engineers 1978 FASB System. While no broadly accepted industry standards yet exist for thinking about dedicated energy crops, industry, growers and agronomists could be brought together to agree on standards and practices. Agronomists could play a similar role in estimation of renewable reserves to that of petroleum engineers in proved reserves by providing independent projections of biomass yields.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Department of Energy to accelerate the commercial development of oil shale and tar sands. As these unconventional fuel sources reach viability, the SEC will be pressured to develop methodology to incorporate them into its reserves hierarchy. Given the country's interest in developing renewable alternatives to fossil fuels, it is logical that the SEC would develop criteria for the incorporation of biomass feedstock sources into its hierarchy at the same time.

This is Congress's least expensive way to jumpstart the cellulosic biofuels industry.

Much has changed in Washington since I was chairman of the Environment Committee and held hearings on the need to improve our domestic transportation fuels system. I hope that the new majority joins me in quickly passing the Gas PRICE Act doing so would be a material and substantive action toward their stated goal of ``energy independence'' and would go far beyond more partisan symbolism.

Madam President, I thank the Senator very much for the time.

Iraq

Madam President, before getting into this bill, I want to comment that last week when I was there--it was my 14th time to be in the AOR of the Middle East and where the conflict is--the progress that is being made there is incredible. I sat here and I heard a couple Senators talk about how bad things were there and that we are losing and all this.

This is the first time--I remember a year ago in Ramadi they actually declared Ramadi was going to be the al-Qaida capital of the Middle East or the terrorist capital of the Middle East. Right now, it is completely changed. IEDs are down 81 percent. Attacks are down 74 percent. Then, next door at Fallujah, they are now totally under the security of the Iraqi security forces.

So all these good things are happening there. I wish Members of this Senate would go over there and see for themselves instead of trying to use it politically to advance their careers. You are doing a great disservice to our troops over there.

But that is not why I am here in the Chamber.

I appreciate the comments that have been made by the Senator from Alabama. I agree with everything he has said. My concern is at 2 a.m. on Saturday morning is when all this came up. We did not have any way of knowing exactly what was in it. Yet I am concerned about all sorts of things, such as how do you make a Z visa work.

But the reason I want to have a little time right now is because I do have an amendment. It is my understanding I will be able to call up this amendment for consideration after the Senator from North Dakota has his up, and that will be later this afternoon.

My amendment is the English amendment. Those Members on the floor can remember a year ago I got an amendment adopted that made English the national language for the United States of America. It passed by a vote of 62 to 35. There are some extremist groups that opposed it and, quite frankly, some of the liberal Members of the Senate were afraid to vote for it without having a backup where they could negate it. This is what happened. They voted for my amendment.

The amendment is very simple. It says there is not an entitlement for language, other than the English language, to be given to people who want Government services. Very simple. That is the same way over 50 other countries, including Ghana in West Africa, have it.

The Presiding Officer knows I have spent a lot of time in Africa on some of the same programs she has been involved with, and most of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa--the ones that speak English--all have English as their national language. Thirty states have it as their national language, but not we in the United States of America.

There is going to be an effort on my part to get this in the bill, and I am going to use the same text I had last time.

It is interesting when you hear different Presidents talk about this issue. In 1999, in his State of the Union Address, President Clinton said:

Our new immigrants must be part of our one America . . .

that means learning English.

Everyone said ``hooray,'' and then he came along with an executive order right after that which did away with that statement completely.

President Bush said:

The key to unlocking the full promise of America is the

ability to speak English.

We know how many States have adopted this. The polling is incredible. A 2006 Zogby poll reported 84 percent of Americans--I have polls showing up to 91 percent--said English should be the national language. And 77 percent of Hispanics polled by that Zogby poll said the same thing. This poll was in 2006, only a year ago, demonstrating how many Americans believe English should be our national language. Establishing English as a national language should not be viewed as a partisan issue. It is widely supported throughout the country.

In this Congress, in this immigration debate, I am again offering my amendment to make English the national language. My amendment would accomplish three things. No. 1, it would establish English as the national language of the United States of America. No. 2, it would establish that the official business of the Federal Government should be conducted in English, and eliminates all of the entitlements people would have for language other than English. Now, it does respect current law. For example, we have the Court Interpreters Act. The Court Interpreters Act is necessary to support the sixth amendment, the right to counsel, and we are making sure this doesn't affect that in a negative way.

So we create no restriction of providing materials of other languages and allow certain exceptions where it is specifically mandated by statute. We made that very clear.

My amendment does not prohibit the use of other languages. However, my amendment states:

There is no entitlement to individuals that Federal

agencies must act, communicate, perform, or provide services

or materials in any language other than English.

So it is hypocritical that the immigration legislation we are considering now contains a section generally recognizing the importance of English. However, this section 702 of this immigration legislation does not establish English as a national language.

Now, we had this debate. We were on the Senate floor and debating this about a year ago right now, and people were hesitant to vote against it. We had every kind of excuse in the world. They came trotting in here with State flags that had foreign languages on them saying: We would have to do away with all of these State flags.

It has nothing to do with that. We are talking about entitlements.

We had one Member come in and say: You are going to be responsible for the deaths of Hispanics.

I said: Explain that.

This Member on the Senate floor, right down here, said: Well, you know, they have some bad currents down in

the Potomac, and we have ``no swimming'' signs that are written in Spanish. If you don't have those, then people are going to drown.

This has nothing to do with that. You can put up any kind of sign you want that is in the best public interest.

We had one Member come down and say: You would never be able to speak in Spanish on the floor of the Senate.

Well, that has nothing to do with it. I have made a few speeches in Spanish, and there is a reason for it which I will not go into now. But these are things that people say are problems and things that just don't hold up.

Now, I think it should be pointed out--because a very good friend of mine was on a television station this morning, and I know this individual would not have said what he said if he were aware of the truth, but let me just bring this out. A year ago, when I had my amendment, which would do essentially what the amendment will do if it is passed today, Senator Salazar from Colorado came up with an amendment right afterwards. In fact, we voted on it in a matter of minutes after we voted on mine, 62 to 35, and his passed also. All his did was offer language that is totally different from mine.

For example, I am going to read his. It didn't say English is the national language, it says it is a common language.

Preserving and Enhancing the Role of the English Language:

The Government of the United States shall preserve and

enhance the role of English as the language of the United

States.

But listen to this:

Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights

under the laws of the United States relevant to services or

materials provided by the Government of the United States in

any language other than English.

There it is, folks: ``Nothing herein shall diminish or expand . . .'' In other words, it is going to continue to be the same.

Now, there are a lot of people out there who are going to be looking at this amendment. Americans are clamoring to have this done. They don't understand why we don't do this. I don't understand it either. But this language is found in the current immigration bill.

Down here under ``definition'' in section 702, which was in the language that was put in 2 minutes after my vote took place a year ago, it says:

For the purposes of this section, law is defined as

including provisions of the United States Constitution, the

United States Code, controlling judicial decisions,

regulations, and Presidential Executive Orders.

Now, this is a very significant one because what you hear about quite often is President Clinton's Executive Order No. 13166 entitlement, which offers entitlement to translation in any language of your choice, anyone who receives any Federal funds. Well, that completely opens the door for every possible language. A lot of people think we are only talking about Spanish. That is not correct. That Executive order refers to any language at all. This bill we are considering that I will oppose has language in there that would codify that Executive Order No. 13166, and I think it is one that people have to understand.

The Senator from Alabama is not back, so I will take a little bit more time. I am going to read the language now that is actually in the amendment which says English shall be the national language of the Government of the United States: The Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America, unless specifically provided by statute.

Now, I use as an example the court interpreters law, existing law right now. It says, unless specifically provided by statute, no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform, or provide services or provide materials in any language other than English. If an exception is made with respect to the use of a language other than English, the exception does not create a legal entitlement to additional services in that language or in any language other than English.

Forms--it says:

If any form is issued by the Federal Government in any

language other than English, or such form is completed in a

language other than English, the English language version of

the form is the sole authority for all legal purposes.

Again, there is one sentence in there that says:

Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the use of language

other than English if it is codified into law.

That is what we use the Court Interpreters Act for, and a few others, where there is a constitutional reason--in this case it is the sixth amendment to the Constitution--for having that language in there.

So what I will do until the Senator from Alabama returns is mention a few other things I think are significant. This is not a new issue. This is an old issue, and the old issue goes back to many years ago, to President Theodore Roosevelt in the 1900s:

Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn

English, but that he has got to learn it. He has got to

consider the interests of the United States or he should not

stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in

this country depend on his knowing English and observing

American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to

regard him only as an industrial asset.

Now, that was President Theodore Roosevelt in 1916. I could go through--we have them all the way up, including Ronald Reagan and other Presidents. Later on, I will go over the polling data. Later on, if we have a chance to present this and debate this amendment, I am going to go over all the polling data. You cannot find any polling data that says less than 84 percent of the American people want to have English as the national language.

So even LaRaza, an extremist, leftwing group, says they found in a 2004 poll that LaRaza did, 97 percent strongly--86 percent--97 percent that is strongly or somewhat agreed that the ability to speak English is important to succeed in this country. That is the extremist group. In other words, if you want to be an attorney or a doctor instead of a busboy, you need to learn the language.

Now, I see the Senator from Alabama is back, but let me just repeat the one thing that I think is very important because so many of our own Members--Republicans and Democrats--believe somehow this bill positively addresses the problem or it makes English the national language. I am going to go ahead and tell you that when they put section 702 in instead of my language, section 701, all they said is English is a common language in the United States. Big deal. But it says in here:

Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights

under the laws of the United States relative to services or

materials provided by the Government of the United States in

any language other than English.

Well, there it is, I say to my friend from Alabama. Nothing in here would diminish or expand. In other words, it is going to stay like it is today. But then it goes on to say--and this is the critical thing-- all the criticism of President Clinton when he passed Executive Order No. 13166, which was an entitlement for a translator in any language you want other than English, or the language of your choice if you are a recipient of Federal funds. So that definition, if we pass this bill--which I don't think we are going to, and which I don't want to for many other reasons--but if we pass it, we would say for the purposes of this section of law, the law is defined as including provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the United States Code, controlling judicial decisions, regulation, and Presidential Executive orders. In other words, we are codifying this very Executive Order that so many people in America find so offensive.

So I think this is an opportunity to put this in. Quite frankly, I think unless the bill would be dramatically changed, I still wouldn't support the bill, but we need to have every opportunity we can, when we are addressing problems with immigrants or legislation of this nature, to make English the national language. Ninety percent of the American people are for it, 77 percent of the Hispanics are for it, and I am for it.

I thank my colleague very much for his time, I say to the Senator from Alabama, who has done a great job.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have come a long way. I am sorry I wasn't here to hear Senator Boxer's remarks, but I am sure I agree with the remarks of the chairman of the committee.

We are down now to a manageable number of amendments. We are working very diligently, and I understand there are two Republican amendments and four Democratic amendments. The time is here for us to do everything we can to try to make this happen. I think almost everyone in here, Democrat and Republican, is for this bill. It has been 7 years since we have had this reauthorization bill. It is overdue, so we need to have it now.

We debated this for 2\1/2\ hours yesterday, so I would encourage any one of the authors of these six amendments to come and work with us and get this thing done. It would be a shame if we came this far and didn't get it done. So I join my chairman, Senator Boxer, in encouraging everyone to work together.

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

Mr. President, first of all, let me say I agree with the statement made by the chairman of the committee, Senator Boxer. She is right, we have had differences in the past. But I can say this: Working on infrastructure, whether it is the Transportation reauthorization bill or the WRDA bill, we work things out. I think we do it the responsible way. We have criteria. We make sure every project out there has a report and meets the criteria. Sometimes it doesn't end up that way in conference. We are going to do our very best to have a bill as close to what we have now, when we get to conference, when we get out of conference.

Let's keep in mind, it has been 7 years since we have had one of these. While some of the numbers look high to people, if we were to discipline ourselves, which we should--and I think we will work toward that end from now on and have these every 2 years--then that will be a much better way to get things done.

I guess we are into our time, now, aren't we?

I would like to yield whatever time the Senator from Louisiana would like to use. I have to say he has been very cooperative. I know he has gotten the most he could for Louisiana, and that is our job when we come down here. But he has been very cooperative in working things out, and I thank him so much for his cooperation.

As I have said before, we have an infrastructure crisis in this country. If we do not provide for adequate water transportation infrastructure, we will force even more traffic to our already-clogged highways. I believe we need to provide proper maintenance of our entire system, including the Great Lakes, not just switch focus from one component to another as they begin to fail.

I agree that the corps needs to make sure that its funding allocations take into consideration small harbors with large economic impacts. The corps should not develop a budget that is unfairly biased against rural communities, and which will have a detrimental effect on small-town, rural America, causing job losses, and increased hardship for businesses. We must work to protect our Nation's shipping infrastructure.

Mr. President, we are operating under 20 minutes equally divided, although there is more time than that before the vote. I ask unanimous consent that we be able to continue our remarks up to the time of the vote at 5:15 p.m.

Mr. President, first of all, I don't see Senator Baucus here. He is the chairman of the subcommittee. He did a great job on this. We worked closely together. They called us the big four, the chairman and ranking member and the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee. We all worked tirelessly on this. We are all pleased with the product we have.

Mr. President, let me make one comment. Something the Senator from Georgia said is very important. This is not a spending bill, this is an authorization bill. If we didn't have this bill in the process, then the appropriators, when the bill would come up, would have all kinds of projects that did not go through a process, where we would know if there is local support and so forth. So the conservative position is to authorize these things and, if there is something somebody doesn't like, go after it when the appropriations come.

We have a good bill. I thank the chairman for working with us. I know the Senator from Louisiana wants to be heard, also.

With 1 minute left, I think it is very important. There are a lot of people who didn't get everything they wanted. Every time we pass an authorization bill, whether it is transportation or a WRDA bill, if you don't have a lot of people upset, then you didn't do a very good job. We had to shave a lot of places. This sets us up, and this offers us discipline for the appropriation process when it comes along.

I say to my good conservative friends, this is the best way to do it, so we know when appropriation bills come up, certain things have been done. This is a major accomplishment. We were able to pass this before, last year. We are hoping now we are going to conference, and we can come back with something we can all support. I believe we will.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I understand, we are now dividing time equally between the junior Senator from Oklahoma and the committee; is that correct?

How much time remains?

We have a total of 3 minutes left?

The main thing I want to get across, I can't get across in 3 minutes. But I can tell you right now--and by the way, the reason I wasn't here earlier is that I have been, in the last 3 days, in Iraq. And by the way, good things are happening there in spite of what the press will tell you.

I came back somewhat shocked to see some of these amendments because, quite frankly, a lot of people don't understand the process. I don't want anyone out there watching what we are doing today saying that we are killing some useless project. It has nothing to do with that. This is an authorization bill. I will make this clear, but I can't do it in this time unless the Senator from Oklahoma would like to yield 5 minutes of his time.

I thank the Senator.

The amendment we will be talking about is the Imperial Beach amendment. I have to remind my colleagues, as I did in the steering committee last Thursday, this is not an appropriations bill. What we are doing here today is not going to change anything at all in terms of money. I don't want anyone thinking we will have some useless project or spend money on it. We are not doing it with this bill today. We may be doing it in the future. We may be doing it when the appropriations bills come up. I may be opposing it at that time.

But all we are doing through the WRDA bill is we allow ourselves the opportunity to make sure there is some level of discipline in putting projects forward that people will eventually be voting on. They are not going to be voting on them today. This is the authorization process.

Now, we have criteria. We have to have an engineer's report from the Corps of Engineers. It has to say it is economically feasible, it takes care of the environmental problems--all these things--and it ensures there is cost sharing.

Let me tell you what would happen if we did not do this. If we did not do it, and we had everyone coming up, swapping out their deals, and saying: I have a project over here; it is my sweetheart project; the Corps of Engineers has never been there. We don't care. No one has ever evaluated it, but this is my humble opinion, since we are here in Washington making all these decisions in violation of what people back home want. Then we will have a project.

That is the alternative. This is the same as the transportation authorization bill. There we had criteria where we would talk about the qualifications of various projects, and they would have to be in that criteria. Then we would bring it up later on and decide whether we were going to fund these things.

Now, on the project that is going to take place at Imperial Beach, it was authorized. The Corps recommended this storm damage reduction project because it is technically sound, economically justified, environmentally acceptable, and it will have the local cost share.

I have a letter from the mayor of Imperial Beach saying this is what they want out there. It may not be what they want in Washington, but this is what they want.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Hopefully, when we get down toward the end of the debate, after I hear what my colleague says about this issue, I will use more time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, is the Senator yielding back time?

All right. In deference to some other things that are going on right now, I will go ahead and yield back my time at this moment.

Mr. President, first of all, I agree with what the Senator just said. We have plowed this field before. The votes were 88 votes against last time. Nothing has changed. I know the intentions of the Senator proposing this are right, but the amendment assumes there is one, and only one, correct rank list of projects, and we need to have somebody else write it down. We already have the Corps of Engineers going through and determining, as Senator Boxer said, what the criteria is and why these things should be considered, and normally it would then come to us. I think that is what we are supposed to be doing; it is why we are elected. So now we would have, if we pass this amendment, one more bureaucracy between the Corps and us. If there is anybody on the conservative side who thinks it inures to anyone's benefit to have one more layer of bureaucracy, then this is your chance to vote for it.

I ask that you oppose this amendment.

I yield back my time.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 20 minutes equally divided between the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Nebraska prior to the time of taking up consideration of the Kerry amendment.

No objection.

I think the Senator from Massachusetts has a unanimous consent request. I ask he be recognized for that.

Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding we started out at 45 and 45. We are down now to 2 hours where you are increased from 45 minutes to an hour. That would be equally divided. I probably will yield back some of my time.

Let me ask for clarification. What you are saying is, instead of 2 hours equally divided, it would be 2\1/2\ hours equally divided? I have no objection, with the understanding that I can count against my time and talk for up to 10 minutes on the subject of Iraq.

Madam President, first, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for working out this unanimous consent agreement. These things are sometimes complicated. I know he has just as strong beliefs about his amendment as I do in opposition. I think this will accommodate it. Let me go ahead, if I might, and take a few minutes.

It would be disrespectful for me to walk in here and ask the last two Senators who were talking what they have been smoking recently. I do not understand how someone can say they came back a few weeks ago from Iraq and then have a report like this. It is just incredible.

I have to say, I know I have been in the Iraqi AOR more than any other Member of the House, any other Member of the Senate, anybody else. I take this very seriously. I am on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I spend time studying this issue, the most critical issue facing Americans today, and that is this war on terrorism. It is one that we are winning and we can win.

I have to tell you, I spent this last weekend with--it was my 14th trip there. I was there. I was walking around, rolling around in the sand in Anbar Province. I was shocked at what I saw. Maybe someone, giving them the benefit of the doubt, if they have been there and it has been a few weeks--maybe this really hasn't worked. But lets keep in mind the surge policy came in in February. So we need to look and see what it is that has happened since February that is working.

I have to say this also: General Petraeus is the guy in charge. Here we are sitting down talking about micromanaging a war with 435 Members of the House and 100 Members of the Senate, when we have a President who is doing the job that the Constitution tells him to do. Yet we are trying to interfere with that process.

Going back to some of the previous trips, I watched as time went by over the last 5 years, each time I go back, a greater level of cooperation that we are finding from the Iraqis. This last time--I think I have to give credit to some of the people who are talking about--the-cut-and-run crowd. The surrender crowd, has got the Iraqi's attention. I see that they are, in fact, becoming a lot more aggressive in what they are doing right now. But I am going to share with you-- this is new stuff, this just happened 2 days ago. This isn't something that might have happened 5 years ago or longer than that.

I remember a couple of weeks ago when General Petraeus came to Congress. He gave a report. It was a classified briefing on the fourth floor and then he had some news conferences. He gave some positive comments. I carry those around with me.

He said:

Anbar has gone from being assessed as being lost to a

situation that is now quite heartening.

He said:

We have, in Ramadi, reclaimed that city.

He said:

We are ahead with respect to reduction of sectarian

violence and murders in Baghdad by about a third, about 33

percent.

These are the things that were happening at that time. I thought, you know, a lot of the people who really just do not think we need a military to start with and aren't concerned about what is happening to us over there might say General Petraeus was overly optimistic; he was not being conservative; and he is telling us things that flat aren't true. So I thought I would go over and find out.

I went over. I was there this weekend. I spent most of my time, not in Baghdad, not in places where people go, but in Anbar Province. I spent my time in Taqaddum--an area nobody else goes to, to my knowledge, nobody has been to--and Ramadi and Fallujah. That is what we are talking about when we talk about Anbar Province.

The reason that is important is that is where most of the violence has taken place. That is where we have watched, as time went by--where we lost the most lives. We remember so well hearing the stories about our marines in Fallujah going door to door, very similar to what was happening in World War II. And that is a fact, they were.

And that is a fact. They were. But then along came the surge and along came General Petraeus. I have to tell you, General Petraeus was being very conservative when he was here 10 days ago or 2 weeks ago, whatever it was.

I am going to tell you exactly what is happening there now. And these people

who are the prophets of doom, I hope they are listening.

First of all, let's just take Ramadi. That is the area which was supposed to be the toughest area. You might remember a year ago al- Qaida controlled that city. They held a parade a year ago, and they declared--after that parade, they said now Ramadi is their capital, the capital of terrorism, the capital of al-Qaida.

Well, that is what happened a year ago. A year ago, we had a total of 2,000 Iraqi security forces. You know the whole idea here is to get Iraqi security forces trained, equipped, and let them take care of their own problems and their own terrorism that is coming in. Keep in mind that these terrorists are not after Americans; they are after Iraqis. They do not want freedom in that country. Back then, at that time, when they bragged, when al-Qaida bragged that Ramadi was their capital, we only had 2,000 Iraqi security forces. That is all. Do you know how many we have now? We have 12,200 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces in Ramadi.

Things are happening there. They had 1,200 people volunteer from Ramadi for the Iraqi security forces, more than they could train and handle--in 1 day, 1 day. Well, they have things that are going on, showing them support for the Iraqi people.

We all know that in our own hometowns, we have this thing called Neighborhood Watch Programs where we are going to try to stop crime. They have one there too; it is called the neighborhood security watch. This is where civilians--not military, not armed--these people put on little orange jackets and go out, and they try to find where IEDs are hidden, where explosive devices are hidden. They have spray paint, orange spray paint, and they will put a circle around where they are. Then our troops will go in there and detonate them, and then everyone is fine. Before that, we were losing American lives by walking into these situations. That is not happening now. This is because of the neighborhoods. These are the Iraqi people.

The troops have reclaimed Ramadi, very clearly. If you just look at Ramadi--one city--since February, overall attacks are down 74 percent. That is since February. That is when the surge was announced. The IED attacks are down 81 percent--not 10 percent, not 15 percent, 81 percent. It is a huge success story.

In Fallujah, you know, I can remember going to Fallujah years ago-- Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that if I go over my 10 minutes, I have a few extra minutes and it will be deducted from my time.

Madam President, in Fallujah right now, one Iraqi brigade owns the battlespace. This is the term which we use in the Armed Services Committee, ``owns the battlespace.'' It means they are providing their own security. Now, this was not true a few years ago when I first went there. No one could get anywhere near anything in town. You would not take the risk of going in.

I was there during both of the elections, and I saw the Iraqi security forces go to vote the day before the public would vote. When they did this, they found themselves in a situation that was very dangerous. They voted the day before so they could provide the security for the populous of Fallujah. Well, several of them were killed, as you recall. But I talked to them each night after they went to vote, and they were overjoyed in doing it. They said: The day is coming when we are going to be able to take care of the security in Fallujah.

All right, that was 4 years ago and 3 years ago and 5 years ago on different trips I made there. This weekend, just 2 days ago, we have now officially turned over the security of Fallujah to the Iraqis. They are providing the security.

If you look in the whole province of Anbar, you see another thing that is happening. A lot of people think--we hear a lot from the Prime Minister, Maliki; we hear about the Minister of Defense, Jasim; we heard about Dr. Rubaie--all of these people who were appointed or elected to be the leadership of Iraq. They are not the ones who are really making the decisions as far as the people are concerned. It is a different culture. It is the clerics and the imams in the mosques.

Now, we measure what goes on in the mosques. It is just like we would hear a sermon in the United States in a church--we go there and find out what they are talking about. Prior to February, 80 percent of the mosques had messages that were delivered by the clerics there or the imams there that were anti-American, getting everyone stirred up every Saturday or whenever they get together. In April, it was zero. There wasn't one mosque, of the hundreds of mosques, that had an anti- American message. For that reason, you have all of the populous coming in and saying: We want in on this thing. We are going to actually get something done here. We are tired.

They are the ones who have been the targets for the terrorists. They know that. Certainly the clerics know that. That is why we are getting this surge of cooperation.

In March of 2006, there were only 4,000 what they call Iraqi security forces. Today, there are 27,500 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces. The Sunni tribal coalition is fighting al-Qaida. That is something new. That wasn't happening 3 weeks ago. It certainly was not happening in February.

I did stop in Baghdad. I spent most of the time in Anbar Province. But in Baghdad, I was heartened to see something new--and I did not know how it worked--is being put in place. It is called a joint security station. Now, in Baghdad, there are 27 of them. So the night before last, late at night, I went out there and I saw how they worked. Instead of our troops going out on raids during the day and then coming back to the Green Zone where they will be safe, our troops are now staying out there in those areas in these joint security stations. They are there with the Iraqis. They are sleeping there with them, they are eating with them, and they are developing close relationships. That is the key to this thing. This all came from General Petraeus, that we have relationships in these areas. If you talk to our troops--you don't talk to the guys on the Senate floor here; talk to the troops, find people who are coming back. You ask them what their relationship is now with the Iraqi security forces.

I have to say this also--even though we heard this before, we did verify it is actually more than this--the sectarian murders in Baghdad are down by 30 percent. Now, that is not quite as good as it is in Anbar Province. One of the reasons is Anbar Province is where all of the problems were, and we are concentrating more and the Iraqis are concentrating more there. I went to the marketplace there. I did not have any helicopters over the top. I went through, I took an interpreter, I stopped and talked to people on the street, and they are so appreciative of what we are doing there, and it is no wonder that they are.

I just have to say that these relationships have formed. The term they are using is the ``brotherhood of the close fight.'' I give General Petraeus credit for engineering a lot of these things.

Lastly, I would say--you may not believe me because you know I have a strong feeling about defending America, and you might say I am prejudiced. Yes, I was on the House Armed Services Committee for years and then on the Senate Armed Services Committee for the last 12 years, and so I watch and see what is happening. I recognize we need to rebuild America's military now to be able to meet future challenges like this.

I would only say this: Everything that I have now said, if you don't believe it--and I thought I would never recommend to my conservative friends that they ever watch CNN, but I am going ask them to go ahead and watch CNN this time, and there is someone named Nick Robertson who asked to go along to some of these stations I went to two nights ago, the joint security stations. They are giving a report, and you will be shocked to find out that even CNN, which has been no friend of our President and no friend of our efforts in Iraq, is now coming out with reports that are saying exactly what I am saying right here.

So have your good time. Stand up and take your bows and criticize the President and criticize the effort in Iraq and criticize our soldiers. Let me tell you, they are doing a good job, we are winning there, and this information I share with you is just 1 day old.

With that, I yield the floor.

Let me ask how much time I used off of my amendment time.

Madam President, for clarification on the time, it is my understanding that we each started off with 30 minutes, and then we each get 15 minutes after that time has expired, and that I used 13 minutes of my time on my Iraq discussion.

OK. So it would be an hour and 15 minutes for each side.

OK. So in this period now, I would have an hour, less 13 minutes.

All right. That is fine. I do not think I will use all of this time right now. But in the event I get close to it, if the Chair would let me know when I have 3 minutes left, I would appreciate that.

I don't know where to start. I really don't. I don't have all my stuff I normally would have in talking about this subject right now because I did not know this was going to come up.

Certainly, everyone has a right to bring up amendments. This amendment is totally out of place for this bill. There is no justification for having it.

Let me make one comment about it. If the idea is--and apparently it is--this amendment is going to instruct the Corps of Engineers to come out with a report as to how anthropogenic gases would be affected by each project that is constructed around the country, let me suggest we have a $14 billion bill we are going to be voting on at about 5:30, 6 o'clock tonight. It is one that we desperately need. We have been debating this issue.

But I can assure you, if for some reason the Kerry amendment was adopted, it would kill the bill. There is no question about it. But it is not going to be adopted. It is a good forum to stand out here and talk about how everyone should be hysterical and should be worried.

It is interesting to me that the same people today who are saying the world is coming to an end, we are all going to die, just back in the middle 1970s were saying another ice age is coming and we are all going to die. Which way do you want it?

On this one, he is asserting, I guess, that somehow the climate is changing. Let me suggest, in 2006 the World Meteorological Organization issued statements refuting claims about a consensus that global warming is and will cause more frequent and intense storms, saying no such consensus exists. Even Al Gore has now backed away from claiming that global warming will cause more frequent storms.

I have a chart in the Chamber, a plot of the hurricanes going back to 1851. As you can see, this is constant. This has been going on for a long period of time. Now, if a surge of anthropogenic gases--this CO2, methane, or whatever it is--were causing a warming period, then you would think right during the period around 1945 we would have a warming period because in the middle 1940s, after the Second World War, we had the greatest increase in greenhouse gases, with an increase of about 85 percent during that time.

But what happened? It did not precipitate a warming period. It precipitated a cooling period so bad that by the middle 1970s everyone thought we were going to die from another ice age coming.

Now, as far as this bill is concerned--I will probably repeat this in a little more detail in the final remarks, but I have to say this: We have $14 billion of projects. These are Corps of Engineers projects that are desperately needed. We have not had a Water Resources Development Act reauthorization bill for 7 years. We finally have the opportunity to have it.

Now, if this amendment should be adopted, it would delay all these projects by at least a year because the Corps would have to go back and restudy all these projects. So I think we should keep that in mind in terms of how it affects the bill we have.

Now, the junior Senator from Massachusetts talked about this great coalition called the U.S. Climate Action Group. Well, I can tell you about this great coalition. I do not know how many there are. There are about maybe

seven or eight companies, corporations that have joined this saying: Yes, we want to have some kind of a cap and trade on CO2. We want to do something, maybe have a tax on them because we are good citizens. We are concerned about the environment.

Well, we had a hearing about that, only to find out every last one of them that we could research would end up making not just millions but in some cases billions of dollars if something like Kyoto would go through. I will be specific. DuPont would make $500 million a year in credits. DuPont, no wonder they are for it. If I were a member of the board of directors of DuPont, I would also do the same thing they are doing.

These are being paid for reductions in greenhouse gases as a result of things they have already done, so they do not have to do anything more. I am saying the $500 million a year--this came from an internal study, so this is not someone making an accusation--is based on $10 a ton. If it goes up to $20 a ton, then it is going to be $1 billion a year. So DuPont is for that. GE and BP, they are doing the solar panels and the wind tunnels. Well, sure, they would make a lot of money.

We can quantify all this. There is not time to go through all of that.

The other assertion that was made by the distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts was that the sea level is going to come up. There are so many people who have watched the Gore movie, and a lot of the teachers have gotten into this, and it makes teaching real easy. There is one school in Maryland, and a parent came by to see me after we had our confrontation with Senator Gore about 3 weeks ago and said: Do you realize in my child's elementary class, his teacher makes them watch this movie once a month? They said the scary part is--for little kids who do not know any better, they think it is true, when it is not true. They said the scary part is the sea level rise.

This is what the Senator is saying: The sea level rises. I would suggest the IPCC, that is behind all of this--that is where it all started, like a lot of things in this country; it started with the United Nations--they came out in 2007, this year, and they have downgraded the sea level rise from 39 inches to 23 inches. They have cut it in half. They said further, in a report this year, the release of anthropogenic gases by livestock is greater than our entire transportation segment.

So we watch these things. Jim Hansen--I am going to talk a little about the scientists. I hear this thing, and the reason we are seeing so many people now in a panic is they realize the science has been changing on a regular basis for the last 3 years.

In fact, I have to tell you, when I became chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee in January, 4 years ago, I assumed that manmade gases were causing climate change. That is all you read in the media and all you heard about on radio and TV. I assumed it was right, until they showed us how much this would cost to the average American taxpayer. Then we said: Let's look at the science, only to find out that the science has been reversed.

Scientists always talk about Jim Hansen. I have been on several shows, and there is Jim Hansen. He has been more exposed on this than any other scientist.

I remind you that Jim Hansen was given a grant from the Heinz Foundation of $250,000. I cannot say there is no relationship between that and his opinion. I think there is and I will tell you why. I am going to talk about scientists.

Let's start off in Canada, which was one of the early signers of the Kyoto Treaty. Canada was taking the advice of a famous group called the 60 scientists in Canada. These are the 60 scientists who, at that time, recommended to the then-Prime Minister of Canada that they sign onto and ratify the Kyoto Treaty. Well, since that time, the scientists-- that same group of people--have reevaluated the science. I will read some of these things they come up with. The one I know by heart is the most revealing. It says:

Observational evidence does not support today's computer

climate models, so there is little reason to trust model

predictions of the future.

Significant scientific advances have been made since the Kyoto Protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from the concern about increasing greenhouse gases. Listen to this. These are the 60 scientists in Canada who were the ones responsible for advising the Prime Minister 15 years ago to sign the Kyoto Treaty. They say:

If back in the 1990s we knew what we know today about

climate, Kyoto most certainly would not exist, because we

would have concluded it wasn't necessary.

They are now petitioning Prime Minister Harper to change their position on climate change. We have scientist after scientist. This is a good one. I used this the other day. Of the three strongest supporters of the alarmists--I am talking about the environmental alarmists who want to scare people--representing countries in a formidable fashion, one was Claude Allegre, a French Socialist, a geophysicist, a member of both the French and American Academies of Science. He was one who marched in the aisles with Al Gore 10 or 15 years ago, saying global warming is happening and it is caused by human discharges. Now he is saying that it was wrong. He has completely gone over to the other side. He says that the cause of climate change is unknown. He has accused the proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money. I will talk about that in a minute.

Let's go from France to Israel. Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv was one of those real believers, an alarmist. He thought the world was coming to an end and that we are going to be warming up and that we have to do something about it. But he now points to growing peer-reviewed evidence that--the Senator from Massachusetts said there is no peer review evidence. Yes, there is. Shaviv refers to it here:

Peer reviewed evidence shows that the sun has actually been

driving the temperature change.

That is a shocker. You don't have to be a scientist to know that the Sun can have something to do with climate change. He has now come to the other side and is a skeptic. That was Nir Shaviv from Israel, who was on the other side. They are all shifting.

David Bellamy from the United Kingdom was another environmental campaigner at one time. He recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the new science. Keep in mind that he is a Brit. He now calls global warming theories ``poppycock.''

These are actually, I would say, a few months old. Let me tell you what is happening recently. This is all in the last few days and weeks, and this is why all these people who want to scare people with global warming are in such a panic. They see that the science is slipping away. Think about this fact: Many people think their ticket to the White House is to scare people with global warming. Talk to anybody running for President. Watch it on the debates tonight. If they can scare you good enough, you may vote for them because they say they are going to do something about this.

Here is a brandnew one. Dr. Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, said:

At first, I accepted that increases in human-caused

additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere

would trigger changes in water vapor, et cetera, and lead to

dangerous ``global warming''. But with time, and with the

results of research, I have formed the view that although it

makes for a good story, it is unlikely that manmade changes

are drivers of significant climate variation.

He wrote that in August of 2006. He was one who was on the other side of this issue.

Here is another one. Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of the University of Ottawa, converted from being a believer to a skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. He said:

I simply accepted the global warming theory as given.

He said that in April 2007. He said:

The final conversion [to a skeptic] came when I realized

that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent

picture of climate, over many time scales, than it did the

CO2 scenario.

Here is another recent one. This is a paleo climatologist, Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa, who said:

I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate

disaster. However, a few

years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and

it astonished me. In fact, there is no evidence of humans

being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of

natural causes, such as changes in the output of the sun.

Here is another new one, Bruno Wiskel, from the University of Alberta. He once was a believer in manmade global warming. He set out to build a ``Kyoto house'' in his own yard in honor of the U.N.- sanctioned Kyoto Protocol. That is how much of a believer he was. This was said about him:

After further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel

reversed his scientific views completely and became such a

strong skeptic that he wrote a book entitled ``The Emperors

New Clay Markets,'' debunking the myth of global warming.

I could go on. I could spend 3 hours talking about scientists who were on the other side of the issue. I don't know where these guys came up with this idea. This is one that gets personal with Senator Gore. Keep in mind the source of this. This is MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Senator from Massachusetts is making these statements. MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen, in June of 2006, said:

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to

assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate

are dynamic. They are always changing, even without any

external forces. To treat all change as something to fear is

bad enough. To do so in order to exploit that fear is much

worse.

We can go on and on and on. I have found one thing to be probably easier to discuss with people than the science. I think at least people know that the science is not established, and there is no question that the trend now is that those scientists who were alarmists are now skeptics.

While you could debate the idea of how accurate the science is on this thing, there are things that you cannot debate. This is from the Wharton School of Economics. When I was chairman of the committee and I was a believer that this was true, this caused me to start looking into it. This is the Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates:

Implementing Kyoto would reduce the average annual

household income nearly $2,700, at a time when the cost of

all goods, particularly food and basic necessities, would

rise sharply.

That is bad enough, that it would be $2,700. I don't know, in this particular amendment, what it would be. This amendment is clearly aimed at causing us in this country to somehow get into this mode of having either a tax on carbon or a cap on the trade program. Keep in mind, this is old stuff here, which has been around a while. More recently, we have had studies that were done by others.

Here is the MIT study that was released last month. This study analyzed the economic impact of some of the carbon cap on trade proposals. We have looked at this. The study found that the Boxer- Sanders bill, which is the one to be taken up by Senator Boxer and Senator Sanders, would impose a tax equivalent of $4,560 on every American family of four. The Lieberman-McCain proposal, which is more modest, would cost the same American family more than $3,500 in 2015 and almost $5,000 a year by the year 2050. This is huge.

I can remember, in 1993, the largest tax increase in modern history was proposed and passed by the Clinton-Gore administration. It increased the marginal rates on all Americans by huge amounts. I could describe it, but it was a huge tax increase. It would cost $32 billion a year. Now, while that would cost $32 billion a year, the Kyoto elements that came out of the survey would cost over $300 billion a year. In other words, what I am saying is that the cost of cap on trade systems, or these reductions they are talking about, is far greater than 10 times the largest tax increase of 1993 in modern history. You can argue the science. One thing you cannot argue is the money. It will cost that amount of money.

I am going to go and cover a couple of things that I think are of interest. We will put up the EU chart. When Kyoto was passed, and prior to being ratified by a number of different countries, of the 15 Western European countries, only 13--all signed on, I say to the Chair, and ratified the Kyoto Treaty--all 15 countries of Western Europe. Out of those 15 countries, only 2 actually have met their emission requirements. Everybody can pat themselves on the back and say I am going to pass this thing, but only 2 out of 15 met the requirements. These are the countries, and the United Kingdom and Sweden were the only two out of all those countries that reduced the amount of emissions and tried to reach a target. The rest of them had increases in emissions. There it is right there on the chart.

So let me suggest to you something else that is significant. During the Clinton-Gore administration, when they had the various meetings with people trying to sign onto the Kyoto Treaty, we talked about how much money this was going to cost. Thomas Wigley was the scientist chosen by Al Gore during the Clinton-Gore administration. He was charged with the responsibility. He said if all developed nations--not some but all--signed on to the Kyoto treaty and lived by its emissions requirements ratified by the treaty, how much would it reduce the temperature in 50 years. I finished saying of the 15 western European countries, only 2 have made the targets. It is not going to happen, but if it did happen in never-never land, let's assume all the developed nations, all of us sign on to it and live by the emissions requirements, how much would it reduce the temperature in 50 years? The result at the end of 50 years was seven one-hundredths of 1 degree Celsius. It is not even measurable. So we have had the largest tax increase for 50 years and yet nothing has come from it.

I am going to go over something we did a few weeks ago. A few weeks ago the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee--the committee I used to chair--decided she would have a hearing and have Al Gore come in and give his pitch, talk about his accomplishments, and so forth. I felt it wasn't going to go too well, so all I could do was use the opening statement I had. I had 10 minutes for an opening statement. This is what I did.

I said: I am going to state seven positions and, Mr. Gore, I would like to have you, since you are going to have all the time in the world to respond and I won't have nearly as much time, I want you to refute, if you can, any one or two or seven of these seven. He could not do it and did not do it. So we accept as fact those issues which I stated and he didn't refute. Let me go over them quickly.

No. 1, this is somewhere between a $300 billion and $380 billion tax increase on the American people annually. That is there. No one is going to deny that. That has already been verified. He did not refute that point.

No. 2, if all these things happen, it would be like the chart we saw: It would only reduce the temperature by seven one-hundredths of 1 degree Celsius in a period of 50 years, and everybody understands that is true. He didn't refute that.

No. 3, there is no link between hurricane intensity and global warming. I don't think anybody wants to get into that debate. I can and I will, perhaps--I won't get around to it until the second go round-- very carefully and succinctly talk about the fact that scientists are now saying the linkage doesn't exist, and even Senator Gore is not talking about that anymore. That is No. 3.

No. 4, the sea level rise scenario is bogus. That movie a lot of kids are required to watch--kids are impressionable. They don't understand. They don't know it is science fiction. They think this is something that is going to happen, and those kids have nightmares. I have parents tell me--similar to the lady from Maryland whose daughter had to watch that movie once a month--we are all going to drown. It is a horrible thing, but they believe that.

Now we know the sea level rise scenario is bogus, and we have the documentation that says it is. He didn't refute that.

No. 5, it is all about money. You could put this in a lot of different categories. Yes, there are huge amounts of money involved. We already talked about the corporations supposedly joining in this coalition to reduce greenhouse gases because they are good citizens, only to find out they are making millions and, in some cases, billions of dollars by doing it. Every time I say this, I say I don't criticize them because if I were chairman of a board of any of those companies, I would do the same thing.

I already said how much money we are talking about. There are huge amounts of money to be made. Al Gore--and this is a small thing--after his little award the other day, his speaker's fee went up to $200,000 a speech. That is money. Obviously, there are a lot of people who would like to get in on that deal.

There is also George Soros, the Michael Moores, and these various foundations such as the Heinz Foundation that put in thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars, contribute to campaigns, buy off scientists. That group is very busy. That is No. 5. That wasn't refuted.

No. 6, the believers are converting. That is what I started off this presentation with, that the believers who are out there, who were strong believers 12 years ago, are now saying the science isn't there. I have given the documentation, I have given the quotes, I have given their names and titles. They are all distinguished scientists from all over, and they are coming the other way. That is why I say panic is setting in because all of a sudden people realize people are catching on.

Then the last point, No. 7. If you look at the movie--I confess, I have not seen it--the last frame of the movie says--I believe this is going to be accurate because I have it pretty well memorized: Are you ready to change the way you live?

The whole idea of the movie was to get people to start not using toilet paper and all this stuff the elitists in Hollywood want everybody else to do except for them. Then we find out Senator Gore's house in Tennessee emits 20 times the greenhouse gases of the average home in America--20 times. I said: You are asking everyone else are you ready to change the way you live. So I asked him to take a pledge, giving him a full year to comply, saying at the end of a year I will have my house emissions down so it will be the same as average America. This is day 51, by the way, and he hasn't signed that pledge.

I say these not in a light vein, because this isn't light. This is serious stuff. The science is there. The money is there. The taxes are there, the cost to the American people. Fortunately, the American people are catching on.

A lot of people have said: All right, Inhofe, so you got into this thing after you were once a believer in the fact that manmade gases were causing climate change, and you changed when you found out what it was going to cost. If the science isn't there and it is going to cost the American people 10 times the largest tax increase in history, then why would people be for it?

I suggest there are a lot of people outside who are very vocal. One statement is from France, from Jacques Chirac. Jacques Chirac said Kyoto is not about climate change. He says:

Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global

governance.

That is not Inhofe, that is Jacques Chirac.

Another is Margot Wallstrom. She was the environmental minister for the European Union. Margot Wallstrom said:

We are not talking about climate change, we are talking

about--

Listen to this, Margot Wallstrom--

Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing

field for big business worldwide.

There you have it, Madam President. My wife and I have been married for 48 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I am doing this today for them. I don't want them to have to pay huge tax increases the rest of their lives for something where most of the science has already been refuted.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, since we are having so much fun here, let me go

back and respond to the Senator's response. After this, I have a very significant meeting I am going to have to attend. I am going to have to reserve the remainder of my time, go attend that, and come right back here. I have to leave temporarily. Let me go ahead and cover these last 12 things the Senator from Massachusetts has said.

First of all, I think he is right on this--I found out he was right. I had said the cost of this and the effect of this would be to delay projects. I found out, after he said it and I found out it is true, that his bill starts from this point forward. The reason I didn't know that is because his amendment was not filed until last night, and I was on my way back from Iraq last night, so I was not aware of this. It doesn't change my argument, though. The argument is this is another step which has to be taken any time we have to go through any kind of a process.

I am sure, when we have the next Transportation reauthorization bill, he will have an amendment saying we have to know for each project how this could affect climate change. It really doesn't make that much difference.

The second thing, he said Kyoto is not really on the table. I am glad to know that because whether you call it Kyoto or something else is not important. It is still going to have to be some kind of restriction, some kind of carbon tax, some kind of cap-and-trade policy. When you do, it is going to cost money. So, yes, I used the Wharton Econometric Survey to demonstrate clearly that this is a tax increase of $2,700 on each family of four. However, the more recent bills--I grant to the Senator from Massachusetts, we are talking about this. We are talking about the ones that are more recent than this. The more recent ones, done by MIT, the Massachusetts--I stress that--Institute of Technology, show that the Sanders-Boxer bill's cost is about $4,500 for each family of four. McCain-Lieberman would be $3,500. So if you would rather not use Kyoto, that is fine. We will use some of the more recent ones. Nonetheless, it will be something equal to 10 times the largest tax increase in contemporary history.

He said also that there is not one peer-reviewed scientist--or study that substantiates what we are talking about. So let me just read them again here to make sure we understand what this is.

Two weeks ago, the top hurricane scientist in the U.S. Government-- indeed, one of the top hurricane scientists in the world--published a peer-reviewed study in the scientific Journal EOS that concluded from the evidence that ``hurricanes in the Atlantic have not increased for more than a century.'' Peer reviewed. There it is.

Another one is a peer-reviewed study published in the April 18, 2007, issue of the science journal Geophysical Research Letters which found:

If the world continues to warm, vertical wind sheer, which

literally tears apart storms, would also rise. These winds

would decrease the number and severity of storms we would

otherwise have.

In other words, it would actually have a decreasing effect. Again, it is peer reviewed.

We had a third one, too. We have several of those which are peer reviewed. So that statement is not correct.

Let's see, the fourth point is Inhofe said this is some kind of a global conspiracy. No, Inhofe didn't say that; Jacques Chirac said that, and I quoted him. I have quoted him, so there would be no reason to repeat it; it would be redundant, although it might be worth redundancy here. Jacques Chirac said--and he wasn't talking about Kyoto having anything to do with climate change.

Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global

governance.

That is not Senator Jim Inhofe saying that; that is Jacques Chirac.

I quoted other people--Margot Wallstrom, who is the Environmental Minister from the EU, or was at that time. She said it is about leveling the playing field worldwide. Again, the Senator from Massachusetts is wrong. It wasn't Senator Inhofe; it was Jacques Chirac.

No. 5--I always enjoy this one--they use the consensus that the world--you know, the Flat Earth Society. They have it backward. In fact, this is what we are faced with, the same thing science was faced with back when they thought the world was flat. They thought the Earth was flat, and that was the consensus. All the experts agreed on that at that time. Then we found out with new science that it was not. That is exactly, precisely what is happening in this case.

They all thought at that time that manmade gases were causing climate change. Now they readily admit and say--and I will be glad to read them again. I plan on yielding back a bunch of time because we do want to get to voting before too long. But I read all the scientists who are very strong in their consensus, and these were the scientists who were the strongest pro-global-warming extremists around 10 years ago, but they have changed their minds. It is in the record. I already read it about an hour ago.

Then, No. 6, the statement the Senator from Massachusetts said, the IPCC survey--that is the United Nations--was talking about 2,000 scientists agree to it. It is not 2,000 scientists. What he is quoting from is the summary for policymakers. Every time they have an IPCC meeting--they have had five now, I believe--they start out with a policy summary for policymakers. These are the politicians, not the scientists. They are the ones who believe it. Yet, even though they are strongly on the other side, they have to defend their position. It was the United Nations that started this whole thing. The IPCC was the group that did it.

It is going to be very difficult for them to change their position, so gradually they are coming over to our side.

The next thing the Senator from Massachusetts was criticizing me for was talking about minimizing the sea level rise. I am not. That is the IPCC. That is the United Nations. They said prior to this year's report that it was going to rise 39 inches over the next 100 years--until this year. They came out and they said: We will reduce that. Instead of 39 inches, it will be somewhere between 7 and 23 inches. Every time they come out with a new report, they reduce that sea level rise. Again, it is not Inhofe saying it; it is the IPCC talking about it.

No. 8, the greenhouse gas effect. I agree with this. The greenhouse gas effect gives life. We need to have that. The question is, What are the manmade gases? We call them anthropogenic gases, CO2, methane, some others. These are primarily what they are talking about. Do these have a result of increasing temperatures? Is it increasing from natural causes or is it increasing from manmade causes?

Keep in mind, we have charts that show throughout the beginning of recorded history it has been like this. You know, people don't understand. God is still up there. We have natural things that are taking place. It gets warmer, gets cooler, gets warmer, gets cooler. Every time it does, I have an interesting presentation where we talk about the hysteria we see in the press, only to find out this was something in the New York Times in 1895, the same thing as they are talking about today.

This happens, natural causes are out there, and, yes, you need to have the greenhouse effect. It gives life. The question is, What do manmade gases--how do they increase it?

Put that Wiggly chart up one more time, the Tom Wiggly chart. This is the scientist who was commissioned by Al Gore during the Clinton-Gore administration. He said that if all developed nations signed the Kyoto treaty and lived by its emission requirements, it would reduce the temperature only by seven one-hundredths of 1 degree in 50 years. It is not even measurable. This is not me talking. Again, these are the scientists. They are scientists I didn't commission. That was done by Al Gore.

I am glad for the correction on Jim Hanson. He said Jim Hanson was not given a grant by the Heinz Foundation. Instead of that, he was just given a check. I recant what I said. He was not given a grant for $250,000; he was given a check for $250,000.

The Senator from Massachusetts talked about the Byrd-Hagel amendment. Let's remember what that amendment was. The amendment said--and this passed by 95 to nothing in this Senate. I was standing here. I voted. I don't know whether the Senator from Massachusetts was here. I assume he was.

Anyway, what it was, after they signed this protocol, they wanted to

submit it to the Senate for ratification. That is the process you have to go through. The President and administration can sign it, but it has to be ratified. Thank God it has to be ratified, and all these other treaties do, so we at least read them. So the Byrd-Hagel amendment was passed by 95 to 0--that is unanimous from everyone who was here--that said we will not ratify the Kyoto treaty if either of the two following is true: No. 1, that we are not requiring the developing nations to do the same thing the developed nations do, and No. 2, that it would be economically devastating for our country.

We know what it is going to cost in terms of how it relates to the largest tax increase in history, and we know also that China and the developing nations have no interest. China will become the largest emitter of CO2 this year, way ahead of schedule. They are going to be the largest emitter, and they are sitting back laughing at us. I think we have only put on line one coal-fired generating plant to give this country the energy to run this country in the last 15 years-- let me correct that. In the 15 years between 1990 and 2005, we didn't put on line any new coal-fired generating plants. At the same time we are not doing anything, China is cranking out one every 3 days.

Now, of the people standing on the floor of the Senate, I know Senator Dorgan is concerned about jobs, life in this country and other countries as well when we run out of electricity. Right now we are dependent upon coal for 53 percent of the energy it takes to run this great machine we call America.

Now, if you pull 53 percent out, this is where the corporations make money, those who are competing with coal. They make a fortune. Who pays? The poor pay. There was a very interesting study done not too long ago. It is not just a matter of the tax increase, CBO, 2 weeks ago, came out with a report that said, yes, it is going to cost this amount of money. But the worst part of it is it is going to cost the poor, people on fixed incomes. Those are the people who have to spend a larger percentage of their income on energy, on heating their homes and those things that are a necessity.

So, anyway, the Senator from Massachusetts talked about the Byrd- Hagel amendment. It is still out there. It still has 95 Senators who said: We don't want to ratify any program that is not going to apply equally to Mexico and India and China and other developing nations.

Then, I guess, No. 11, the point he made when he was talking about the economy, saying, oh, this is not true, well, I have a great deal of respect for the junior Senator from Massachusetts, but would you rather believe him or would you rather believe the Wharton Econometric Survey in conjunction with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology?

Look, I know I am not as smart as most of you guys around here. So I go to the areas where they are smart. I know where the scientists are. I would rather quote scientists who do know rather than stand here and tell you how smart I am because I am not. But I know how to read these papers. I do know for a fact the scientists have come over to our side.

I would suggest anyone who wants to really get into this thing, I have got a Web site, which is www.epw.senate.gov. Now, go to that. We have literally thousands, not hundreds but thousands of scientists who are now saying the science is not there. You cannot say there is a consensus.

Lastly, Senator Boxer, we are getting along real fine on this bill. She does not want to kill it; I do not want to kill it. This amendment is not going to pass. So I think the bill will pass.

But they say the Corps of Engineers is already doing this. If the Corps of Engineers is already making this evaluation on projects as to what effect they are going to have, then why do we need this amendment? I would suggest we do not need this amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time. How much time do I have remaining?

Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I am going to go to an appointment that I have right now and try to return in a few minutes.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am sorry I had to leave at a very contentious time. Notes were given to me of what the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts said, that 90 percent of everything that Inhofe said is wrong. I didn't say anything. I am quoting scientists. I am quoting groups that are making analyses, and three of the quotes I made were from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He can say what I said is wrong, but he is saying that the scientists were wrong, and they never asserted that hurricanes have increased. It is a little confusing to me because maybe in the last few days he hasn't asserted that, but look at the movie. It talks about hurricanes. Those statements are made with regularity. In fact, they made the prediction that this past year was going to have more and more severe hurricanes. As it turned out, we had less and less severe hurricanes. I agree the models aren't perfect.

I don't know what he said about the Byrd-Hagel amendment but, again, you can't find any of these studies on any of the plans----

No, I will not. You can't find any of the studies that are out there that haven't somehow talked about the fact that it is going to do economic damage. We know it is. No one can possibly say that there is a way to approach this where it is not

going to cause the economy to be damaged. So that was in the Byrd-Hagel amendment. The Byrd-Hagel amendment also said we don't want to ratify anything. We are not going to ratify anything. Every Senator said: We are not going to ratify anything that does not require that the developing nations do the same thing that the developed nations do. Obviously, we have not seen one plan that has come along that addresses the cap and trade and greenhouse gas, anthropogenic gas emissions, that doesn't inflict damage that the developing nations are willing to do.

IPCC was not written by politicians. I never said the report was. I said the summary for policymakers was written by politicians.

Sea level rise is not going backward. All I can say is, if you are going to hang all your hopes on the IPCC, look at the report. This was this year, 2007. I have said this several times. I don't know why I have to keep repeating it. Yes, it has been cut in half, their estimate as to how much sea level rise was going to take place. This isn't the first time that has happened. This happens almost every time they have it in one of the reports. So the sea level rise, no sense repeating that.

Inhofe shouldn't distort. He is the only one I know of who says Chirac speaks for America. Chirac speaks for America--ye gods. Since he accused me of saying that this is some kind of a global conspiracy, I was quoting the person who said that, who I am sure is a much better friend of the Senator from Massachusetts than he is of mine, and that was Jacques Chirac. Jacques Chirac said:

Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global

governance.

That is not me. That is Jack Chirac. It answers the question why are these countries over in Europe so interested that we do something in this country that is going to hurt our economy. The answer came from Margot Wallstrom, Minister of the Environment for the European Union. She said:

Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing

field for big business worldwide.

Yes, there are other countries that would love to have America be overtaxed and have all these economic problems that we don't have right now. It could inure to their benefit; there is no question about that. No one would deny that.

Best economists don't say controlling carbon will be costly. How many economists and how many scientists do I have to quote? I could use the rest of my time and not repeat one of the scientists, read another whole list, but I have done it so many times. Here are some I haven't talked about. This is the cost.

Going back, if you want to catch 60 at one time, let's take the 60 scientists in Canada, the ones I said earlier were the ones who recommended to the Prime Minister, 15 years ago, that they sign onto, ratify the Kyoto treaty. Now they say:

If back in the mid-1990s we knew what we know today about

climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist because we

would have to conclude that it was not necessary.

That is 60 scientists there. You can try to discredit all 60 of them at one time and maybe you can do it. I don't know. But there are others. You can't look at these guys with the qualifications they have. Read what they have said. The fact that they have reversed their positions and say the scientists are not, there is some consensus because there is no consensus.

Senator Kerry quoted the Stern report, which has been discredited by even the economists who are climate change believers. I guess he was saying that I said there is a group of industries and we had a hearing on this. I wish the Senator from Massachusetts had attended the hearing. Yes, it is true there are several large corporations in America that are now embracing any kind of reduction, cap and trade or a tax or anything else because it inures to their benefit. I was specific as to how many millions and how many billions of dollars each one of these corporations would have. How dare me say that.

Again, if I were on the board of directors of any of these, I would say: Let's do the same thing. The whole idea is to make money. The problem is, it is as if no one is paying for all this fun we are having. Yes, it would have to be more money. But if we did that, somebody has to pay for it. Again, even the CBO says that all this money it is going to cost, the tax increase on the American people, whichever of these schemes we decide on, is going to be disproportionately on the poor and those who are on fixed incomes.

By the way, one of the statements on here was that no one has said we were going to have a worse hurricane season. I will quote one person I think the junior Senator from Massachusetts would know. It is Teresa Heinz-Kerry. Teresa Heinz-Kerry, the chair of the Heinz Foundation, has helped financially bankroll the Environment2004 campaign coalition, which is placing billboards throughout Florida claiming ``President Bush's environmental policies could result in stronger and more frequent hurricanes.'' That is a quote.

I don't know how much time we have left. We are now repeating each other. Nothing new has come out. I will have maybe a short final statement. I am willing to yield back the balance of my time.

I ask unanimous consent at this point, while we are both resting, that Senator Warner be recognized for up to 4 minutes to make a statement as in morning business and that those 4 minutes be equally charged to both sides.

All right. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia be recognized for up to 4 minutes to speak as in morning business and his 4 minutes not be charged against either Senator Kerry or myself.

Well, here we go again. This is exactly the same thing. If I responded to everything he said then, I have already done it before. I have read and I have talked about this. I have more scientists, if anyone wants to hear from more scientists. Also, as far as peer-reviewed studies, I have documented it, I have said where they are. So I can just say that so many times.

But here is what I would suggest: What we are talking about is an amendment to this bill, an amendment to the bill which addresses the Corps of Engineers and asks them to report to us on every project, from this point forward, certain types of things, and it describes what they are.

We had a hearing the other day, I say to my good friend from Massachusetts. It was May 11, 2007. That was, what, last week. We have had John Paul Woodley, who is the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.

This is a quote from his testimony. He said:

The United States Army Corps of Engineers has the capacity

and necessary authorities to comprehensively examine the

uncertainties, threats and vulnerabilities on water

infrastructure and to implement the necessary adjustments as

part of a proactive adaptive management program.

They can do it now. They can do it. This is the head of the Corps of Engineers. So they do not need this amendment.

Now, I wish to say this. We were supposed to have this vote at 5:30. It is now 10 after 6. I am prepared not to say anything else and to yield back the remainder of my time, if the Senator from Massachusetts will do the same thing.

On your time, go ahead.

Let me respond to that question. Of course I do not have that.

But I do have peer-reviewed studies that say specifically the amount of change that is attributable to human activity is so small it is not measurable, like .07 of 1 degree in 50 years. Now, that is significant. I have several peer-reviewed studies. I would be glad to respond to your question by reading those.

I have a peer-reviewed study published in the April 18, 2007, issue of the science journal Geophysical Research Letters, which found that if the world continues to warm, vertical wind shear--which literally tears apart storms--will also rise. These winds will decrease the number and severity of storms we would otherwise have.

We have approximately 20 peer-reviewed studies.

Mr. President, at this time, if the Senator wants, we can yield back our time.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

No. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee and the manager of this bill. Let me say I agree with everything the Senator said. I thought we were going to finish it tonight, but if it is tomorrow, it is tomorrow. It is too significant not to finish it.

I appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts joining me in yielding back the remainder of our time. We are going to be ready to take a vote here shortly.

Mr. President, this is an important issue, one I have raised many times over the years. I have testified before the Banking Committee, and introduced numerous bills.

It is not a new issue. There have been at least four high-profile times in the last 12 years where proposed foreign acquisitions in the U.S. have threatened our security.

In 1998, President Clinton tried to turn over management of a 144- acre terminal at the former U.S. Naval Station in Long Beach to the Chinese Ocean Shipping Company, COSCO--a subsidiary of the People's Liberation Army.

I am going to quote from an LA Times article from that time:

The embattled COSCO deal came to an end Thursday night,

when congressional conferees submitted to Congress the 1998-

99 Defense Authorization Bill . . . Leading the effort to

block COSCO from the facility were Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)

and Rep. Duncan Hunter [of the] San Diego area.

That was one battle that we won.

Since working in 1995 to prevent Los Angeles ports from being controlled by Chinese interests, I have continued my pressure on the issue. For example, I expressed my concern with the CFIUS process over 2 years ago in the spring of 2005 when I delivered four speeches on China. While examining this issue I came across a disturbing example of China buying the U.S. company, Magnequench Inc., and moving it piecemeal back to mainland China.

Let me read from the floor speech I gave on April 4, 2005:

I believe that CFIUS does not have a broad enough

conception of U.S. security. One example of CFIUS falling

short is with Magnequench International Incorporated. In 1995

Chinese corporations bought GM's Magnequench, a supplier of

rare earth metals used in the guidance systems of smart-

bombs. Over twelve years, the company has been moved

piecemeal to mainland China, leaving the U.S. with no

domestic supplier of a critical component of rare-earth

magnets. CFIUS approved this transfer.

The United States now has no domestic supplier of rare earth metals, which are essential for precision-guided munitions.

That was one we lost.

Following this series of four speeches that spring, on July 20, 2005, I introduced Senate amendment No. 1311 as an amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. My amendment prompted the very beginning of the legislative pursuit of this issue in recent years. For example, my amendment prompted another, later, second-degree amendment, Senate amendment No. 1335, by Senator Shelby, then the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

I also testified before the U.S.-China Commission on July 21, 2005. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission is a bipartisan committee created in 2000 to monitor, investigate, and submit to Congress an annual report on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China.

The Commission is composed of 12 members, 3 of whom are selected by each of the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and the Speaker and the minority leader of the House. The Commissioners serve 2-year terms.

Their recommendations are consistent with the amendment I introduced to the Defense authorization bill that would have made some of the necessary changes to CFIUS.

On September 28, 2005, the Government Accountability Office issued a report on CFIUS that is right in line with the recommendations of the US-China Commission. So this has not just been me saying that CFIUS is in need of

critical change--it's the U.S.-China Commission and the GAO as well.

When my amendment stalled over a committee jurisdictional point, on September 29, 2005, I chose to introduce the changes as a stand-alone bill, the Foreign Investment Security Act of 2005, S. 1797, which was referred to the Banking Committee. That bill was the first bill introduced in recent years on this topic.

Later the Banking Committee held a hearing on the GAO report, and I testified before them on October 20, 2005, at that hearing.

In all of these ways I have just mentioned, the Banking Committee was prompted by me to pursue this topic.

In the past couple of years, several high profile business deals have been approved by CFIUS that would allow foreign-owned companies, in particular companies that are owned or controlled by foreign governments, to acquire other companies doing business in the United States.

More recently I was concerned with China's state-owned CNOOC attempted to buyout Unocal, a US oil company. We won this one because of Congressional pressure, and CNOOC withdrew its bid. Over the past 2 years, I have been pointing out that the CFIUS process has ignored some major issues which threaten our national security.

The most publicized deal was the state owned Dubai Ports World, DPW, purchase of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, P&O, that would have allowed DPW to take over the operations at various east coast ports in the United States. The public outcry against this deal lead DPW to abandon its plans to operate the U.S. ports and that portion of the takeover was sold to U.S. based companies. However since the DPW- P&O deal was canceled, other transactions have been approved by CFIUS that are just as questionable.

CFIUS has received over 1,600 notifications and investigated under 40. Of those, only one acquisition has been stopped by the President.

This is a critical issue at a critical time. CFIUS seems to only get scrutiny when some major deal is in the papers. I have been paying attention to it all along. It needs reform, and I hope we can make some progress.

I am glad that Congress is now taking a closer look at CIFIUS reform. Rest assured that I continue to push for this badly needed reform and as Congress addresses this issue, I will keep your thoughts in mind.

Note too that I will ensure in particular that the national security aspects of this work are appropriately attended to. I will not stand idly by and allow a bill that is weak on national defense to pass.

Let us all work together to ensure that the legislative process performs appropriately to defend our Nation, and let this bill I am introducing today be a new start.