Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to honor one of America's fallen, a brave soldier from the State of Oklahoma. SPC Adam Brewer was serving in Iraq when he died defending his fellow soldiers and this Nation. His memory continues on in testimony to the selfless way he lived.

Specialist Brewer graduated from Bartlesville High School in 2000 and joined the Army shortly thereafter. He served for 2 years and was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, normally stationed Fort Hood, TX. Specialist Brewer was serving his second tour in Iraq and had taken part in the original invasion that began in March 2003. On February 25, 2005, his unit was deployed to an area near Taji, Iraq. An improvised explosive device exploded nearby, tragically killing him and two other soldiers.

At Specialist Brewer's funeral, the pastor put it well: ``Not only did he defend our country but he defended the values of freedom that we hold so dear . . . I know his passing has been hard. But for the rest of your life, whenever you see his picture or mention his name, you can be proud.'' We are indeed proud, as we are of those young men and women who have committed to defend our Nation and put their lives on the line every day.

But I think Specialist Brewer's mother Karen Brewer said it best, ``He wanted to serve his country, and he served it all the way.'' He indeed gave all that he had, in life and in death, for his country. The legacy of such sacrifice challenges us on behalf of the Senate, this Nation, and the cause of freedom around the world, I honor a special Oklahoman and true soldier, SPC Adam Brewer.

Specialist Robert T. Hendrickson

Mr. President, I wish to honor a true hero who, on February 1, 2005, gave his life while serving in Iraq. SPC Robert Hendrickson is an example of the selfless service that is essential to this country's freedom.

Although he was born in Biloxi, MS, Specialist Hendrickson listed Broken Bow, OK, as his hometown. He attended school in Del City and Edmond before moving with his mother to Broken Bow. His father, Dave Hendrickson, says his son planned to return to school when he returned from service and study to become a pediatric nurse.

After high school, Specialist Hendrickson enlisted in the U.S. Army. He was assigned to the 2d Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, normally stationed in Fort Hood, TX. He was serving in Iraq with this unit when, just after the successful elections took place, his vehicle overturned. He was found unconscious and never recovered.

He died to help the Iraqi people achieve their freedom,'' Dave Hendrickson said. ``He died for the Iraqi people and the war against terrorism so that his son might have a safer world to live in.''

Specialist Hendrickson is survived by his parents, his sister, and a 6-year-old son, Dylan. ``He loved Dylan more than anything,'' Dave said. ``My son was a good boy. He was a good man. He was a good dad.''

SPC Robert Hendrickson was indeed a good man. He put aside his own safety, volunteering to serve in the most dangerous of professions. He gave so much and his sacrifice will be remembered by friends, family, and all of us who are profoundly indebted to him.

Staff Sergeant Jason R. Hendrix

Mr. President, I rise to honor a brave soldier who gave his life to the defense of this Nation. SSG. Jason Hendrix chose to place himself in harms way and for this service he paid the highest price.

Staff Sergeant Hendrix joined the Army right out of high school and served for 11 years. He was a squad leader in the 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division. This unit is usually stationed in South Korea, but was deployed to assist in Operation Iraqi Freedom. When Staff Sergeant Hendrix found out that he was heading for one of the most dangerous areas in the world, he told his family, ``You guys might not understand why we're over here, but we need to be over here, and I've got to do my job.''

Those who knew Staff Sergeant Hendrix best describe him as a ``professional soldier.'' They also speak of his compassion and care for the men in his unit. Last Christmas, Staff Sergeant Hendrix gave up his leave so that other men could go home and see their newborn children. He also bought, at his own expense, equipment for his men such as night-vision goggles, facemasks, flashlights, dozens of handcuffs and magazine couplers for their M-16s.

Staff Sergeant Hendrix fought in the rebel stronghold of Fallujah late last year and was serving in Ar Ramadi at the time of his death. On February 16, 2005, he was leading a 25-man squad when they came under a heavy artillery attack. Staff Sergeant Hendrix was hit and died from his wounds.

For this soldier from Claremore, Ok, there is no deeper honor than the memory he leaves behind. He gave of himself in life as well as in death, and stands out as an example to all of us. Today I honor a true hero, SSG. Jason Hendrix.

Specialist Jeffrey S. Henthorn

Mr. President, I wish to rise in honor of a son of Oklahoma and an American hero. SPC Jeffery Henthorn demonstrated the type of patriotism that protects our freedom and encourages freedom in other countries. For his dedication and sacrifice I am pleased to honor him on the Senate floor today.

Specialist Henthorn was from Choctaw, OK. After earning his high school degree, Specialist Henthorn enlisted in the Army and was assigned to the 24th Transportation Company, out of Fort Riley, KS.

Specialist Henthorn was serving in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He died on February 8, 2005, while stationed in Balad, Iraq, from noncombat related injuries. He was 25 years old and leaves behind family and friends who grieve along with our grateful Nation.

Specialist Henthorn was willing to place his life on the line and paid the fullest cost for the sake of freedom. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I wish to express my profound gratitude and deepest honor for the men and women who, like Specialist Henthorn, know the true meaning of service. They continue to give so much, and as freedom spreads throughout the Middle East region we know that their sacrifice has not been in vain.

I honor the life and memory of those who have given their lives in this noble cause. I am grieved, but very proud of this young man from Oklahoma, SPC Jeffery Henthorn.

Army Specialist. Lyle W. Rymer II

Mr. President, I wish to honor one of this country's fallen warriors, a young man that comes from my home State of Oklahoma. Army SPC Lyle Rymer II was making way for freedom in Iraq when he paid the ultimate price.

Specialist Rymer was born in Roland, OK. After graduating from high school, he joined the National Guard to help his family. ``That's what he decided to do,'' his grandmother Bobby Sue Drake said. ``He liked it. He said, `Somebody's got to defend this country. It might as well be me.' He was a great kid.'' According to his friends, he planned to make a career of the Army and was considering enrolling in Airborne school. Rymer also had a reputation for cheering up fellow soldiers.

Specialist Rymer was serving in Iraq with the 239th Engineer Company, an Arkansas-based National Guard unit. On January 28, 2005, he was guarding an area where engineers were setting up barriers in preparation for the elections. Without warning, he was shot by an enemy sniper and died from his wounds. Army Specialist Rymer is buried at Fort Smith National Cemetery, AR.

Many are left behind who are both proud and grieved at his sacrifice. Specialist Rymer is survived by his wife LaTisha, a 2-year-old son, Sean, and a 10-month-old daughter, Jasmine. He was able to see his newborn daughter during a November furlough.

The loss of Specialist Rymer is one that will continue to be felt as the years pass. He was one who gave more than was required, in life and in death. He sacrificed his own well-being and put himself in harm's way, showing courage that demands our recognition. I am honored to honor him, and hope that I somehow express gratefulness beyond these mere words.

Mr. President, Senator Harkin and I are introducing the True Competition Act which will resolve a longstanding debate about the status of Dallas Love Field Airport. This is a critical issue for those of us from States that depend on access to the Nation's air transportation network through hub airports in other States.

In the late 1960s the Federal Government expressed concern that it was funding three airports very closely located to each other in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. It asked the local communities to build a single major airport to serve the entire region. The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, in consultation with the airlines serving the local airports, agreed to do so only under the condition that all three local airports be permanently closed to all commercial airline traffic. It was this agreement that resulted in the construction of the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

The legislation I propose today would return to the original intent of all the parties involved in the decision to build DFW International by closing Love Field to commercial air traffic. If enacted, competition at DFW will increase significantly. This will be good for consumers and it will be good for communities that used DFW as their access to the world.

The Federal statute that is central to this debate is the so-called Wright amendment. This was a law enacted in 1979 that allowed Love Field to stay

open for limited service despite the desire of the local communities to have it close. It was necessary because activist judges in Texas had ruled against the local government's intent to consolidate all air traffic at DFW.

Recently, legislation has been introduced that would completely reverse the agreement of the parties to limit Love Field to an airport serving short haul markets. This would return to the situation that was supposed be corrected 30 years ago. The runways of Love Field and DFW are 8 miles apart. To have two major, federally funded airports so close simply doesn't make sense.

Moreover, if flights are transferred from DFW to Love Field--as they surely would be if the Wright amendment is repealed--there will be fewer connecting opportunities at DFW for passengers from outside the north Texas area.

I understand that Southwest Airlines is lobbying strongly for repeal of the Wright amendment. I want to make it clear that I have the greatest respect for Southwest and consider myself a good customer. But Southwest surely does not need the continued permanent home court advantage that the courts gave them years ago. Southwest operates very successfully at some of the most congested and high volume airports in the country. They have the skill and the resources to compete against any carrier at any airport. If they moved their operations to DFW, consumers and communities could have the best of all worlds--intense head-to-head competition between carriers and even more opportunities to travel throughout the world.

It is time to resolve this controversy once and for all by returning to the original intent of the parties.

Mr. President, Senator Harkin and I are introducing the True Competition Act which will resolve a longstanding debate about the status of Dallas Love Field Airport. This is a critical issue for those of us from States that depend on access to the Nation's air transportation network through hub airports in other States.

In the late 1960s the Federal Government expressed concern that it was funding three airports very closely located to each other in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. It asked the local communities to build a single major airport to serve the entire region. The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, in consultation with the airlines serving the local airports, agreed to do so only under the condition that all three local airports be permanently closed to all commercial airline traffic. It was this agreement that resulted in the construction of the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

The legislation I propose today would return to the original intent of all the parties involved in the decision to build DFW International by closing Love Field to commercial air traffic. If enacted, competition at DFW will increase significantly. This will be good for consumers and it will be good for communities that used DFW as their access to the world.

The Federal statute that is central to this debate is the so-called Wright amendment. This was a law enacted in 1979 that allowed Love Field to stay

open for limited service despite the desire of the local communities to have it close. It was necessary because activist judges in Texas had ruled against the local government's intent to consolidate all air traffic at DFW.

Recently, legislation has been introduced that would completely reverse the agreement of the parties to limit Love Field to an airport serving short haul markets. This would return to the situation that was supposed be corrected 30 years ago. The runways of Love Field and DFW are 8 miles apart. To have two major, federally funded airports so close simply doesn't make sense.

Moreover, if flights are transferred from DFW to Love Field--as they surely would be if the Wright amendment is repealed--there will be fewer connecting opportunities at DFW for passengers from outside the north Texas area.

I understand that Southwest Airlines is lobbying strongly for repeal of the Wright amendment. I want to make it clear that I have the greatest respect for Southwest and consider myself a good customer. But Southwest surely does not need the continued permanent home court advantage that the courts gave them years ago. Southwest operates very successfully at some of the most congested and high volume airports in the country. They have the skill and the resources to compete against any carrier at any airport. If they moved their operations to DFW, consumers and communities could have the best of all worlds--intense head-to-head competition between carriers and even more opportunities to travel throughout the world.

It is time to resolve this controversy once and for all by returning to the original intent of the parties.

Mr. President, I think under the UC I have been allocated around 15 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to be granted such time as I shall consume.

Thank you, Mr. President. I think I will be able to do it within that time, anyway.

Let me make a couple comments. I think almost none of these items have been covered before. It is approaching this whole CAFTA idea from a different perspective.

Let me first of all say that when this first came up, I just heard ``CAFTA,'' and I said: I am against it. I led the opposition against NAFTA 11 years ago. I thought this was more of the same, and so I was opposed to it. Then someone showed me how my Oklahoma farmers might be affected.

I am not sure you can see this chart, but it shows the various grains, cattle, meat products, dairy products, vegetables, and so forth. The blue bars are the tariffs that are charged to our farmers, and the others are what are charged to imports coming in. I have found that in every case, when this is fully implemented--if it is--my Oklahoma farmers will benefit, and benefit materially.

So I actually went and talked to some of the farmer groups that were leaning against the agreement for a number of reasons--a number of reasons that have been posed on this floor--only to find out they have changed their minds and they are very much supportive.

That is not really why I am here today. I think that is something very specific we can look at. We know it is true. I would like to look at this in a little different way. I was distressed a little bit because some of my very good friends in the conservative communities were opposing CAFTA. I have gone to any lengths to try to determine specifically what their opposition was.

There are five organizations that are conservative organizations-- they are great organizations. I agree with them almost 100 percent of the time. Their argument was: We are against this as we are against all treaties because anything that is this kind of a multinational thing will infringe upon our Nation's sovereignty.

Well, I have to tell my good friends in these five conservative organizations, there is no one who is stronger in this position than I am. I am the guy who stopped the Law of the Sea Treaty. Quite frankly, I think it was going to pass. It actually had passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with a unanimous vote. I found out what was in it. I found out we were ceding our jurisdiction--our sovereignty, if you will--over some very important parts of the water-covered part of the planet. I felt it was wrong. And we have not--I am not saying it is all dead in the water right now, to use a phrase, but I think it is. Certainly it

has been stalled. I led the opposition. I was opposed to it. I was not for it.

The Kyoto treaty, you all know how I feel about that. We debated climate change on the Senate floor 2 weeks ago. I spent 2 whole days talking about that. I think we know that under that treaty, according to the Wharton Econometrics Survey from the Wharton School of Economics, if we had to comply with the Kyoto treaty, it would have cost our average family of four $2,700 a year. It would have doubled the price of energy and gasoline and all that. We know that is true. I led the opposition to that and was very proud to do that.

Eleven years ago, we had NAFTA. I was in the other body, in the House of Representatives, 11 years ago. I was elected in a special election to come over to this body. So the year they had NAFTA, I was able to lead the opposition to the ratification of NAFTA in both the House and the Senate. I was the only one who could do that. So I came over here to the Senate.

I say to my good friend from North Dakota, who posed some excellent arguments against NAFTA just a few minutes ago, this CAFTA is not NAFTA. On the NAFTA part, I agree. I remember standing on the floor of both the House and the Senate saying: If we pass NAFTA, that is going to allow a Mexican trucker to pick up a load in Brownsville, TX, take it to Tulsa, OK, and not have to comply with any of our health standards, our environmental standards, our wage and hour standards. Sure enough, these things turned out to be true. I do not think it was a success. I think it was a failure.

So getting back to the ones who are for this agreement and against it, I would have to say to the very small number of conservative organizations that are opposing this, the vast majority of the organizations in the conservative column are supporting it.

Listen to this. Those organizations that are supporting CAFTA include Americans for Tax Reform, Center for Security Policy, National Tax Payers Union, The Heritage Foundation, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, The Club for Growth, the National Tax-Limitation Committee--that is Lew Uhler and his group--Citizens for a Sound Economy, Empower America, and the James Madison Institute. That is just to name a few. They are the 40 most prominent--except for 5--organizations that are supporting it.

I am very sensitive to this. Maybe I should not be that sensitive, but I am because, according to the American Conservative Union, in their rating, I am not No. 2 or No. 3 or No. 4 but the No. 1 most conservative Member of the Senate. Now, I am qualifying myself for this because I keep hearing that conservatives are somehow opposed to this agreement, as they were NAFTA. Of course, I agreed with them back at the NAFTA time.

Now, what kind of liberal groups are opposing CAFTA? We have already talked about the conservative groups that are supporting CAFTA. Those who are opposing it are Earthjustice, National Environmental Trust, Friends of the Earth, EnviroCitizen, Freedom Socialist Party--there is another great group--the Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists' Social Justice Committee, Nonviolence International, Progressive Democrats of America, Safe Earth Alliance, Public Citizen, Social Welfare Action Alliance, Community Alliance for Global Justice, Gray Panthers of Austin, San Francisco Neighbor-to-Neighbor, New York State Green Party, and the Holland Peacemakers. I could go on and on. And we will insert more of them in the Record.

But by and large, what I am trying to get across is that virtually every far-left, extremist, liberal group in America is opposing CAFTA. And somebody has to say it. I was sent an e-mail from my State of Oklahoma saying that they understood I was still undecided. The responses are about 9 to 1 in opposition to CAFTA, and, therefore, you cannot dare go ahead and support CAFTA.

Let me just say, on many occasions, when the people at home do not have available to them the information that we do because that is what we are paid to do for a living and we find out the information is wrong, I do not mind doing that. I can explain this to the people in my home State of Oklahoma. They do not want to identify themselves with that group, that liberal group I just read off. And when they find out about it, they will be very supportive.

But I only bring that up to say that if anyone is out there with the thought that this is a conservative versus liberal issue, it is, but it is on the other side. The liberals are opposed to it. The conservatives are supporting it.

But I have another concern that is far greater, that far outweighs even the benefits it might give to my farmers in my State of Oklahoma, even the benefits that would be achieved by passing this to the very conservative groups in America; that is, I happen to be old enough to remember what happened in the 1980s. I remember Ronald Reagan, a great President. I remember at that time we had Communist regimes in Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, and that they were infiltrating--at that time, it was still the Soviet Union--they were trying to take over America by doing it through Cuba, and then all these organizations, all of these countries where they had taken over the government.

By failing to pass this treaty, we could undo all of those successful democratizations of the Reagan and the first Bush administrations. I remember the Contras, the freedom fighters, who were down in Nicaragua at that time, and the fight that was almost impossible; they were fighting for their freedom. I remember those five countries that are part of this treaty: the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. They have all committed troops in support to the Iraqi coalition forces and have demonstrated their support for the global war on terrorism. They are fighting side by side with our troops over in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are the people we want to reward. These are not people we want to somehow punish, as though they have done something wrong. They are fighting for freedom.

CAFTA approval for these countries and their economies should aid security there and counter the influence by Cuban and Venezuelan Governments under Castro, Chavez, Ortega, and others opposed to the United States influence in the region.

I mentioned Chavez, Ortega, and Castro. They are among the anti-U.S. forces in the region, and they are all against CAFTA. These Communists, these enemies of the United States, Chavez, Ortega, and Castro, are all in opposition to CAFTA. If you want to be on their side, you would vote against CAFTA. They fear its passage would show support for and facilitate the efforts of the pro-American countries and parties in the region. Also, Daniel Ortega, former Nicaraguan president and Sandinista leader, is making attempts to elevate his obsolete ideology based on Marxist-Leninist theory. Further, upon his capture, Ortega expressed solidarity with Saddam Hussein against what he called the Yankee occupiers of Iraq. In other words, here is a guy who has been ousted as President of Nicaragua, one we defeated back in the 1980s, one who was trying to spread communism against freedom and democracy in Latin America. He was on the side of Saddam Hussein and called us the Yankee occupiers of Iraq.

A couple weeks ago I had a pretty bitter competition with one of my friends here in the Senate from Arizona, Senator McCain. I disagreed with him on an issue, and we spent 2 days debating that issue and fighting with each other. I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree. I happened to hear some of his remarks a few minutes ago. I share his concern about the state of democracy in Central America. Failing economies will create an environment in which regimes such as those of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez may once again poison the future of these nations. The historical threat of communism in Central America, the influence of Castro in countries such as Nicaragua, and the Sandinistas in power also affected neighboring countries such as Honduras and El Salvador. CAFTA can protect these emerging democracies.

For example, Nicaragua, the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, second only to Haiti, has a President Enrique Bolanos. He is a pro-American President. He is facing a tough 2006 election, and the candidate

he is facing is none other than Daniel Ortega. Bolanos knows that CAFTA is the keystone to his plans to boost economic growth and blunt the political attacks of the Sandinistas. Who would have ever thought in the last 10 years that they would reemerge, but they have. So now we have Daniel Ortega back there trying to do some things. To quote Senator McCain:

If there's anything that we need today, it is strong,

viable economies in Central America so that they can

progress, so that they can be strong and they can again be

allies of the United States of America, not in a military

fashion but in their advocacy for free and open societies,

democracies, and places where people can raise their families

in a situation of security and peace.

That is what Ronald Reagan did back in the 1980s.

I heard the junior Senator from Massachusetts speaking in opposition to the agreement. I don't know whether it is because of his past relationship with what was going on down in Nicaragua some 12 or 14 years ago, but I would like to quote from an April 26, 1985 edition of the Washington Post. Keep in mind, this was back when we had Daniel Ortega down there being promoted by Castro and by the Soviet Union to try to spread communism in Central America.

The lengths to which some Democrats were willing to go in

pursuit of nonintervention were extraordinary. Sens. Tom

Harkin and John Kerry returned home from an 11th-hour trip to

Managua [Nicaragua] clutching a piece of paper signed by

President Daniel Ortega which they announced was a ``new,

bold and innovative approach'' and ``a wonderful opening.''

At their arrival home, only the umbrella was missing.

We have a difference of opinion. We don't agree. We didn't agree back in the middle 1980s about Daniel Ortega and what the Communists were trying to do in Central America and we don't agree today.

For those who weren't around at that time, it was a very emotional time. The contras were the freedom fighters. They were supposed to win. I used to go down there. There was a hospital tent that was right across the border in Honduras. That is where they would take the freedom fighters from Nicaragua. They would take them over there to treat them. This tent was about the size of this Senate Chamber. It had beds all around the periphery. In the middle, not even screened, was the operating table. The only operations they performed there were amputations because of all the mines that were there. And so these freedom fighters would come in there and be mended and go back and fight for their freedom across the border in Nicaragua. There must have been 40 beds all the way around, people who had had these amputations.

At that time I did a pretty good job of speaking Spanish. I thought, you kids--the average age was 16 years old because the older ones had already been killed--you kids are fighting for your freedom, you are fighting against this force, the Communists, supplied by Castro and the Soviet Union. It is impossible. Why are you doing this? And I went around and talked to each one of them. I remember coming up to a little girl who was 15 years old. Her name was Elena Gonzales. I asked her that question. And she looked up to me. It was her third trip back to that hospital tent, and they had amputated her right leg a few hours before. The blood was coming from the bandages. She looked up at me with teary brown eyes and she said:

Es porque han tomado nuestros campos . . . han tomado todo de lo que tenemos. Pero de veras, ustedes en los Estados Unidos entienden. Porque ustedes tuvieron luchar para su libertad lo mismo que estamas luchando ahora

(English translation of the above statement is as follows:)

Yes, it is almost impossible, but we are fighting. We are fighting because they have taken our farms and ranches. Why would you in the United States question why we are doing this? You had to fight against the same odds for your freedoms as we are fighting now.

That little girl didn't know whether the Revolutionary War was 200 years ago or 20 years ago. But she knew we were that beacon of freedom and that the beacon was about to go out in their country. They were willing to fight. And they died and they won. So now we have the rest of the story.

This is an opportunity for us to do something that is good down there. Yes, I think it is good for my Oklahoma farmers. And yes, the conservatives support it, and the extreme liberals oppose the CAFTA treaty. But I think the strongest argument is that this is an opportunity for us to keep the Ortega and Chavez and Castro forces from undoing all the progress that was made throughout the 1980s and the early 1990s.

I yield the floor.

The independent producers of oil and gas are a backbone of our domestic supply of energy. The independent producers have made clear the high value they place on research performed at the Tulsa office of the Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil at National Energy Technology Laboratory.

Mr. President, amendment number 1051 concerns the manner in which the Environmental Protection Agency awards direct assistance grants. Over the past 10 years, regardless of Presidential administration, the U.S. Government Accountability Office and EPA Inspector General have been extremely critical of the way EPA awards and administers grants programs. As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I have made oversight of EPA grants management a Committee priority. Each year, the EPA awards half its budget in grants amounting to over $4 billion. This amount is comprised of non-discretionary grants awarded pursuant to regulatory or statutory formula for expenditures such as capitalization funding for State and local programs and comprised of discretionary grants awarded to a variety of recipients. In a hearing before the Environment and Public Works Committee early last year, the Government Accountability Office and EPA inspector general offered testimony critical of the lack of competition in awarding discretionary funds, the lack of measurable environmental results, and an overall lack of accountability of EPA personnel and grant recipients. More specifically, the GAO testified that due to a lack of competition in grants, EPA can't ensure the most qualified applicants receive grant awards. The EPA inspector general even testified that due to a lack of competition, there is an appearance of preferential treatment in grant awards. On March 31, 2005, the inspector general released an audit concluding that EPA needs to compete more grants and recommended that EPA eliminate noncompetitive justifications for national organizations that represent the interests of State, tribal, and local governments. My amendment reflects the inspector general's recommendation and would simply require open competition to ensure the value of those awards. However, the EPA inspector general's recommendation may be too broad of an approach. Perhaps the most important question that can be raised concerning EPA grants is the question, ``What is the benefit to the environment?'' The EPA has an obligation to ensure taxpayers that it is accomplishing its mission of protecting human health and the environment with the funds it awards each year. My interest is ensuring that EPA direct assistance grants demonstrate environmental value and EPA enacts necessary measures to reach that aim. Can I get the commitment from the chairman of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee to work with me to sufficiently address this issue?

I thank the Senator from Montana and chairman of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee for his commitment to work with me on this matter of great importance to me, and I congratulate him on a job well done with respect to this appropriations bill. With his commitment I will withdraw my amendment 1051 to H.R. 2361.

Mr. President, to begin, let me assure my colleague that as chairman of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, I am fully aware of how important this issue is to his State of Arizona. His State's current allocation under the Clean Water Act is well below the State's proportional need.

As my colleague knows, the EPW Committee has for the past two Congresses passed legislation to reauthorize the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs. In those bills, the committee also rewrote the clean water formula. My colleagues Senators Jeffords, Chafee and Clinton and I are working on a new proposal and feel confident that unlike our previous efforts, this bill will be enacted into law.

My State of Oklahoma would get more money under the Kyl formula than under the current allocation. I would like to support your amendment because it brings more dollars home to Oklahoma. However, all States need more water infrastructure money as their systems age and struggle to meet the ever-growing list of Federal regulations. There is a significant nationwide shortage of funds that is affecting all States.

Given current Federal appropriations, there is simply no way to rewrite the formula so that all States win. If we change the formula, without reauthorizing the State Revolving Loan Funds, some States will have to lose money. In order to assure that each State receives sufficient funds to run an effective program, we need to enact water infrastructure legislation which raises the authorization level for this important program while also addressing the formula. The committee's long-term goal is to keep everyone whole because all States need more money not less. I hope all of my colleagues who care strongly about the Kyl amendment will rally around the bill that we hope to pass out of committee next month.

The committee will do as the Senate promised Senator Kyl during the 107th Congress and pass another formula. We will put forth a proposal that minimizes the pain to those States that will see their clean water funding cut while providing modest increases to other States. We will continue to work to increase the authorization to this important program so that the needs of all States can be met.

I appreciate my colleague's willingness to withdraw his amendment and allow the committee to do its work.

Sometimes we fall into the trap of thinking all wisdom is in Washington, DC. I noticed an op-ed piece in the Oklahoma Duncan Banner yesterday, written by Steve Fair, wherein he goes through all of his research on the outside, showing virtually all the science since 1999 or since 1998 when Michael Mann came through with his hockey stick, has demonstrated very clearly that the science is not there.

I ask unanimous consent this op-ed piece be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

I yield one additional minute to the Senator from Idaho.

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

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

Mr. President, in regard to the three times, first of all on McCain-Lieberman, how much time is remaining?

No, McCain-Lieberman.

Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from New Mexico, I yield whatever time he may consume to the Senator from Kansas.

First, I thank the Senator from Kansas for his excellent remarks. I think the Senator from Tennessee had a response or a couple of minutes, that he wanted to respond to something that was said; is that correct?

I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, is on his way to use his remaining time. While he is doing that, I will comment that the statements that have been made are excellent. We have agreed we will use the remainder of our time. I will use about 10 minutes, whatever time I have, and they will have the last 10 minutes. However, they are not in the Senate right now. We should serve notice we want the concluding remarks as soon as the Senator from New Mexico completes his remarks.

There are a couple of things of interest. For one thing, it is interesting when we hear about the science. I will have a chance in a minute to talk about the science and how flawed the science is. Look at the Oregon petition. Over 17,000 scientists signed a petition. I will read one paragraph from that petition:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human

release of carbon dioxide or methane or other greenhouse

gasses is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause

catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption

of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is considerable

scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon

dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural

plant and animal environments of the Earth.

It is important that we realize CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is, in fact, a fertilizer. CO2 is needed. CO2-enhanced earth grows crops better than it does in the absence of that.

The Senator can have more.

Yes, it is my understanding the Senator did use up all of his time.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he could use 1 minute.

All right.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 20 minutes and that the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Connecticut will close the debate.

Let me, first of all, say--well, this is a good chart. I was not going to use this one, but this shows what the Senator just observed. I do not believe it is totally accurate because the only reduction that has come in CO2 from all of the member nations of the EU has come from Germany and the United Kingdom. If you look at all the rest of them, they all have exceeded the amount of their goals.

Then, more recently--this just came out 2 days ago--this is a release from the EU, greenhouse gas emissions up to 2003. It was just released. It says: Between 2002 and 2003, EU-25 emissions increased by 1.5 percent. That means that has taken up all the reductions from the previous year, 2002.

In the time I have, I am going to try to cover a lot of things. When debate is closed, they will get the last word. But I only ask the indulgence of my fellow Members to realize that there is a lot of hysteria out here. The hysteria out here is not well founded.

I am old enough to remember the hysteria back 20 years ago or so. This was on the cover of Time magazine, talking about another ice age coming. It said: However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing.

So everyone was hysterical. The same people who are now talking about global warming were talking about another ice age coming.

Now, just one by one, let's, first of all, take the study that started this whole thing in 1998 that was by Michael Mann. It is very important that we look at this. This was the famous ``hockey stick.'' If you look at the blue line, that supposedly goes from the years 1000 to the 20th century. It is just a horizontal line. And then, all of a sudden, it starts shooting up; and that is the blade of the hockey stick.

Now, what he has failed to put on this chart is that if you will take the actual temperatures from 1400 to 2000--that is shown with the black line--they are relatively even.

But then, as shown by the next chart, which was in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, when you throw in the fact that we had the medieval warming period, it shows it was actually warmer in that period of time. The medieval warming period was about from 1000 A.D. to 1350 A.D.

Temperatures were warmer then than they have been in the 20th century. It just shows that theory has been refuted by many people in that it really is not accurate and should not be used.

Next, on climate models: Climate models are very difficult. People use them freely around here. Those who are listening and, hopefully, those who might be looking at the logic of this will not buy this idea.

The National Academy of Sciences said:

Climate models are imperfect.

Peter Stone, the climate modeler from MIT, said:

The major [climate prediction] uncertainties have not been

reduced at all.

The uncertainties are large.

The George C. Marshall Institute:

The inputs needed to project climate for the next 100

years, as is typically attempted, are unknowable.

Further, a professer from MIT: The way current models handle factors such as clouds and water vapor is disturbingly arbitrary. In many instances the underlying physics is simply not known.

I think we have to understand if all of this is predicated on climate charts, climate charts are not perfect.

The Oregon petition--I covered this many times. People say: Inhofe is going to come up with some scientists who might refute this. For someone to say that the science is settled, for someone to say there is a consensus in terms of the science, when you look at the Oregon petition, which had 17,800 scientists, they stated, as is on the chart behind me:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human

release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse

gasses is causing, or will cause in the foreseeable future,

catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption

of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial

scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon

dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural

planet and animal environments of the Earth.

Recognizing, as we said before, that CO2 is not a pollutant; CO2 is a fertilizer.

I would, lastly, quote James Schlesinger, who was the Energy Secretary under President Carter. He said: There is an idea among the public that the science is settled. That remains far from the truth.

So it is not a matter of Republicans or Democrats. These are the experts saying that the science is not there. Now, we could go--and I will come back to this subject with the time we have--but I would like to start off with the assertion that Kilimanjaro--I happen to have flown over Kilimanjaro twice in the last week. I looked down and saw that there is a change that has taken place.

If you look at this picture from 1976, there was very little ice on there. In 1983 there was a lot more. In 1997, there was considerably less. But the Center for Science and Public Policy summarized the Kaiser study and said: The ice fields on Mount Kilimanjaro started melting in response to a climate shift that occurred near the end of the 19th century, well before any alteration in the Earth's greenhouse effect. That reduced the amount of moisture in the air in the vicinity of the mountain. Manmade global warming has nothing to do with it. I repeat, nothing to do with it. Yet we hear it over and over again. And I am sure we will hear it in the closing remarks.

In terms of glaciers and icecaps and research that has been done-- this was in the Journal of Climate--research done by Holloway and Sou in 2002 revealed that claims of thinning arctic ice came from submarine measurements of only one part of the Arctic Ocean. Additionally, decadal changes and scaled wind patterns rearranged the ice, giving some regions thinner and others thicker amounts of ice.

Well, it is easy to find one area where the ice is thinner than it was, but, on the other hand, it is actually thicker.

It goes on to say in the Journal of Glaciology: For the mass balance of glacier measures, the gain and loss of ice, there are only 200 glaciers of the total 160,000 glaciers for which mass balance data exists over a single year.

So the data is not there on that argument.

They talk about hurricanes, the fact that hurricanes are coming, and somehow this has something to do with global warming.

Well, if you look at this chart, it talks about the hurricanes dating back to 1900, and each decade since then up to 2000. You can see, yes, it did peak out around 1940. And then it has been going down ever since, and considerably lower than that peak was.

According to Dr. Christopher Landsea, who is considered to be the foremost expert on hurricanes, he says: Hurricanes are going to continue to hit the United States in the Atlantic and gulf coast areas. And the damage will probably be more expansive than in the past. But this is due to natural climate cycles which cause hurricanes to be stronger and more frequent and the rising property prices of the coast, not because any effect CO2 emissions have on weather patterns.

He says: Contrary to the beliefs of environmentalists, reducing CO2 emissions will not lessen the impact of hurricanes.

So, in fact, it is just not true. You hear it over and over again, but it is just not true. You hear about the sea rising: The sea is rising. Things are disappearing. In fact, the famous island, Tuvalu Island, was supposedly going to be falling into the ocean and be covered up. According to John Daly--he is

considered to be an expert--well, let's use the 2004 Global Planetary Change: There is a total absence of any recent acceleration in sea level rises as often claimed by IPCC and related groups.

It is not rising, folks. It is just not happening. The other says: The historic record from 1978 to 1999 indicates a sea level rise of 0.07 millimeters per year, where the IPCC claim of 1 to 2.5 millimeters a year sea level rise as a whole indicated the IPCC claims it based on faulty modeling.

The National Title Facility, based in Adelaide, Australia, has dismissed the Tuvalu claims as unfounded. In other words, the sea level is not rising. You can say it is rising and stand down here and yell and scream about it, but it is not. The science shows clearly it is not rising. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report has been referred to several times. If you look at the temperatures between 1934 and the currently--this chart goes to 2003--you see they were considerably warmer back during 1934.

Let's now go to the economic impacts. This is probably one of the things that really should be considered more than anything else at this point because people think if there isn't going to be any great economic impact, why shouldn't we go ahead and do it. I am using here not S. 139, the bill we discussed in October of 2003, because this one is a little bit less than that. It is a little more modest. Enacting the McCain-Lieberman bill would cost, according to Charles River Associates, the U.S. economy $507 billion in 2020, $545 billion in 2025. Implementing Kyoto would cost the U.S. economy $305 billion in 2010, $243 billion in 2020. Under Kyoto, for the average family of four in America, it would cost them $2,700 a year. This bill will only cost them $2,000 a year. So maybe that isn't quite as bad as it would have been otherwise.

The bottom line: It is very expensive. And that is not just Senator Inhofe talking. We are quoting CRA, which is the recognized authority, like the Horton Econometric Survey that talked about how it will affect the rising cost of energy, electricity, gasoline, how much it costs a family of four. It would be very detrimental to our country.

In terms of jobs, enacting the McCain-Lieberman amendment would mean a loss of 800,040 jobs in 2010 and 1.306 million jobs in 2020. This is down a little bit from the full-blown Kyoto, but 1.3 million jobs is significant.

In terms of energy prices, McCain-Lieberman would increase energy prices in 2020 by 28 percent for gasoline, 20 percent for electricity, 47 percent for natural gas, and much more for coal.

Just a few minutes ago, the Senator from Arizona talked about the National Academy of Sciences. What he was referring to is a press statement. It was not a report. Their last report states as follows:

There is considerable uncertainty in current understanding

of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to

emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. A casual linkage

between the buildup of greenhouse gases and the observed

climate change in the 20th century cannot be unequivocally

established. The IPC Summary for Policymakers could give an

impression that the science of global warming is settled,

even though many uncertainties still remain.

So much for the National Academy of Sciences.

I think there are two charts that are very significant. First of all, let's just assume for a minute that everything they say about the necessity for carbon caps, everything they say about signing on to the Kyoto treaty, that all of that is true. If all that is true, this chart is probably the most significant chart we have. This chart shows that if it is true, if you look at the black line, that is what would happen with Kyoto. Without Kyoto, look at the blue line. It is so little difference that it is not measurable. In other words, by the year 2050, the change would be something like 0.06 degrees centigrade, which is a change in surface temperature too small to even be detected in global averaging.

This is back when the Bingaman amendment would have been here, so you can ignore that since apparently that is not coming up.

If nothing is done right now, if you project a temperature rise, it would be 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit, if there is no action taken at all. If you go McCain-Lieberman, it would be 1.61 Fahrenheit. Between those two, it is not even a noticeable difference.

I am hoping we will have an opportunity for people to see the truth and people to see what the real science is, see the real economic impact.

There are a couple things that are incontrovertible. First, we know the economic impact is great. They might argue a little bit that we have taken the economic impact in terms of the Horton Econometric Survey, according to CRA, and they are astronomic. I mentioned what they would be under the McCain-Lieberman bill. But if you say that there is certainly questionable science behind it, and yet there is a huge economic impact, then what would be the motivation?

Why is Europe so excited and so anxious for us to join their dilemma, in spite of the fact that they have increased their CO2 emissions since the time they signed on to the treaty? The answer is found in two individuals. One is Margot Wallstrom. Margot Wallstrom is the European Union Environmental Commissioner. I don't think they knew that these were being reported at the time. Now it is documented that these statements were made. Kyoto really isn't about climate change. Kyoto is about ``the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide.'' That is Margot Wallstrom, EU Environmental Commissioner.

Some Senators favor Frenchmen. Jacques Chirac said Kyoto represents ``the first component of an authentic global governance.'' Certainly there is a motivation overseas for us to be involved in this thing.

I would like to also mention that there is a lot of polling data. But the most recent polling data was 3 days ago. It was an ABC poll. In that, most people do believe that global warming is underway. They have been convinced of that because we have a very liberal media that wants people to believe that. We have people who want to think the world is falling apart.

However, in asking the question, Do you favor Government action, 38 percent said yes; 58 percent of the people said no. It seems to me that in spite of all the misinformation that is floating around, the truth is getting out.

Let me wind up by reminding everyone that we do have pollution problems. They are not with global warming. They are not with CO2, methane gases, anthropogenic gases, but with SOx, NOx, and mercury. President Bush has caused us to introduce the greatest reduction in SOx, NOx, and mercury in the history of this country, more so than any of the preceding Presidents. It is a 70-percent mandated reduction, a reduction that would really do something about pollution. I believe we should be talking about really reducing pollution, not about trying to create science, to somehow fabricate science to make people believe that, No. 1, temperatures are rising; and, No. 2, it is due to manmade gases. The science does not support that.

I thank the Chair.

Reserving the right to object, do we have a time agreement on your resolution?

How about 20 minutes, equally divided, and I yield back my time.

Reserving the right to object.

I ask you restate the unanimous consent at this time. It is my understanding we would have time equally divided, between now and 5:30, at which time there would be a vote. I state my intention would be to move to table the Bingaman resolution.

Reserving the right to object.

I already indicated that.

Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. President, first of all, I know what a sense-of-the- Senate resolution is. Everybody here knows if you establish a position on a bill that is very meaningful, such as the bill

that was defeated--the McCain-Lieberman bill--you can turn around and vote for a sense of the Senate and play both sides. Essentially, I think that is what happened here.

Very clearly, a sense of the Senate doesn't do anything except offer cover. I would like to suggest that it would be difficult for me to imagine that anyone who voted in opposition to McCain-Lieberman a few minutes ago would turn around and support this because this is making four assertions that are not true. We have demonstrated very clearly that they are not true and nonscientifically based.

The first one is on the first page of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It says:

Greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing

average temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of

natural variability. . . .

We talked about this for 3 hours today. In fact, that is not true. If you are concerned about, for example, surface temperatures, we have climate research, published in 2004, that says overall averages of warming rates is overstated. This is due to significant contamination with land-based weather stations, which add up to a net warming bias at the global averaging level.

Then, on climate research of 2004, this study refutes common claims that nonclimatic signals in the weather station data have been identified and filtered out by the IPCC. That is the International Panel on Climate Control, which we talked about in the beginning of this. Again, we look at this, in terms of satellite data, as printed in the text of the central station publication in 2004:

Substantial cooling has occurred in the lower stratospheric

layer of the atmosphere over the past 25 years.

In other words, in the stratosphere, starting between 8 and 25 miles above the surface, it is not heating, it is actually reducing; the temperatures are reducing. This false conclusion that the stratosphere is warming should never have been published since the evidence was misinterpreted.

So we are saying something in this resolution that, quite frankly, is not true.

Second, it is ``posing a substantial risk of rising sea levels, altered patterns of atmospheric and oceanic circulation,'' hurricanes, and all that.

We have talked about this at some length today. First, if you talk about droughts, we have already talked about the surface temperatures and the fact that they are not increasing. The hurricanes in global warming, we spent time today talking about that. The foremost authority nationwide is a guy named Dr. Christopher Landsea. He says that hurricanes are going to continue to hit the United States on the Atlantic and Gulf coast, and the damage will probably be more expensive than in the past, but this is due to the natural climate cycles which cause hurricanes to be stronger and more frequent and rising property prices.

Obviously, it is going to cost more if you damage property that is increasing in value. He says that contrary to the belief of the environmentalists, reducing CO2 emissions would not lessen the impact of hurricanes. The best way to reduce the toll hurricanes would take on coastal communities is through adaptation and preparation. I think we all understand that. Rising sea levels. We talked about this today, too. They always talk about this Tuvalu, the island supposedly that is going to sink into the ocean. John Daly, in the report that came out--I don't think anybody questions his credibility--says the historical record, from 1978 through 1999, indicated a sea level rise of 0.07 millimeters per year, where IPCC claims a 1 to 2.5 millimeter sea rise for the world as a whole, indicating the IPCC claim is based on faulty modeling. The national title facility based in Adelaide, Australia, dismissed the Tuvalu claims as unfounded. It goes on and on refuting that.

The next thing it says in this resolution is that the science is settled. I don't know how many times we have to say that, since 1999, the science that was assumed to be true, based on the 1998 revelation of Michael Mann on the very famous ``hockey stick'' theory, has been refuted over and over again. We have the energy and environment report that came out in 2003 that says the original Mann papers contain collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of the principal components, and other quality control defects. It goes on to say that while studying Mann's calculation methods, McIntyre and McKitrick found that Mann's component calculation used only one series in a certain part of the calculation said to be serious. They discovered that this unusual method nearly always produces a hockey stick shape, regardless of what information is put into it.

We had the charts out less than an hour ago. It is very clear that if you plot the temperature, as he did over the period of the last hundred years, it shows a fairly level line, until it comes to the 20th century, and it goes up. That is the blade on the hockey stick. That shows that temperatures start increasing after the turn of the century. What he failed to put on the chart was the medieval warming period, which was from about 1000 A.D. to 1350 A.D. During that time, nobody refutes the fact that temperatures were higher then than they are in this century.

The other thing, if all else fails, use logic. In the 1940s, when we had the dramatic escalation of CO2 and methane and anthropogenic gases, this is what they are asserting causes global warming, but it precipitated a cooling period that started in the middle 1940s and went to the late 1970s. As we said an hour ago, the first page on the major publications around America, such as Time magazine, said we are now having an ice age coming. Everybody was hysterical. We are all going to die in an ice age. That is using the same logic that, if you are going to say it is due to anthropogenic gas, in the late 1940s, we had an 85-percent increase in that, and that precipitated not a warming period but a cooling period.

So you can take this and pick it apart. I kind of think it is going to pass because we had a lot of people who voted against the real thing which would have caused all of the economic damages. Now it is very safe to cover your vote by voting for something so you can answer your mail and say: Yes, that is all right. I voted for the sense of the Senate, saying we are going to do these things and accept the fact that, No. 1, the planet is heating; No. 2, it is due to anthropogenic gases, and therefore vote for me.

That is happening now. We understand that. It was also brought out by the Senator from New Mexico that the economic impacts are not all that great when dealing with global warming. I suggest to you they are very great. I cannot find a group that says they are not. Charles Rivers Associates. Sure, you can say the CRA is not a credible group. Nobody is going to say that because he is credible. They are saying if we had enacted the watered-down version of McCain-Lieberman, it would have cost the economy $507 billion in 2020, $525 billion in 2025. Implementing Kyoto would cost--and we are talking about this in the resolution--$305 billion in 2010; $243 billion in 2020. It would result in an annual loss per household of $2,780 by 2010. That means, for every household of four people, the average it is going to cost them. Don't let anyone tell you that the economic impact is anything but disastrous. When the CRA International studied the job loss, it stated that under the watered-down version, we would lose 840,000 U.S. jobs in 2010; 1.3 million jobs in 2020; and implementing the Kyoto would mean job loss in the economy of 2.4 million jobs in 2010 and 1.7 million jobs in 2020. Energy prices--this is the economy we are talking about-- would increase. There would be a 28-percent increase for gasoline, a 28-percent increase for electricity, 47-percent increase for gas, and it would be astronomical in terms of the cost of coal. These are the things that we turned around and wisely voted down in a meaningful bill. And I don't question the sincerity of McCain-Lieberman. They really believe in this. Nonetheless, cooler heads did prevail, and now we have a cover vote and people will come forth and say I am voting for this in spite of the fact that I voted against you before. I will turn around and vote for this as a sense of the Senate. It means nothing in terms of legislation. We understand that.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

How much time remains?

Mr. President, this has been a good debate. I would like to have the same debate of 3 hours, 4 hours as we talked on the McCain- Lieberman amendment on this amendment because it should be essentially the same thing. As I said before, it is not.

One point I neglected to mention, since they talk in the findings about what is happening in the Arctic, one of the reports we used specifically said that the temperature in the Arctic during the late thirties and early forties was greater than it is today.

In this brief time, I only repeat what the National Academy of Sciences stated in their written report--not in any kind of press release but their written report:

. . . there is considerable uncertainty in current

understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and

reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. . . .

. . . a casual linkage between the buildup of greenhouse

gases and the observed climate changes in the 20th century

cannot be unequivocally established.

The IPCC Summary for Policymakers could give an impression

that the science of global warming is settled, even though

many uncertainties still remain.

That is the National Academy of Sciences.

Lastly, we are refuting not just if we adopt this resolution, which I think we will adopt because it is an easy vote for a lot of people and nobody is going to pay a lot of attention to a sense of the Senate, the fact is, we had 17,800 scientists in the Oregon petition who said:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human

release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse

gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause

catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption

of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial

scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon

dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural

plant and animal environment of the Earth.

If we adopt this amendment, we are saying that science that has been refuted is a reality.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 10 a.m. in SR-328A, Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider the nomination of Dr. Richard A. Raymond to be Under Secretary for food safety at the United States Department of Agriculture.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 22, 2005, in SR-328A, Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the Livestock Manadatory Reporting Act 1999.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorize to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 22, 2005, at 10 a.m. to hold a business meeting to consider pending committee business.

Agenda

legislation

S. 662, Postal Accountability Enhancement Act; S. 457, Purchase Card Waste Elimination Act; S. 611, Emergency Medical Services Support Act; S. 37, a bill to extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer research for two years.

post office naming bills

H.R. 1460, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 6200 Rolling Road in Springfield, VA, as the ``Captain Mark Stubenhofer Post Office Building''.

S. 590/H.R. 1236, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 750 4th Street in Sparks, NV, as the ``Mayor Tony Armstrong Memorial Post Office''.

S. 571, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 1915 Fulton Street in Brooklyn, NY, as the ``Congresswoman Shirley A. Chisholm Post Office Building''.

S. 892/H.R. 324, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 321 Montgomery Road in Altamonte Springs, FL, as the ``Arthur Stacey Mastrapa Post Office Building''.

S. 867/H.R. 289, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 8200 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, CA, as the ``Sergeant First Class John Marshall Post Office Building''.

S. 1207/H.R. 120, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 20777 Rancho California Road in Temecula, CA, as the ``Dalip Singh Saund Post Office Building''.

S. 775, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 123 West 7th Street in Holdenville, OK, as the ``Boone Pickens Post Office''.

S. 1206/H.R. 504, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 4960 West Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles, CA, as the ``Ray Charles Post Office Building''.

H.R. 1001, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 301 South Heatherwilde Boulevard in Pflugerville, TX, as the ``Sergeant Byron W. Norwood Post Office Building.''

HR. 1072, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 151 West End Street in Goliad, TX, as the ``Judge Emilio Vargas Post Office Building.''

S. 904, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 1560 Union Valley Road in West Milford, NJ, as the ``Brian P. Parrello Post Office Building.''

HR. 1542, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 695 Pleasant Street in New Bedford, MA, as the ``Honorable Judge George N. Leighton Post Office Building.''

H.R. 1082, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 120 East Illinois Avenue in Vinita, OK, as the ``Francis C. Goodpaster Post Office Building.''

H.R. 1524, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service at 12433 Antioch Road in Overland Park, KS, as the ``Ed Eilert Post Office Building.''

H.R. 627, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 40 Putnam Avenue in Hamden, CT, as the ``Linda White-Epps Post Office.''

H.R. 2326, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 614 West Old County Road in Belhaven, NC, as the ``Floyd Lupton Post Office.''

Nominations

Linda M. Combs to be Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget.

Linda M. Springer to be Director, Office of Personnel Management.

Laura A. Cordero to be Associate Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Noel Anketell Kramer to be Associate Judge, District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, June 22, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the In Re Tribal Lobbying Matters, et al.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 22, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

It is my understanding I have 13 minutes.

Mr. President, first of all, let me commend Senator Hagel for the work he has done and for the realistic approach he is taking. Right now, there is so much misinformation out there in conjunction with the whole issue of climate change.

Someone said the other day that climate change is not a scientific discussion, it is a religion. People have such strong feelings about it or they want to believe so badly. If my staff had the charts, I would show a few of them, but I will wait until we are debating the McCain- Lieberman bill to show them.

I vividly remember not too long ago the front page of Time magazine, the front page of Science magazine, huge pictures: Another ice age is coming; we are all going to die. If some people cannot be hysterical and think the end is coming, they are not happy.

One important area in this debate is to recognize, as I think the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Ohio both did, that this President has done quite a bit more than science would justify in pursuing the notion, first of all, is there a warming trend that is outside of natural variances; No. 2, if that is the case, is it due to anthropogenic gasses--methane, CO2. I suggest science does not show that either is true. It is not just me saying this. I don't know why people totally ignore the fact that we had the Heidelburg accords, when 4,000 scientists questioned that there is any major change.

By the way, this morning's Wall Street Journal plots out the changes in the Earth's surface since 1000 A.D. and what has perhaps caused these changes. They have come to the conclusion that it could not be anthropogenic gases because at that time there were not any. There were not human-induced gases until about 1940.

In 1940, what happened? In 1940, there was a cooling period that went all the way to the end of the 1970s. That is when you saw all the articles saying the ice age is coming. The largest increase in anthropogenic gases came right around 1940 and following World War II. You know, instead of precipitating a warming period, it precipitated a cooling period. So just the opposite of what they are saying seems to be true.

We have the Heidelburg accords, 4,000 scientists say there is not a relationship between manmade gases and climate change. Then we have the Oregon Petition and 17,000 scientists coming to the same conclusion. We have the Smithsonian-Harvard peer-reviewed study that evaluated everything done so far and came to that same conclusion.

Since 1999, science has been on the other side refuting the fact that, No. 1, climate is changing; and No. 2, it is due to manmade gases or to anthropogenic gases.

People do not realize what this President has done. One would think by reading some of the magazines, publications, and watching TV that this President is not doing a good job with the environment. He is doing everything he can to determine if there is a relationship between these anthropogenic gases and climate change. If anyone does not believe it, look at the amount of money being spent. His 2006 budget proposed $5.5 billion for climate change programs, energy tax incentives, and these types of things. I see the Hagel bill as extending what the President is doing right now and is actually addressing what is happening internationally.

I was very pleased to be part of the 95-to-0 vote on the Hagel-Byrd amendment some time ago that said that if you go to Kyoto meeting, we should oppose signing on to any kind of a treaty that does not treat developing countries the same as developed nations. That is exactly what happened.

Now, at least in the Hagel approach, we are looking internationally. It is true, what the Senator from Idaho said a few minutes ago. Over the State of Ohio, if you get high up, that which is up there originated in China. The pollution--not that that is pollution, because it is not, it is a fertilizer. But in terms of SOx, NOx, mercury, they do not stop at State lines.

We have a President giving the benefit of the doubt to the fact there might be something there. He is putting money into research. The Hagel bill is carrying that on to a logical conclusion.

Quite frankly, when the Hagel bill first came up, I was a little concerned because the price tag, as I calculated it--and I would certainly stand to be corrected if it is not accurate--would have been $4 billion over a 5-year period; around $800 million a year. To add that to what is already being expended--perhaps we are talking about too much money. He has changed it and said such sums ``as necessary.'' This is a little bit disturbing to me. We do not know who will be in the White House. We do not know who will control Congress. We do not know what will happen in the future. I hate to leave it open-ended like that.

When we look at the arguments out there, we will have ample time to debate when the next amendment comes up--the McCain Lieberman amendment--that the science clearly has turned around and is in favor right now of refuting some of the earlier suggestions.

This whole thing started in 1998 when Michael Mann from Virginia came out with his hockey stick theory. He plotted out all the temperatures and came through the 20th century. Temperatures started going up as of late on the hockey stick. What he neglected to realize, prior to that time, the medieval warming period, which was around 1000 to 1300 A.D., the temperatures were actually higher at that time than they were in the 20th century.

All these things are going to be discussed in the next amendment. I believe that reason is prevailing in this approach. I applaud the Senator from Nebraska for coming up with something measured and reasonable that will help convince a lot of the people that are right now participating in this religion called global warming to realize maybe this is something for which we shouldn't have to suffer economically.

A lot of people have asked the question, If the science is not there and if we know as a result of the Wharton Econometric Survey that it will cause a dramatic increase in the cost of energy--it will cost each average family of four $2,700 a year--if the science is not there, what is the motivation? I suggest there are people outside of the United States who would love to see us become partners and sign on to the Kyoto treaty.

Jacques Chirac said global warming is not about climate change but for leveling the playing field for big business worldwide. The same thing was stated by Margot Wallstrom, the Environmental Minister for the European Union, that it is leveling that playing field.

Cooler heads are prevailing, and in this amendment we have a chance to look at this, study this as time goes by, and take whatever actions are necessary in the future but not react to fictitious science and to science that just flat is not there.

I applaud the Senator from Nebraska for the fine work he has done. I believe this will be a good approach to making this through the current debate.

I yield the floor.

No objection.

Mr. President, first of all, I thank the leader for allowing me to get in about 10 minutes to respond to some of the things said about the McCain-Lieberman legislation. First of all, I know how sincere both Senators McCain and Lieberman are. They deeply believe in their cause.

However, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I feel compelled to refute some of the things that have been said. So what I have done--and I think I can do this in a very short period of time--is look at some of the statements made and respond to them. Now, tomorrow, we will have enough time to get into a lot of details. I have charts I wish to show. I will give a full-blown presentation. For tonight, I will let my colleagues know there are a lot of things we should be looking at and not just assuming that everything that has been said is true. I know they believe it, but some of these things are not true.

First of all, the discussion on hurricanes--that hurricanes are going to be impacted in a way that will be detrimental and we are all going to blow away. Let's keep in mind that the same people who are talking about global warming and all of the catastrophic things are the same ones who were talking about gobal cooling about 25 years ago, saying that another ice age is coming, that we are all going to die. On hurricanes, according to Dr. Christopher Lansey, one of the foremost experts today on hurricanes, he said that hurricanes are going to continue to hit the United States on the Atlantic and gulf coast, and the damage will probably be more extensive than in the past, but this is due to natural climate cycles, which cause hurricanes to be stronger and more frequent and rising property prices on the coast, not because of any affect of CO2 emissions on weather. He goes on to say that it is determined that the total number of Atlantic hurricanes making landfall in the United States decreased from the normalized trend of U.S. hurricanes. The damage reveals a decreasing rate. In other words, they are decreasing. Finally, contrary to the belief--this is Dr. Christopher Lansey--reducing CO2 emissions will not lessen the impact of hurricanes.

We can say anything we want on the floor of the Senate. These are scientists. He says the best way to reduce the toll hurricanes will take on coastal communities is through adaptation and preparation. I believe that is true.

Second, they brought up the Arctic. I think when you look at some of the reports on the Arctic--I will quote from the report that was given before the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain's Committee, at that time. He said:

Arctic climate varies dramatically from one region to

another and, over time, in ways that cannot be accurately

reproduced by climate models. The quantitative impacts of

natural and anthropogenic factors remain highly uncertain,

especially for a region as complex as the Arctic. In contrast

to global and hemispheric temperatures, the maritime Arctic

temperature was higher in the 1930s through the early 1940s

than it was in the 1990s.

That contradicts everything that has been said about the Arctic. I will elaborate on this tomorrow.

It has been stated by one of the proponents of the McCain-Lieberman bill that there are modest costs involved. I will look at the impact. This is the CRA International analysis--not of S. 139 as it was before but as it has been pared down and supposedly will have less economic impact. They said that enacting McCain-Lieberman will cost the economy $507 billion in year 2020. Enacting McCain-Lieberman would mean a loss of 840,000 U.S. jobs in 2010. It will result in 1.306 million jobs in 2020. That is not just a domino effect. Enacting McCain-Lieberman would cost the average U.S. household up to $810 in 2020. The figure used before was $2,700 for the average family of four.

The NAS, a letter about the NAS, let's take a look at that. The National Academy of Sciences--and I will quote out of their report-- said:

There is considerable uncertainty and current understanding

of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to

emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols.

Further quoting:

A casual linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases

and the observed climate change in the 20th century cannot be

unequivocally established; thirdly, the IPCC--

That is the report of the International Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations.

Summary for policymakers could give an impression that the

science of global warming is settled, even though many

uncertainties still remain.

Again, that is the National Academy of Sciences.

The Senator from California brought up the hockey stick theory. I believe that deserves more time than we will have tonight. I plan on talking about this tomorrow because when Michael Mann came up with the whole hockey stick theory, he talked about projecting the temperatures over the period of time, until the 20th century came along, and then they went up and off the charts. What he neglected to say, I say to my friend from Connecticut, is that there was another blade to this hockey stick, and that was the blade there during the medieval warming period. It is pretty well established now that the temperatures during the medieval warming period were actually higher than they were during this century--the current blade he talks about. That is significant. We will have a chance to elaborate on that.

Finally, in the timeframe I have, I will say that when it is referred to that the Senator from Oklahoma will come up with some ``obscure'' scientist who might disagree, you are right, he will, because there are a lot of them out there who are pretty well educated. The Oregon Petition was made up of 17,800 scientists. I will quote from their report. They said:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human

release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases

is causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause,

catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption

of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial

scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon

dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural

plant and animal environments of the earth.

I think we are going to have an opportunity--at least I will--to talk about many of the other scientists. At least we have to come to the conclusion that there are uncertainties out there. I think the people who try to say the science is settled believe that if they keep saying the same thing over and over again, people will believe it. Quite frankly, there is a very friendly media to the alarmists, those who want to believe there is a real serious problem that, No. 1, the climate is changing; and, No. 2, the changes are due to anthropogenic gases or manmade gases, when, in fact, the science is not settled.

I believe this is very important for people to realize. People might ask the question, If the science is not settled and if there is that much of an economic problem with this, then what could be motivating people to be so concerned about our signing on to the Kyoto treaty? Margot Wallstrom is the EU Environment Commissioner. She said that Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big business worldwide. Another hero to some, Jacques Chirac, had a lot to say when he weighed in. Talking about it has nothing to do with climate change, he said that Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance.

There are people who are motivated by wanting to effect economic damage to our country. Tomorrow, we will have opportunity to cover in much more detail the fact that there is another side to this story.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Voinovich amendment on diesel emissions reductions. I am an original cosponsor of the legislation which is the same as this amendment. I agree with the intent of this amendment, I believe it is helpful to provide a voluntary national and state-level grant and loan program to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. However, I am concerned that this proposal is being rushed through the process without the benefit of consideration by the committee of jurisdiction, the Environment and Public Works Committee, which I chair.

I would prefer, prior to Senate action, that the Environment and Public Works Committee conduct legislative hearings on the issue, and ensure that the program design meets its goals in a cost-effective manner. I am concerned about the $1 billion cost of the program and I believe the goals might be accomplished with a smaller sum. I also believe that if this amendment is adopted, it needs to be reconciled with section 723 of this bill. I hope these issues will be given consideration as this legislation is reconciled with the House of Representatives.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pest Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act. I am proud to be joined by ten of my colleagues, Senators Lincoln, Crapo, Bond, Isakson, Craig, Chambliss, Cochran, Thomas, Hagel and Roberts. This legislation codifies long-standing Democratic and Republican Administration policy of not requiring a Clean Water Act permit for pesticides in full compliance with their EPA-approved label. It will further affirm historic a Federal practices with regard to the Clean Water Act and fire suppression and other foreset management activities.

In 1972, Congress enacted both the Clean Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. CWA authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the Nation's waterways by regulating discharges of large industrial operations and wastewater facilities through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. FIFRA proyided the EPA with the authority to regulate the sale and use of pesticides through a comprehensive registration and labeling protocol.

Until some recent court decisions, the application of agricultural and other pesticides in full compliance with labeling requirements did not require NPDES permits. Because pesticides undergo lengthy testing under FIFRA including tests to ensure water quality and aquatic species preservation, a NPDES permit was considered unnecessary and duplicative. These court decisions commonly known as Talent and Forsgren contradict years of Federal policy and undermine the manner in which the Federal Government regulates farmers, foresters, irrigators, mosquito abatement officials, and other pesticide applicators.

Similar cases are pending. Groups are now using the notice of intent to sue to intimidate farmers, mosquito abatement districts and Federal and State agencies into stopping or reducing West Nile virus prevention and crop loss rangeland protection operations. While EPA has proposed a rule to ensure that pesticides sprayed to, near, or over waters do not need a permit, the rule needs to be codified in statute. Environmentalists who filed notices of intent to sue Maine's two largest blueberry farmers have indicated that they plan on threatening others with lawsuits including more farmers and foresters.

Our legislation fills this regulatory gap left by EPA. While the agency's rule is a step in the right direction, our legislation codifies the agency's longstanding policy that the application of agricultural and other pesticides, in accordance with their label, does not require an NPDES permit. Moreover, the rule does not protect farmers, irrigators, mosquito abatement districts, fire fighters, Federal and State agencies, pest control operators or foresters vulnerable to citizen's suits, simply for performing long-practiced, expressly approved and already heavily regulated pest management and public health protection activities. Without such protection, those who protet us from mosquito borne illnesses and other pest outbreaks or combat destructive and potentially deadly forest fires will continue to be potential victims of mischievous citizen's suits.

My bill codifies EPA's rulemaking, as well as affirms Congressional intent and the long-held positions of Republican and Democratic administrations with regard to the CWA and pesticide applications generally, as well as fire suppression and other forest management activities. I am pleased to be joined by so many of my colleagues in this effort and encourage others to cosponsor our proposal.

I say to the distinguished minority leader that I appreciate his comments and I note his thoughts, but the answer would be no.

Reserving the right to object, I would inquire of the Chair, was there a UC proposed?

To set aside mine. I object.

Mr. President, as the senior Senator from Nebraska said, today, June 14, is the 230th birthday of the U.S. Army.

Although we commend the service of the men and women of all branches, Active Duty and Reserve components, on this day the Senate Army Caucus, which I cochair with my colleague, Senator Akaka, particularly celebrates the soldiers of the U.S. Army as they answer the Nation's call to duty.

These brave men and women are giving something back to their country every day through the sacrifices they and their families make. Mr. President, 230 years ago, the Army was established to defend our Nation. Today, its mission remains the same as throughout the Army's history. America's soldiers have always answered the call to end tyranny, free the oppressed, and light the path to democracy.

As citizens and lawmakers, we appreciate our freedoms and our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But we know our freedoms are not free and should not be taken for granted. The men and women of the Army and the other branches of the Armed Forces shoulder the load of being on freedom's frontier, defending our very way of life.

On this day, it would be easy for us as citizens of this great Nation to take for granted our God-given rights. In our daily routines, we all too often overlook the selfless commitment the American soldier is making to protect our national interests and freedoms around the globe in over 120 countries. Each mission is contributing to our safety and well-being here at home. For this reason, we should remember that June 14 is the day the U.S. Army was established and celebrates its birthday.

The men and women serving in the U.S. Army embody the ideals set forth in the Soldier's Creed and Warrior Ethos. They have the unwavering belief that they will be victorious in whatever they do. This belief stems from knowing that the American people support them, and from the confidence they have in their leaders at every level. They are well equipped and well led, and they will perform their sacred duty. Just listen to these words our soldiers live by every day:

I will always place the mission first.

I will never accept defeat.

I will never quit.

I will never leave a fallen comrade.

It is kind of interesting. Many years ago, I served in the U.S. Army. It is the same thing we said at that time. We have been living those words not just since the time I was in the Army but for 230 years. Both Senator Akaka and I, the cochairmen of the Senate Army Caucus, were soldiers in the U.S. Army. The principles we learned then--the timeless principles of discipline, pride, integrity, honor, and sacrifice--have helped guide us throughout our lives. They still characterize the Army today.

So on behalf of Senator Akaka and the rest of the Senate Army Caucus,

If the Senator will allow me to speak for 4 or 5 minutes after he speaks?

Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I agree with my friend from North Dakota, although I do not agree with him on the whole idea of the mandated ethanol. We have talked about that. We had that debate. That is already behind us now, and this is where we are.

I would suggest that many years ago, when I was in the State legislature, my first trip to Washington was to protest Ladybird Johnson's Highway Beautification Act of 1965. So I do not like mandates to start with, but what I don't like more than the mandates is the fact that you mandate something and then open them up to exposure and expose them to lawsuits. We drafted in my committee this very narrow safe harbor provision which is included in

the underlying amendment. It was a product of very careful deliberation. It was a compromise. It was a piece of the overall package.

The amendment requires the use of a set and increasing amount of renewable fuels. Because the Government requires the use of a particular additive, the Government should not allow compliance with that requirement to be the basis of a lawsuit. That is just common sense.

I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from California, but when she talks about the powerful interests we are protecting, is a farmer from Gage, OK, or from Woodward, OK, a powerful special interest group? No, he is not. He is someone who has a law. There is a law out there. He is complying with the law. He says: I guess I will have to go ahead and supply the corn for ethanol. Then he finds out, down the road, he is being named in a lawsuit. We know this happens. It may not be the intent of the law, but it is the effect of the law. That is what happens.

On April 22, trial lawyers in the City of Merced v. Chevron have already filed an MTBE-style case attacking ethanol. The plaintiff's drafting in their lawsuit is purposely different and includes the term ``other oxygenates and ethers.'' This careful inclusion necessarily includes ethanol because the only other ``oxygenate'' per se is ethanol.

Any of those trying to use the argument that if you do this, this somehow affects MTBE and would reduce their responsibility, it does not affect them. The renewable fuels safe harbor does not relate to MTBE. The text of the renewables liability provision is clear. Only renewable fuels, as defined elsewhere in the amendment, can qualify for the safe harbor. MTBE is not within the renewables definition.

I would hope, as people cast their vote, they would keep in mind there is one great issue, and that is a fairness. For Government to come along and mandate something is bad enough. But for Government to come along and mandate something and then say there is no protection for complying with the law, that is not right. It is a fairness issue. I believe we should defeat the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object----

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ratepayers Protection Act of 2005. This bill will ensure that the poor and elderly and other groups who are disproportionately harmed by rising energy prices are not forced to pick up the tab for utilities that incur costs to control carbon dioxide.

The science underlying the climate change theory does not justify the enormous expenditures mandatory climate bills would impose. Moreover, implementing these climate bills would have virtually no effect on reducing temperatures even if climate alarmists are correct. Yet those in our society least able to bear the costs of these mandatory schemes will be hit the hardest. With my bill, disadvantaged individuals will not be saddled with these costs.

I understand that this bill will be referred to the Energy Committee. I do not plan to move this bill as stand-alone bill, however, but instead to offer it as an amendment to any mandatory climate bill that sets caps on greenhouse gases.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ratepayers Protection Act of 2005. This bill will ensure that the poor and elderly and other groups who are disproportionately harmed by rising energy prices are not forced to pick up the tab for utilities that incur costs to control carbon dioxide.

The science underlying the climate change theory does not justify the enormous expenditures mandatory climate bills would impose. Moreover, implementing these climate bills would have virtually no effect on reducing temperatures even if climate alarmists are correct. Yet those in our society least able to bear the costs of these mandatory schemes will be hit the hardest. With my bill, disadvantaged individuals will not be saddled with these costs.

I understand that this bill will be referred to the Energy Committee. I do not plan to move this bill as stand-alone bill, however, but instead to offer it as an amendment to any mandatory climate bill that sets caps on greenhouse gases.