Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for such time as I shall consume.

Madam President, first of all, we came back. We weren't anticipating coming back from this recess that we were going to be on. I can't help but think a lot of that was a result of the statements President Obama made, criticizing the Senate for leaving at a time when the debt was so bad when, in fact, I think that is a bum rap. We have a serious problem I think we need to address and that is spending. All of these things President Obama is doing right now to make everyone think we are trying to address it--appointing committees and groups to get together; having the Vice President head up this group and the other group; and Republicans and Democrats meeting--all the President has to do is quit spending.

I have been here for a few years and I remember during the Clinton administration in 1995, I came down to this podium on the floor complaining that President Clinton had come out with a new budget and that budget was $1.5 trillion. I said, this is unbelievable. It is not sustainable. We can't do it. That was $1.5 trillion to run this country for a period of 1 year. Now this President has come up with three budgets. Each one of the budgets is a multitrillion-dollar deficit budget. The last one was $1.65 trillion. This is more than the total amount of money it took to run the entire country. It is all in the President's budget. It comes out initially $800 billion for stimulus that didn't stimulate. This was something that--I don't know why-- either nobody cares or the American people aren't listening. It is very simple. We have a problem because the President spends money as no one else has in history. Here he has right now actually raised the debt-- from every President, George Washington to George W. Bush--yet he comes out and says, What are we going to do about spending? The answer is to quit spending.

I hope the American people remember this. This is not the reason, frankly, why I am down here today. In spite of what we have been led to believe in various publications, other things are going on.

There is one piece of legislation I will be introducing tomorrow. I have been working on it for about 6 months, and I have talked to people. We have caucuses in the Senate about every kind of concern. We have an Army caucus, and we have an Air Force caucus. We have caucuses on caucuses. One of the caucuses we have is a general aviation caucus. I am particularly sensitive to this in that I have been flying airplanes for over 50 years, and it is one where we are dealing with single issue people.

Anyway, tomorrow, Wednesday, I am going to introduce legislation that is going to be very important to people who are the single issue people who fly airplanes. I know a lot of us don't even care. I have heard people say they are all fat cats. I defy anyone to go up to Osh Kosh once a year, the last weekend of every July, and see the hundreds of thousands of people there who are not wealthy people, they are single issue people. Many of them have made experimental airplanes in their garages. This is something we have enjoyed for many years, and it is something I have enjoyed. I think because of my involvement, I have probably received more complaints and more requests from people out there in the real world--pilots--over things that have happened when the Federal Aviation Administration has cause to try to either revoke their license or give them the fear of revocation.

Over the years, there have been several instances where I have passed legislation to fix the system by which the FAA proceeds in these enforcement actions. I can remember back in the year 2000. Probably yet today the greatest single pilot, most gifted pilot in America is a guy named Bob Hoover. Bob Hoover is up in years now. He is actually older than I am. As am I, he is still flying airplanes. They did what is called an emergency revocation on Bob Hoover. I never did find out what allegedly he did wrong. But it was actually in the field where this great pilot would take a twin engine Shrike up to 10,000 feet, come down and roll right up where the crowd is. He does all of that with a glass of water up there on his dash. He is one of these unbelievable human beings.

Anyway, he came to me and said, What am I going to do? They have taken away my livelihood. All of these airline pilots who make a living flying airplanes could have a revocation. I passed a law. It took 2 years to do it--and it shouldn't have--so if something happens with a pilot and he gets his license revoked, there is a process he can go through that offers appeals and makes it a fair process. So I have been dealing with this for a long period of time. I have to say this: With any bureaucracy that has the power to take action against an individual, it is our job in Congress to ensure there are appropriate safeguards in place to prevent agency overreach. This bill provides that. The bill does simply four things. Those out there who are pilots will understand exactly what I am talking about. First, it requires in an FAA enforcement action against a pilot, in a case where there is enforcement action, the FAA has to grant to the pilot all the relevant evidence, such as the air traffic communications

tapes, flight data, investigative reports, flight service station communications, and other relevant air traffic data 30 days before any action can proceed, an enforcement action against the pilot. That is a matter of fairness. If a person is going to be accused of something, he has to know what he is being accused of. This is currently not done. It often leads to a pilot being grossly uninformed of his alleged violation and recourse.

The same section of the bill requires the FAA to advise a pilot who is the subject of an investigation relating to approval, denial, suspension, modification, or revocation of an airman certificate of the nature of the investigation, that an oral or written response to a letter of investigation is not required, that no action can be taken by the FAA against a pilot for declining to respond, that any response can be used as evidence against the pilot, and that the FAA's investigative report is available.

That sounds like a lot of talk. All we are saying is the pilot is entitled to have all the information other people have. I will give a good example. One of the things we know--and I have heard this all of my 55 years of flying--is that when you talk to a controller--he can be a controller at a control tower or anything else--that they have to keep that recording and the pilot can have access to the recording. I have always thought this was true until something happened to me and I found out that isn't true. So this means that until we change it, that is not going to happen.

Secondly, it clarifies ``statutory deference''--that is a legal term--as it relates to the National Transportation Safety Board on actions by the FAA. This is what happens. The FAA would do something, and this could theoretically be appealed to the NTSB. The problem with that is, the NTSB--the National Transportation Safety Board--has routinely rubberstamped anything that comes from the FAA. It is called statutory deference. So that decision has been able to take place in the appeals process.

To give an example, in fiscal year 2010, there were 362 aviation certificate appeals filed with the NTSB's Office of Administrative Law Judges. The Board's judges held 61 hearings on these appeals and reversed the FAA order only 5 times. Also during this time period there were 40 petitions seeking review of FAA emergency determinations. Of these, 6 were procedurally defective and were dismissed and on that basis, and 10 were voluntarily withdrawn. The remaining 24 petitions were considered on their merits with only 1--1--being granted out of 23 being denied. So we know this is a serious problem.

What this does is not only clean up statutory deference, but it does a second thing. It allows an airman at his own discretion to be able to appeal to the Federal District Court.

The third thing the bill does is require that the FAA undertake a notice to airmen. This is kind of complicated. But a notice to airmen is called a NOTAM. A NOTAM is something they are supposed to involve the people in--the pilots flying--so if they are going to go to a certain airport, they will have all the information as to what is wrong with that airport--a system might be down; a number of things can take place. But, nonetheless, it simplifies that system. Any pilot knows what a NOTAM is, but for those who don't, they are notices provided by the FAA to give information to pilots about air space, runways, flight conditions, and all that. The procedure hasn't worked, because they have actually said there are NOTAMs and they didn't even file the NOTAMs and there is no way for the pilot to be able to tell if there is a NOTAM out there, even though he is required to determine that there is. The current system says it is the pilot's responsibility to be aware of a NOTAM even if the FAA has not posted it.

Fourth and finally, the FAA's medical notification process has long been known for a multitude of problems. Of all the requests for assistance the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association receives each year--28 percent of all of the legal assistance--28 percent are related to the FAA's medical certification process. The bill requires a review of the FAA's medical certification process and forms, to provide greater clarity in the questions and reduce the instances of misinterpretation that have, in the past, led to allegations of intentional falsification against pilots. Nonprofit general aviation groups, aviation medical examiners, and other qualified medical experts will make up an advisory panel to advise the Administrator, again giving the right people a voice in the overall determination. So this is just an advisory board. The same way with revamping the NOTAM process. These are advisory boards that are to work with the FAA in coming up with a system.

There are two provisions in the bill that will require an FAA review of current practices and two other provisions that make the system specifically fairer for pilots.

After years of intervening to help fellow pilots, I was never fully appreciative of the feeling of desperation until it happened to me. This happened last October. I was flying a group of nonpilots in my twin engine--one of my planes, a twin engine, it holds six people--we were flying into Cameron County Airport. A lot of people don't realize how big Texas is. It is way down on the tip of Texas. It is about the same distance south as Key Biscayne, FL, or some place down there, but it is way down there. I used to be a builder and developer there. I have landed there over 200 times. I was flying a group down there. The Corpus Approach handed me off to Valley Approach who took me all the way down to runway 13. I will actually read what they said. Approach control said: You are cleared for visual approach to runway 13. Then I responded, and he said: Yes, 115 echo alpha roger, before you go there is traffic that appears to be in the pattern landing there at 900 feet. That is fine.

So this is what they do. That is wonderful.

I started landing, and you get to a point in a twin-engine plane full of people where you have slowed down enough where you cannot make a go- around. I was almost touching down when I saw they were working on the runway. It was too late to go around.

The three problems I had and have heard about countless times from pilots, which we correct with this legislation: When I tried to get the voice recording, it took me 4 months, and I am a Senator. I thought: What about these people out there and the frustration they are going through? We will correct that. I was required to respond to allegations within 10 days or they would proceed in an enforcement action against me. By the time I received the 10-day notice, there were only 4 days left to respond to the accusations, enforcement actions, and I did not even know the reason for the enforcement actions. And, No. 3, we found out the NOTAMs were never posted by the FAA until 11 days after this took place. In other words, I did nothing wrong. But at any time I could have suffered a revocation of my license.

I think it is important to mention that most of the people who work at the FAA--be it the controllers, inspectors, investigators--are helpful.

This year is my 32nd consecutive year to attend the Osh Kosh fly-in. The first thing I always do is go up there and talk to all the controllers. They are up there as volunteers, and I thank them for what they are doing.

Less than 2 weeks ago, I was flying from Oklahoma to Wyoming. I called on an instrument flight. I had to get an IFR clearance at 5 o'clock in the morning. The guy was so courteous, I asked him his name. It is Bill Liebeno. He could not have been more helpful to me. Talk about giving me all the NOTAMS, he said: The localizer is out, the DME is out, Runway 14-32 is closed, taxiway B is closed, the approach lights are out. He could not have been more factual.

I have a lot more to talk about. I know there are others who want to speak before this very significant vote that is coming up at 5 o'clock, which I think is a live quorum call. I would only say this: I am going to introduce this bill on Wednesday. If there is anyone here--we already have Senators Begich and Johanns, who are the cochairs of the Senate Aviation Caucus. Of course, this is bipartisan. They are on as cosponsors. We have several others as cosponsors.

I would say to any staff--I know no Members are listening--who happen to be listening right now, if your Member wants to at least be sensitive to the needs of general aviation, this may be

his or her only chance this year. I suggest those individuals who care about the problems I outlined become cosponsors of this legislation before I introduce it tomorrow afternoon.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am going to wait until the Senator from Illinois arrives before making a motion, but I wish to explain what I am going to do. I am going to make a motion when he does arrive.

I have an amendment. First of all, being the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have more than just a passive interest in this EDA bill. But one of the things I have been trying to do is get people to understand we have all these

amendments, and a lot of these amendments have nothing to do with the Economic Development Administration. They have to do with everything else that is out there. In fact, I am guilty of the same thing. I have, I think, five unrelated amendments. They are all good stuff, things I wish to get through, and that seems to be what this bill is all about.

But under all these amendments there is a bill and there is a reason for introducing it. It is a foregone conclusion--I think we all understand if we were to pass the EDA bill out of here in any form similar to the way it was introduced, it would never pass the House, and that would be a done deal.

What I am going to attempt to do is--I am going to attempt today and tomorrow and however long it takes--to get an amendment in there that is going to provide oversight authority by the GAO. Through the audits and assessments, the GAO can ensure that the EDA grants are distributed, and put some spending discipline in there, such as through a competitive award process--it is all drafted in the amendment; by the way, the amendment is No. 459--and in accordance with the EDA criteria and requirements.

Additionally, the GAO would submit a report every year to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the House T&I Committee, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to have efficiency assured.

What we are doing here is, instead of having a jump ball and saying we are going to do any kind of an EDA program that we can sell through the administration, we will actually have discipline in there so it will have to be, first of all, gone over with the Government Accountability Office. Then, after that, it is not over because it has to come back to both committees in the House and the Senate. And, of course, I am the ranking member, and by the time that gets started, I may end up being the chairman, if it is after the next election. But you never know those things. So we would be able to look at it again.

The purpose of the amendment is to make certain that grant recipients are determined based on competitive procedures and to create more accountability for the EDA. Overall, I think Washington bureaucrats should not be picking winners and losers but, instead, rely on a formula and strict rules to determine where agency dollars flow.

I know we are not on the bill now. We are still in morning business. I understand we are going to go back on the bill at 6 o'clock this evening. But I have to get a request in that my amendment be--at that time, I am going to ask that the pending amendment be set aside for consideration of amendment No. 459, which I have just described.

I think the chief complaint about some of the EDA process--by the way, I have to say about the EDA process, it has done so well in my State of Oklahoma. We had one project in Elgin, OK--a very small community adjacent to the live range at Fort Sill--for a $2.25 million EDA grant. They ended up planning to construct a 150,000-square foot building that would employ--the numbers were almost the entire population of Elgin, OK. It is something that would revive that part of the State. The southern part of the State of Oklahoma and the south central part have historically been an area that is somewhat impoverished, and through these EDA grants we have done a good job.

The good thing about EDA grants is they require a lot of local participation. Generally, it is through the city funds, the State funds, and the county funds, and then an equal amount or a greater amount from the private sector.

In my State of Oklahoma, the grants are usually about one to nine in terms of public participation. So the program is good. I am the first one to admit, however, it may not work the same way in every State. I can only say what our experience has been in Oklahoma.

What I am going to suggest with this amendment is something we are doing anyway in Oklahoma. We are going through a competitive award process. That is a process that everyone understands. It is one that is all outlined in our rules. We know what they have to go through for competition. Then it is in accordance with the criteria.

The criteria is very important. One of these days we are going to get around to a transportation reauthorization bill that will come out of my same committee. The last one we had was in 2005. Since then, that has run out, and we are going kind of month to month. We have a dire need for infrastructure in America with the roads, highways, and bridges. It is something we have fallen behind on, and we are going to be getting to that.

The reason our 2005 bill was so successful in infrastructure for transportation in the reauthorization bill is because we had a formula. The formula took into consideration money to be spent on bridges and roads and highways, State by State, with such factors as to the fatalities in that State, the number of road lanes, miles, and all this criteria. When we got through establishing the criteria in 2005, it must have been good because nobody liked it. If it was something that upset everyone, then, obviously, it was one that was pretty good, and we passed it. That was a $284.6 billion reauthorization bill. We should be able to do something comparable now.

You might say, everyone is goosey about spending money nowadays. And that is understandable with the deficits. President Obama's three budgets have suggested and have put into effect $5 trillion of deficit--not debt but deficit.

This last budget was around a little over $2.5 trillion. And I can remember back in 1995, back when President Clinton was in office, going down to the floor and complaining because he had a budget to run the entire country of $1.5 trillion. Well, the deficit alone in the last budget we have had here, as prescribed by the President, has exceeded the amount it took to run the country during that period of time.

I see the Senator from Illinois is here. I would say to my good friend from Illinois, what I am doing here is I am going to attempt now--and it will be objected to, and I understand that because we are not on the bill yet--I am going to continue to attempt to have an accountability amendment that takes the EDA process and subjects it to a competitive award process, along with oversight by the GAO and by our committee and by the T&I Committee in the House of Representatives. I think it is something that would make--frankly, if we do not do it, in my opinion, there would be no way in the world that the House of Representatives would pass it. This offers discipline to it. I will go so far as to say that if we are not able to pass this amendment, to have accountability, I will probably end up voting against the bill if it comes up for a vote.

So with that in mind, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to resume consideration of S. 782 so that I can call up my amendment No. 459 which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for Senator Shelby's recently introduced bill, the Southeastern Disaster Tax Relief Act, of which I am an original cosponsor.

As an Oklahoma native, I have seen and experienced just how devastating severe weather can be. Since 1950, there have been approximately 3,300 tornadoes that have killed nearly 500 people in Oklahoma alone. Scores more have been injured. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, tornadoes cause $1.1 billion of damage on average per year, and this does not account for the unquantifiable cost of the loss of a loved one, a home, or a business.

You may recall the F5 tornado that swept through Oklahoma on May 3, 1999. This storm alone caused $1.9 billion in damages, killed 48 people, and destroyed the town of Moore, OK. Survivors of this storm described being trapped under the debris of their homes, the panicked rescue effort to find neighbors, and the overwhelming sadness accompanied by loss. When I visited Tushka, OK, on April 15 of this year, following its devastating storms, I witnessed firsthand the same type of devastation.

It is estimated that the damage caused by tornadoes in Oklahoma on May 24 of this year will cost between $200 and $300 million. In addition, the storms in Joplin, MO, may have caused an additional $3 billion in losses. Clearly, these areas are in need of assistance, particularly since insurance payments will not remove out-of-pocket expenses families and businesses will have to pay as they rebuild their lives.

Under the current Tax Code, there is some relief available to families and businesses that experience damage in hard hit areas. In addition to being able to deduct most losses from the disaster on their taxes, individuals who receive disaster mitigation assistance, such as a FEMA grant, do not have to report the assistance as income. Additionally, Congress has, in the past, passed a number of temporary provisions to provide additional relief to victims of severe natural disasters, such as the Heartland Relief Act, the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act, and the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act.

Senator Shelby's Southeastern Disaster Tax Relief Act does the same thing and provides targeted, temporary tax relief to folks who have been hit by strong storms in recent months. The provisions of his bill have been selected from a number of the previous emergency tax relief acts enacted in past years. This is beneficial and worth mentioning because the IRS has already drafted guidance documents for all of the relief provisions, making it easier for taxpayers to take advantage of the relief. We also know the provisions in this bill will actually help people recover. The relief has worked in the past, and it will work again today.

Any individual or business located in a county that has been declared a major disaster area by the president is eligible for the relief provided by this bill if those counties are eligible for either ``individual'' or ``individual and public'' assistance through FEMA.

These assistance designations are allowed only to the hardest hit areas. In my State of Oklahoma, the qualifying counties include Canadian, Delaware, Grady, Kingfisher, Logan, McClain, and Atoka. These are the areas around Piedmont, Tushka, and Grove, Oklahoma. Public assistance funds are generally made available to States and localities to help pay for the removal of debris and to repair, replace, and restore disaster-damaged publicly owned facilities. Individual assistance, provided through FEMA and the SBA consists of grants and loans made directly to individuals. These grants are need-based, and can be issued to provide temporary housing or to help repair or replace a family's home if their insurance coverage falls short. In the most severe cases, additional assistance is provided.

While it is good FEMA provides this assistance, many individuals and businesses will not qualify despite being hit hard by the storms. And while permanent tax provisions do help individuals and businesses account for their losses and insurance payments, they do little beyond that to help folks get back on their feet. This underscores the need for the Southeastern Disaster Tax Relief Act.

Under the act, individuals would be allowed, among other things, to make early withdrawals from their tax-preferred retirement plans without having to pay tax penalties. Current tax law discourages early withdrawals by imposing a 10 percent tax penalty on most early withdrawals from accounts like Roth IRAs. This is fine under normal circumstances, but as individuals recover from disasters like this, they should be able to tap into their own resources without being penalized. This will likely help many families avoid going into debt or relying on government grants to repair their homes and property.

Individuals will also be able to deduct an unlimited amount of cash charitable contributions to nonprofit entities when the donations are allocated toward disaster relief efforts in the affected areas. Current policy limits the amount of income that can be deducted from charitable giving. This bill would temporarily suspend this provision.

Businesses will be allowed to immediately expense 50 percent of the cost of demolishing and/or cleaning up damaged property. This will allow them to recognize their losses more quickly than current policy, which requires them to capitalize cleanup costs into the construction or repair of their property.

Small businesses will also be provided with a tax credit for 40 percent of wages up to $23,400 paid to employees retained while a business is inoperable because of the storm. With unemployment hovering around 9 percent, this provision will help struggling employers retain and continue paying employees despite the fact that their business have been destroyed by the storm and remaining closed for business.

Public utility companies in Oklahoma and other states will be allowed to carry back the disaster losses to their property for 5 years. This will allow them to quickly realize their losses from a tax perspective, and the consequent savings will be available for them to more swiftly rebuild their infrastructure so that service can be returned to their customers.

Lastly, States will be allowed to float additional private activity bonds beyond the caps presently set by statute. The amount will be limited by the number of people whose primary residence is located in the areas affected by the disasters.

The provisions I mentioned are only a sample of what is provided in this bill. I must underscore, however, that this bill is highly targeted and temporary. It is also deficit neutral. Most of the provisions in the bill only last for the next year or so; others expire at the end of 2013 and 2014. In total, this bill is expected to provide over $5 billion in tax relief.

This bill has been designated an emergency--as I believe it should be. It is targeted, temporary relief in response to an unpredictable disaster. Usually we do not require ourselves to find immediate savings to offset the cost of emergency provisions, but in our present age of trillion dollar deficits, we need to offset deficits wherever possible. Senator Shelby has offset the cost of this bill by rescinding $12 billion in unobligated appropriations that remain unexpired. This provision applies to all Departments except the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.

In short, this bill is a necessary and commonsense tax proposal to help tornado victims. It is also fully paid for, making it fiscally responsible. I urge swift consideration and passage of this act.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the presentation by the junior Senator from Oklahoma I be recognized as in morning business.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment for consideration of the following three amendments: Nos. 429, 430, and 438.

All right. While I am holding off, it is my understanding that some of the rest of them are getting in the queue, and I am trying to get these three in with the same treatment that has been afforded those before me.

Amendments Nos. 430 and 438

Madam President, I amend my previous request and ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside for the consideration of two of the amendments, Nos. 430 and 438.

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

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

Madam President, I ask by unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business, which I know the Chair will honor.

However, I want to mention one of these two amendments. I think it is very significant. It is somewhat similar, I think, to the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Maine. What it has to do with is these various regulations, and actually most of these are coming from the Environmental Protection Agency.

One of the serious problems we have in the committee on which I am the ranking member, the Environment and Public Works Committee--that is chaired by Senator Boxer from California--we have oversight over the Environmental Protection Agency, and we have been watching what has been happening in the last several months. Many of the things they have been trying to get through, they have been unable to get through legislation here on the floor of this Senate, so they are trying to do the very things they are unable to get done through legislation by regulation. And these are very expensive.

Right now, we have a problem with our economy. We have overregulation that is killing a lot of the businesses that are out there. What I am trying to do is an amendment--and that is what amendment No. 438 is--to get it into the Record. The bill sets up a committee to assess the effects of the EPA's regulatory mandates, including key provisions of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act. This would include greenhouse gas regulations, Boiler MACT, Utility MACT, ozone and particulate matter standards, coal ash disposal, and water discharge requirements.

The assessment includes an evaluation of the cumulative effects of the EPA's mandates on employment, economic development, and this type of thing.

It does not otherwise modify or affect the statute. The reason I wish to have this in here is we have now quantified what it is costing the American people in terms of employment, in terms of dollars, and just-- greenhouse gas, for example. We know that the costs, if they do anything like the cap and trade that they have tried to do through legislation--and that is exactly what they are attempting to do right now through regulations at the EPA--are somewhere between $300 and $400 billion of loss in GDP per year. That is every year.

You can call that a tax increase if you want to because that is exactly what it is, the same as a loss in GDP. In my case, in Oklahoma, because it is confusing when we--and this administration has been talking about hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars. Nobody truly has a handle on what it costs.

I keep track as to how many families file tax returns. In my State of Oklahoma, if you take the number of families who file tax returns and divide it and do the math, that would be somewhere around a little over $3,000 per family if we were to pass a cap-and-trade regulation.

What is wrong with this? A lot of people are out there saying: Inhofe, you have been wrong all this time. Since you are wrong on the-- you may be wrong or what if you are wrong. My response is this: We have a very fine Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson. I can remember talking to her about what would happen if we were to pass any of these bills where we are going back to maybe the Warner-Lieberman bill or Waxman-Markey bill or even by regulations, cap and trade, the costs would be excessive.

However, my question to her was: If we were successful in doing this, would this reduce the greenhouse gases? The answer was no. The reason it would not is because it only applies to the United States of America. So if we were going to pass a tax increase on every tax-paying family in my State of Oklahoma of $3,000 a year, and they admit we are not going to get anything for it, then we need to stop them from doing that.

I could do the same thing about the ozone, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. That would be $676.8 billion lost in GDP by 2020; the boiler MACT rules and regulations, some $1 billion lost in GDP; utility MACT, $184 billion in compliance costs. That is just between the years of 2011 and 2030; the cement MACT, some $3.5 billion.

I am saying this because we need to have our eyes open and tell the American people what the cost is of all these things. This will be done by this amendment, No. 438, and we will hopefully be able to get a vote on that.

Cote d'Ivoire

Madam President, I am going to take a little time on something else that has to be said, and that is what I have been on the floor six times already talking about. The only reason I am continuing to do this is because somehow the State Department, the French, the United Nations, and all of them seem to be laboring under this misconception that I will go away and I will not talk about it anymore.

I am not going to go away. I am going to keep talking about it. The problem we have right now started some time ago. I will share with you some of the new developments today.

We are talking about the rigged election that took place in Cote d'Ivoire and the fact that someone whose name is Alassane Ouattara--we have demonstrated very clearly--won the election by fraudulent means.

The President of that country is Laurent Gbagbo. He has been President now for a number of years. His wife, Simone Gbagbo, has been a gracious and great First Lady.

What I wish to do--this is the seventh time I have been on the floor talking about this--is give you the latest on this grave situation in Cote d'Ivoire. I can only say it continues to be a targeted genocide against supporters and perceived supporters of the deposed President of Laurent Gbagbo.

This will be, as I said, my seventh time speaking about this on the floor.

The last time we talked about it was on April 4. When we first started talking about this, we were hoping we would be able to stop this, the State Department and others from going along with what is going on now in Cote d'Ivoire. I know it is complicated. A lot of people do not remember the genocide in Rwanda of 1994. Now we look back and say what a horrible event that was. Sure, it was horrible.

But right now what is going on in the streets of Abidjan in Cote d'Ivoire is something that has to be raised to the surface in front of the American people. I have new information that proves what I have been saying for the last 7 weeks, that the rebel leader Alassane Ouattara is still carrying out death squads, killing people in the streets of Abidjan in Cote d'Ivoire. There they are. That is a death squad. These are the people who are murdering and torturing people in Abidjan as we speak.

I bet there are not a handful of people who even know where Abidjan is. But this is the city, the capital of Cote d'Ivoire, a beautiful country. These people, coming in from the north, under this Alassane Ouattara, are in there today. I do not know how many hundreds of people they are murdering just today, but they are doing it and they are torturing and they are raping.

Before I tell you the most recent information that came out from Human Rights Watch, I wish to remind you of what I said back on the May 27. That was when Amnesty International reported that a manhunt--I am quoting now from Amnesty International--they reported that ``a manhunt''--what I said right here from this podium. ``A manhunt was launched against Gbagbo loyalists in Abidjan and several senior officials close to him were beaten in the hours after his arrest.''

That was 2 weeks ago. I am further quoting now from Amnesty International. ``In the west of the country, thousands of people who fled their homes are still living in the forest, too frightened to return.''

Look at this. There are the burned, charred bodies of people who have been tortured to death. This just happened. This is going on today, right now. Here is a man who was severely beaten. He died right after that. Here is a small child who was put to death in the same way. Here they are in the middle of executions. That is going on right now.

Gaetan Mootoo, who is Amnesty International's west Africa researcher, said:

Human rights violations are still being committed against

real or perceived supporters of Laurent Gbagbo. Alassane

Ouattara's failure to condemn these acts can be seen as a

green light by many of his security forces, and other armed

elements fighting with them, to continue. Ouattara must

publicly state that all violence against the civilian

population must stop immediately.

That is what the mandate was 2 weeks ago. That is what they were supposed to do 2 weeks ago. They went on to say from Amnesty International:

Attacks against villages inhabited by people belonging to

ethnic groups considered supporters of Gbagbo--

The legitimate President--

continued in the first weeks of May. . . . Between 6 and 8

May several villages were burned and dozens killed.

Ouattara's republican forces justified these acts by saying

they were looking for arms and Liberian mercenaries.

They went on to describe this. There is an article in Guardian magazine that talked about this. This, again, was a little over 2 weeks ago. They said ``an Amnesty delegation spent 2 months in Ivory Coast, gathering more than 100 witness statements from people who survived the massacre in Duekoue. . . . ''

That is what this actually is in that small town of Duekoue and the neighboring villages on March 29.

All the statements indicated a systematic and targeted

series of killings committed by the uniformed republican

forces [loyal to Ouattara], who executed hundreds of men on

political and ethnic grounds.

Before killing them, they asked their victims to give their

names, show identity cards. . . . Some of these cards were

found beside the bodies.

A woman who lived in Duekoue told researchers: ``They came

into the yards and chased the women. Then they told the men

to line up and asked them to state their first and second

names and show their identity cards. They then executed them.

I was present--

Quoting a woman who was watching her husband--

while they sorted out the men. Three young men, one of whom

was about 15, were shot to death in front of me.''

Amnesty's report also accuses the UN mission, which has a

base less than a mile from Duekoue, of fatal inertia.

``Fatal inertia,'' means they did nothing. They let this go on. We are talking about the United Nations.

People around here--there are a lot of liberals in this body who do not think that anything is worthwhile unless it comes from some big body such as the United Nations. That is what is happening right now. So I wish to go ahead--I know there is someone else on the floor who wants to speak, but I just want to be sure we are informed that what was going on then--what I talked about 2 weeks ago--is still happening today.

What happened today? The newly released report by Human Rights Watch states--this is a different group from Amnesty International and this came out today:

Armed forces loyal to President Alassane Ouattara have

killed at least 149 real or perceived supporters of

the former President Laurent Gbagbo since taking control

of the commercial capital of Abidjan in mid-April, 2011.

The report goes on to describe the gruesome details, barbaric episodes of torture and the deaths at the hands of the Ouattara forces. This is happening today--right now. Here are a few examples. This is from Human Rights Watch.

Ouattara's Forces . . . sealed off and searched areas

formerly controlled by pro-Gbagbo militia . . . and the

majority of documented abuses occurred in the longtime pro-

Gbagbo stronghold of Yopougon.

That is the town in that stronghold in the south part of the--you have to keep in mind Ouattara's forces came from the Muslim area up north.

Most killings were point-blank executions--

You are seeing a point-blank execution. That is what it looks like right there, the gun to the head.

Most killings were point-blank executions of youth from

ethnic groups generally aligned with Gbagbo, in what appeared

to be collective punishment for these groups' participation

in Gbagbo's militias.

One man described how Republican Forces soldiers killed his

21-year-old brother: ``Two of them grabbed his legs, another

two held his arms behind him, and a fifth one held his

head,'' he said. ``Then a guy pulled out a knife and slit my

brother's throat. He was screaming. I saw his legs shaking

after they'd slit his throat, the blood streaming down. As

they were doing it, they said they had to eliminate all of

the [Young] Patriots that had caused all the problems in the

country.''

During the raid in Abidjan, the forces, the UN forces, the French and Ouattara, they went in--and it happens that the seated President, President Gbagbo, had not a lot of armaments, but he had a whole lot of young people. They were armed not with weapons but with baseball bats, with wooden clubs, and they surrounded the palace to try to protect him, knowing they would kill their President. This is where they are today. These are the young kids. That is in a gas station up here. They are all lined up there. They are executing some of them, starving, beating the rest of them. But look at that. There are the pictures of what is going on.

These young patriots were young supporters to President Gbagbo, who surrounded his palace in a human chain, armed with just sticks and bats against the UN and French attack helicopters, which were bombing Gbagbo's residence, now being searched out by Ouattara's forces for torture and death.

The report goes on. This report came out today.

Another woman who witnessed the killing of 18 youths . . .

was brutally raped by a Republican Forces soldier after being

forced to load their vehicles with pillaged goods. On May 23,

an elderly man in the same neighborhood saw Republican Forces

execute his son, whom they accused of being a member of the

pro-Gbagbo militia.

Another witness described seeing the Republican Forces slit

the throat of a youth in front of his father after finding an

AK-47 and grenade in his bedroom during a 4 a.m. house-to-

house search. The witness was stripped and forced to hand

over his laptop computer, cell phones, and money.

And was murdered.

Human Rights Watch documented similar pillaging of scores

of houses in Abidjan.

By the way, I personally talked to these people in Abidjan who witnessed this going on.

The witness, like many others interviewed by Human Rights

Watch, wanted to flee

Abidjan to his family village, but had no money for

transportation since the Republican Forces had taken

everything.

Human Rights Watch says it documented 54 extrajudicial

executions at detention sites, including police stations and

the GESCO oil--

That is the station we just now saw. Those were the executions of the young kids taking place.

In addition to the killings--

I am reading now--

Human Rights Watch interviewed young men who had been

detained by the Republican Forces . . . and arrested for no

other apparent reason than their age and ethnic group. Nearly

every former detainee described being struck repeatedly with

guns, belts, rope, and fists . . . for alleged participation

in the Young Patriots.

Those were the young people surrounding the palace.

Several described torture, including forcibly removing

teeth from one victim and placing a burning hot knife on

another victim, then cutting him.

Human Rights Watch reports ``witnesses consistently identified the killers and abusers as the Republican Forces'' of Ouattara, and they were ``overseen'' by Ouattara and Soros. Soros is a general of Ouattara. He is the one who is responsible for going into Duekoue. That is where they murdered all the people. The Soros they speak of is the one who was responsible for that under the supervision and direction of Ouattara.

So the Human Rights Report calls on Ouattara ``to immediately ensure the humane treatment of anyone detained'' by his forces. This is something I have been demanding for 7 weeks. I hope now this report is going to draw attention so at least the State Department knows what is going on because our State Department is going along with all of this. They had an opportunity to voice their opinions and come up with a solution. The solution is to offer amnesty or to send him to a country where he will be able to live.

I have been very critical of the State Department's handling of the situation in Cote d'Ivoire. I sent them evidence months ago that showed Alassane Ouattara engaged in massive election fraud during last year's Presidential election. I called for an election and then a new election. Of course, it was met with deaf ears. I called on the State Department to inquire as to the health and safety of President Gbagbo and his wife Simone. To date, we have heard nothing.

Last year, I urged the State Department to use its power and influence and allow the reconciliation process in Cote d'Ivoire by allowing Gbagbo to go into exile. I pointed out that at least half of the population of Cote d'Ivoire supports Gbagbo. I acknowledged one African leader who is willing to accept Gbagbo in his country--a Sub- Saharan African country. The State Department has been aware of this for over a month.

I strongly suggest that is a solution. It has been done before. It was done in Haiti with ``Baby Doc'' Duvalier. I know people are tired of hearing me talk about Cote d'Ivoire.

I had a pleasant experience yesterday. I met the nominee for the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Bill Burns. I had a chance to visit with him about this and other problems. I found him to be very receptive. I am convinced he embodies the high traditions of the foreign service--selfless, nonpartisan diplomatic service. He indicated to me he will follow through with my requests of the State Department regarding the health and well-being of the Gbagbos. I appreciate that.

I will finish by letting you see a photo of the two Gbagbos. Here is the President, Laurent Gbagbo, who I believe should be the legitimate President of Cote d'Ivoire. The first photo was a happy guy I knew. This next photo was him right after they took him. This side of his face is bashed in. His wife is a beautiful lady, Simone. Here is a picture of her. I have known her for over 15 years. She is a gracious lady and everybody loves her. After Alassane Ouattara took her, here is what she looked like. They ripped her hair out by the roots and went dancing up and down the streets of Abidjan with the hair. You have to use your imagination.

This is what is going on today in Cote d'Ivoire. There they are, the death squad, and there is the First Lady, Simone.

The last thing is that I hope somebody in the State Department cares enough to intervene and allow that party to go into exile. There is already an operation for that. Almost every President of every African country who called me is in agreement to what we are trying to do.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 427

Mr. President, with all due respect, I plan to support the amendment that has been addressed by my good friend from Iowa. Having come from the small business world, I am fully aware of the cost of these things, and tomorrow I will be introducing an amendment that is going to address something different, but really something with higher figures on it; that is, the cost of the EPA regulations.

This is something that is a little bit different than what my friend from Iowa has been talking about. When we stop and think about the regulatory things that are going on right now with the Clean Water Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act--we are talking about greenhouse gas regulations, things that should be addressed by legislation but are not, so they are trying to do it through regulation: boiler MACT, that is the maximum-achievable technology; utility MACT; ozone, actually the changing of the ozone standards when they are not using--as the law requires--the newer, updated information; and particulate matter and coal ash and some of the rest.

But I am saving that for tomorrow. I am only saying that now because there is a cost to overregulation. That is what I know my friend, Senator Snowe, is trying to get at. It is my understanding--correct me if I am wrong--that we are not trying to get recognized and move current amendments aside. Is that correct now? I will not try to do that.

However, I do want to mention that probably the most significant single amendment we are going to have on the EDA reauthorization bill would be the one to take down the maximum amount from $500 million to $300 million. It is kind of interesting because this program in my State of Oklahoma has been very successful. Believe it, time and time again, we have been able to do things, attract businesses and industry.

Down in a little town called Elgin, OK, adjacent to the Ft. Sill live range, we have been able to put together something that is going to attract about a 150,000-square-foot building, all of that with a very small initial grant. So it has worked well.

I understand some of the critics of this program. In some areas maybe it has not worked that well, if it has. However, I have noticed this, and since some of this jurisdiction is in the committee of which I am the ranking member, the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is important to look at these things.

In these difficult times, I think it is important not to authorize more than we could anticipate would be very prudently appropriated. Since we have been authorizing $400 million in the past, and the total amount is something less than $300 million, I am going to have an amendment that would take down the existing limit on this, which is $500 million, down to $300 million. That will be amendment No. 430. It is already submitted.

Interestingly enough, while I do not agree with President Obama on many things, he seems to agree on this, and I am going to read a statement he made: ``The Administration supports

the passage of S. 782.'' But down here it says:

However, the bill would authorize spending levels higher

than those requested by the President's budget, and the

administration believes that the need for smart investment to

help Americans win the future must be balanced with the need

to control spending and to reduce the deficit. The

administration looks forward to working with Congress in

reducing the limits of this bill.

So I am going to make it easy for the administration and introduce this amendment No. 430. It is submitted right now. We are hoping to be able, at some point, to start setting aside and getting up these amendments for votes. That is one of the major reasons, as one of the sponsors of this bill, we have a lot of things we need to be talking about on the Senate floor.

We have done nothing around here. We have not done appropriations. We have not done anything except a handful of noncontroversial judges--and some controversial, I might add. But, nonetheless, we should be talking about these things. There are a lot of things we want to get done, and certainly this is one of them.

The other amendment, though, that is a little less understandable because it involves something that I throw in the category of being just not believable. We have a critter in Oklahoma and it is also around other parts of the country. It is called a Lesser Prairie Chicken. Going all of the way back to my days in the State legislature--I am talking about a long time ago, before a lot of you guys were born--people were concerned about the Lesser Prairie Chicken and were always trying to protect it. Yet our farmers and ranchers had a problem with that because they burrow down and make holes and our cows and our horses will break legs and all of that kind of thing.

That has nothing to do with what is happening today except they are talking about having that--right now it is actually a candidate for an endangered species, and the reason is because they are claiming that, of course, the population is dwindling. Well, it is not. The problem is, we have too many of them. This is kind of interesting. The State-- for those of you whose geography is not too good--immediately north of my State of Oklahoma is Kansas. In Kansas they have a hunting season for the Lesser Prairie Chicken, but you can go a mile south across the Oklahoma border and it would be protected. It is ludicrous that they would do that.

Here is another reason--a problem. First of all, federally mandated uses of alternative energy such as wind and all of that I think is inappropriate. We have all the resources we need in fossil fuels to run this country. We have the resources, in terms of oil, gas, and coal. We have enough to run this country for 100 years without being dependent on the Middle East.

These are things we should be doing. Well, when you have these mandated percentages, that means you have to go into other forms of energy where the technology is not quite there. Now, wind technology is there, although a lot has to happen before it is going to be in a competitive match and not have to be subsidized. Nonetheless, Oklahoma happens to be in the wind belt. You go through Oklahoma, you can see in northern Texas all the way through Oklahoma and southern Kansas, we are in the wind belt. The problem we have--I have airplanes. I have many vices; flying airplanes is one of them. So I am over the western part of Oklahoma almost every weekend.

When I take people who have not been there, they are amazed at the numbers of windmills. At any one place out there you can see 200 or 300. So it represents a huge investment. A lot of stakeholders are involved in it and they have said that certain things are going to happen. But wait a minute. If they end up listing the Lesser Prairie Chicken, that is going to all of a sudden put Fish and Wildlife in a position where they can stop this wind energy that is taking place right now. The reason they can, and it will not be their fault--they will say, well, it is a habitat. It is threatened because there are towers, and predators are on these towers and looking down. Then they would have to stop that from taking place.

They could conceivably have to take down millions of dollars' worth of investments that are there right now. So I have an amendment to this bill that is going to preclude them from being able to list it.

By the way, I have had a visit with the candidate who has been nominated to be Director of Fish and Wildlife, Dan Ashe. I had him, along with Secretary Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, in my office. We talked at some length about some of these things, and he has made a commitment to come out to Oklahoma and to see what a hardship this would be.

So I think it would be an excellent idea to find some vehicle--and this vehicle seems to be the one that is being used right now to put such legislation on--that would preclude them from listing the Lesser Prairie Chicken.

The private investment in Oklahoma wind power is, of course--we are one of the top States--we are at No. 13 of all 50 States in terms of wind. It could be significantly curtailed. State Senator Bryce Marlatt in Oklahoma noted that it was already a $300 million investment just in the last 3 years. So we want to protect this investment.

We have OG&E, Oklahoma Gas and Electric, recently announcing the construction of a high-power line from Oklahoma City to Woodward. Woodward is kind of the mouth of the Panhandle. Then, eventually going into Guymon, all the way through what used to be called no man's land in the Panhandle of Oklahoma. These would be multimillion-dollar investments that could be severely challenged by the listing of the Lesser Prairie Chicken.

So I will be offering that amendment. I already submitted the amendment and would look forward to explaining that further as the time comes.

In the meanwhile, tomorrow I do want to get into the cost of the regulation. If we are really sincere in this country right now about doing something to promote business and industry, the first thing we need to do is get the bureaucrats off the backs of the businesses out there that are planning to expand and those that are in existence today. So we will be addressing that tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the EDA is something that has worked very well in our State of Oklahoma. First, let me say the Senator from California is right--there are many issues on which we do not agree. In fact, we have fought tooth and nail for a long time against the cap- and-trade and a lot of these environmental issues and will continue to do so. However, what we agree most on is not necessarily the EDA program but the need for reauthorization of transportation.

We have a very serious problem. In my State of Oklahoma, just a short while ago a young lady, the mother of two small children, was driving under a bridge, and it crumbled and fell and killed her. There are things like that, crises that are going on right now.

We were very proud when we had what we thought at the time was a very robust highway reauthorization bill, a transportation reauthorization bill in 2005. While the amount sounded like quite a bit, it was really just barely enough to maintain what we had. There are some things government is supposed to be doing. I am always ranked as one of the most conservative Members, but I am a big spender in areas such as national defense and infrastructure. Those are needs we have.

In putting together this bill and taking it out of committee--and it did come out of committee unanimously--there had been a GAO report that talked about duplication. I put in language in order to have them identify anything that would be duplicative so that would come out. That was a little bit of a surprise to a lot of us. I don't question the report. I think it was probably accurate. But we took care of that because we don't want to have any duplication of efforts.

The chairman said there is a 7-to-1 ratio. We have actually done better than that in the State of Oklahoma. In one area, it was a $2.25 million EDA grant, in Elgin, OK, which is adjacent to Fort Sill, OK, which is adjacent to a live range. It was one that was intended to actually produce a 150,000-square-foot manufacturing business employing many people. Because this administration axed some of the military programs, it did not turn out to be that beneficial, but the ratio there was still well in excess of 10 to 1.

If we want to get the economy moving, this is a way of doing it. We have to do it in a way that is well thought out. I am hoping this bill will be. It is my understanding it will be open to amendments, and there will be a lot of amendments and a lot of my friends who are not supportive of this want to have this vehicle for that purpose. I certainly respect that and look forward to working on this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I have made four speeches on the floor in the last month about the disaster, the catastrophe that is taking place in a country in west Africa called Cote d'Ivoire. Cote d'Ivoire is a country whose President, the legitimate President, I might add, is Laurent Gbagbo, with his wife Simone. Someone named Alassane Quattara, from the northern part of Cote d'Ivoire, with a rigged election, came in; it was certified. It was all set up before we knew what was going on.

That individual's name is Quattara. His death squads today, this very moment as we speak, are roaming the streets of Abidjan in Cote d'Ivoire. He is murdering and he is raping. Right now they have in captivity Laurent Gbagbo, the legitimate President of Cote d'Ivoire. I think they are in the process of perhaps killing him right now. We don't know that. The State Department does not know it. No one knows it.

We had a hearing. The State Department was totally without compassion or concern over what is happening in the streets of Abidjan. We saw, we witnessed on video, the helicopters coming through and destroying that city. We have friends there right now who tell us that even today the death squads of Alassane Quattara are roaming the streets murdering people. No one can say within 10,000 people how many people they murdered.

My concern is it is too late to do anything about that. They rigged the election. I documented it. I sent the documentation to the State Department. They paid no attention to it. France was behind the whole thing. France wants to have as much control as they can of west Africa. They conned the United Nations into it and our State Department went along with it.

What is happening right now is so inhumane. I wish I had the pictures I showed before. The beautiful First Lady, Simone Gbagbo, is a beautiful lady, and they took her into captivity, pulled her hair out by the roots, and ran through the streets of Abidjan, holding up her hair in their hands. They are murdering everyone who is a friend of that administration.

Well, I have one plea right now. There are a lot of options on what they can do. They can murder the President and First Lady--and they are considering that now. They are trying to consider some way to make it look like suicide. I don't know what they are doing. The State Department doesn't know what they are doing. Unfortunately, the State Department doesn't even care what they are doing.

One of the options would be to allow the President and the First Lady and some who are close to go to another country in Sub-Saharan Africa and be able to stay in that country. We have already located host countries to allow that to take place.

So I am making an appeal right now. I can't get the Secretary of State to talk to me about it. I can't get anyone else but just a handful of people, but we need to do something and do something now-- today. If we wait until after this recess, I would almost say their blood will be on the hands of the State Department because we can do something about it now. All we have to do is encourage the new, illegitimately elected President of Cote d'Ivoire--Alassane Ouattara-- and his administration to give an opportunity for another state to host these two individuals. Quite frankly, I think that would be a very smart thing politically for him to do because with the other two options, we all know what happens. We know what martyrs are, and that is what would happen.

So this is, I guess, a final appeal to anyone who is sensitive to the torturing, raping, and murdering that is going on today to join me in encouraging the State Department, the United Nations, France, and Alassane Ouattara to turn over President and Mrs. Gbagbo to a host country for their asylum.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time that would expire at 6:15 be extended to 6:30, and other times adjusted accordingly.

Mr. President, a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to visit with one of my true heroes, Benjamin Netanyahu, who was here and graced us with his presence this week. Last March, I was in Jerusalem, had some quality time with him, and we kind of relived the experiences we have had in the past when he was Prime Minister before. That was back in the middle 1990s. I had a chance to talk to him. As I recall, his concern at that time--what he said at that time--two major concerns. One is, what is happening in Iran, and then, of course, making sure that the land in Israel right now will stay there.

Recently, I had a chance to visit with him again. I was quite surprised when he came here and he was met with this suggestion that things are going to change and that maybe we would encourage Israel to go back to their 1967 borders.

I can assure you that we will do everything we can to keep that from happening. I want to make sure we get the message out there, that this may be President Obama talking, it is not the majority of people in America, as was witnessed by the 30 standing ovations that Prime Minister Netanyahu got in his joint speech.

It sounded familiar when we are talking about this, about the land. I remembered that it was 10 years ago--10 years ago right now, 2001--that I made a speech, and it jogged my memory when I heard the President talking about going back to the 1967 borders. So I dug up that speech. I found it, and I found that it is so appropriate today.

This was a speech, by the way--the research done for this speech was done by a guy named Willie George. He was a preacher, a pastor, but a historian. I want to put the same perspective on this we did 10 years ago and see how that applies today.

First of all, I am going to do something that is unusual on the floor of the Senate; that is, I am going quote Ephesians 6. Listen carefully. It says: For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spirit wickedness in high places.

It is significant that we look at that, because make no mistake about it, the war that was started 10 years ago and the war we are in right now, that we are fighting now, is first and foremost a spiritual war, not a political war--never has been a political war. It is not about politics. It is a spiritual war. It has its roots in spiritual conflict. It is a war to destroy the very fabric of our society and the very things for which we stand.

Many of the wars in history are wars where people are trying to take over something another country has. That is not what this is about. Not about getting mineral deposits, not about getting land from other countries. This is a different war.

It is not simple greed that motivates these people to kill. One may ask, what is it about our Nation that makes

them--here I am talking about some of the Hamas, Hezbollah, the terrorists--hate us so much? I suggest there are three things. First, in our country we have the freedom and the right to choose the kind of worship we want. I happen to be a Jesus guy, a born-again Christian, all that. I believe the way to the Lord God is through his Son.

While I believe that, I believe every American has the right to choose whether he or she wants to believe that. Some people have the notion that if you are a Christian who believes in the Bible, you are totally intolerant, you do not allow other people to have a choice. Nothing can be further from the truth.

The nations of this world where Christianity is the dominant way of worship, we also find Jewish synagogues, we find Islamic mosques, we find freedom of worship. You will not find the same kind of things in the militant Islamic nations of this world. They do not allow Christian churches. They do not allow synagogues to open freely. They do not allow people the freedom. They persecute people. So one of the reasons America is hated so much is that we have allowed people through the years to choose what they are going to do. It is their choice.

The second reason we are hated so much is we have opened the door for people to achieve their God-given place on this Earth. We have not restrained people. We have allowed people freedom of expression, the freedom to pursue dreams, the freedom to pursue goals. This is not true in other places in the world. These freedoms are not found in every nation. America is great because we have magnified the rights of individuals, protected the rights of individuals in our culture. We are careful to allow people to have expressions in our society, and we are hated for it.

The third reason we are hated by these people is because we are a nation of laws. We are a people ruled by laws. Lest one think that is common, go around the world and look at these other countries in the world. Most of the world's countries do not have a 200-year-old Constitution. They are ruled by dictators. They are ruled by the whims of those leaders or by political parties as they change. The rule of law is what makes civilization possible. The rule of law is what makes an orderly society work. If there is no rule of law, the strongest, toughest bully on the block is the one who is running the country. America is a country of law and order. Because of this philosophy of the people who founded our Nation, they believed in the rule of law because of what they knew from the Bible. Our Constitution and the constitutions of most governments around the world, similar to ours, are, indeed, based on the Ten Commandments. Our fathers knew the Ten Commandments and the laws of God should be a basis for all laws. They understood the concept of absolute right and absolute wrong. There were not many who believed in what we call today situational ethics or where things change according to our needs. They believed in absolute right and absolute wrong. That is the reason we are hated so much as a nation.

We are hated because we are a beacon of light, a beacon of freedom all the way around the world. We know contemporarily what that means. One of the greatest speeches of all time that I remember is a speech that was made by Ronald Reagan. It is called a Rendezvous with Destiny. In this speech he talked about--this was back when Castro had first taken over Cuba. He talked about the atrocities in Communist Cuba, and people were trying to escape. One man escaped in a small boat, as many others did. He lived and reached the coast of Florida. As his boat floated up on the coast, he started telling the people who were there about the atrocities in Communist Cuba. A lady responded and said: Well, I guess we in this country do not know how lucky we are. He said: No. It is how lucky we are, because we had a place to escape to.

What he was saying is we were that beacon of freedom. And we are hated because we are a beacon of freedom. That is the third reason for the rest of the world. We are hated because in America we have the freedom of choice, the freedom of worship; we have freedom of expression; we are a nation of laws.

Why was America attacked on September 11? Why did they single us out? America was attacked because of our system of values. It is a spiritual war, not just because we are Israel's best friend. We are Israel's best friend in the world because of the character we have as a nation. One of the reasons God has blessed our country is because we have honored His people.

Right up on there on your desk, Mr. President, you have a Bible. Look up Genesis 12:3. It says, ``I will bless them that bless you and curse him that curses you.''

He was talking about Israel. One of the reasons America has been blessed abundantly over the years is because we as a society have opened our doors to the Jewish people. The Jewish people have been blessed in the United States of America.

When the tiny state of Israel was founded in 1948, we stood in beginning with Israel. We were the first country to stand for Israel. And because we took a stand, other nations in the world took a stand. They followed quickly. The United States made it possible for there to be an Israel. We stood with Israel again and again in its fight to survive. Make no mistake about it, it is not just because of our support of Israel, it is what we believe as a nation that caused us to come under attack.

Israel is under attack in the Middle East because it is the only true democracy that exists in the Middle East. There are more than 20 Arab countries that are in northern Africa and in the Middle East, and nearly every one of those is run by a dictator. Israel is the only true democracy that exists in the Middle East.

Did you know, if you are an Arab in Israel, and you are an Israeli citizen as an Arab, you can vote in the elections? In fact, in the Knesset--that is their Congress--they have a political party that is for Arabs. They have their own party in the Knesset.

Israel is the only true democracy that exists in the Middle East. It has a Western form of government based on the laws we see in the Bible. The laws of God our country is based on are the same laws from which Israel gets its laws--it represents the laws of God. That is the reason it is under attack.

We ought to be Israel's best friend. If we cannot stand for Israel today, can we ever again be counted on as a beacon, a beacon of freedom for the oppressed nations? You may ask, what does this have to do with the attack on America that happened 10 years ago. We are under attack because of our character, and because we have supported the tiny little nation in the Middle East. That is why we are under attack. If we do not stand for this tiny country today, when do we start standing for tiny little countries in the world?

Many years ago, Yasser Arafat and others did not recognize Israel's right to the land, very much like our President Obama. Even today, many do not recognize Israel's right to exist. There are seven reasons I consider to be indisputable and incontrovertible evidence and grounds to Israel's right to the land. You have heard this before, because you heard it from me 10 years ago. It was similar. It is in the Record now. I kept it.

Most know this, that they are going to be hit by skeptics who are going to say we are being attacked all because of our support for Israel, and if we get out of the Middle East, all of the problems will go away. That is not so. It is not true. We all know in our hearts it is not true. If we withdraw, it would come to our door. It would not go away.

I have some observations to make about that in a minute. But first, I am going to tell you the seven reasons that Israel has the right to the land. I am saying this because I am still in shock over what happened this last week. But I am relieved from the response we got from this great man, Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Israel has the right to the land--reason No. 1--because of all of the archeological evidence. This is reason No. 1. It supports it. Every time there is a dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that Israelis have had a presence there in that land for over 3,000 years, the coins, the cities, the pottery, the culture. There are other people and other groups there, but there is no mistaking the fact that the Israelis have been present for 3,000 years. It predates

any claim any other people in the region might have. Ancient Philistines are extinct. They are not around anymore. Many other ancient people are extinct. They do not have an unbroken line to this day that the Israelis have.

Even the Egyptians of today are not racial Egyptians of 2,000 years ago. They are primarily an Arab people. The land is called Egypt, but they are not the same racial and ethnic stock as old Egyptians of the ancient world. The Israelis are, in fact, descended from the original Israelites. The first proof then is the archeological proof.

The second proof of Israel's right to the land is the historic one. History supports it totally, completely. We know there has been an Israel up until the time of the Roman Empire. The Romans conquered the land. Israel had no homeland. Although Jews were allowed to live there, they were driven from the land and dispersed in 70 AD and 135 AD. But there was always a Jewish presence in the land. The Turks who took over about 700 years ago and ruled the land up until about World War I had control. Then the land was conquered by the British. The Turks entered World War I on the side of Germany. The British knew they had to do something to punish the Turks and also to break up the empire that was going to be a part of the whole effort of Germany in World War I. So the British sent troops against the Turks in the Holy Land. This is a good one.

Of the generals who led the British into the Holy Land was a guy named Allenby. He was a general. He was a Bible-believing Christian. He carried a Bible with him everywhere he went. He knew the significance of Jerusalem. The flight before the attack against Jerusalem, to drive out the Turks, Allenby prayed that God would allow him to capture the city without doing damage to the holy places.

That day Allenby--this is World War I now, keep in mind. He sent a bunch of biplanes into the Holy Land as a reconnaissance mission. You have to understand, these Turks had never seen a biplane. They had never seen any kind of airplane. They looked up and they saw these cute little machines flying around. They are terrified.

Then they were told that they were being opposed by a man named Allenby. This is a true story. History supports it. Allenby--in their language--means ``man sent from God'' or ``prophet from God.'' They dared not fight against a prophet from God. So the next morning, when Allenby went into Jerusalem, he went in, he captured it without firing a shot. And that is history. That is actually what happened. That is the history we are talking about.

Out of gratitude to the Jews, and out of gratitude to the Jewish bankers and the financiers and others who lent the financial help on the homeland, the Jewish people--the homeland that is now Israel, and all of what was then the nation of Jordan, was given to the Jewish people.

The homeland that Britain said it would set aside consisted of what is now Israel and what then was Jordan, the whole thing. That was what the British promised the Jews in 1917. In the beginning, there was some Arab population there and some Arab support for this gift. There was not a huge Arab population in the land at the time. There was a reason for that. The land wasn't able to sustain any kind of a large population. The people didn't have the development needed to handle any kind of population of the land. It wasn't wanted by anyone at that time. Can you believe it wasn't wanted at that time by anyone?

You remember Mark Twain--Samuel Clemens--who wrote ``Huckleberry Finn'' and ``Tom Sawyer.'' He took a tour of the Holy Land in 1867. This is what he said about Israel:

A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given

over wholly to weeds, a silent mournful expanse. We never saw

a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or

a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast

friends of worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.

Where was this great Palestine at that time? It wasn't there. The Palestinians weren't there. Palestine didn't exist. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at the time it was under the control of the Turks. There was no population there because the land would not support it. There was the Palestinian Royal Commission that was created by the British. It quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along with the Mediterranean Sea in 1913. This is what they said about Israel at that time:

The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer

track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange

groves, orchards, or vineyards were to be seen until one

reached the Yavnev village. Houses were mud. Schools did not

exist. The western part toward the sea was almost desert. The

villages were few and thinly populated. Many villages were

deserted by their inhabitants.

The French author Voltaire described Palestine as ``a hopeless, dreary place.''

In short, under the Turks, the land suffered from neglect and low population. It is a historical fact. The nation became populated with both Jews and Arabs. The land came to prosper when Jews came back and began to reclaim it. Historically, they began to reclaim it. Even if there had never been any archeological evidence to support the rights of the Israelis to the territory, it is important to recognize that other nations in the area have no longstanding claim to the country either.

This may surprise you. I will say that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913, Lebanon, in 1920, and Iraq didn't exist as a nation until 1932, Syria until 1941. The borders of Jordan were established in 1946 and Kuwait in 1961.

Any of these nations that would say Israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights, as they were recent arrivals as well. They didn't exist as countries. They were all under the control of the Turks. Historically, the land was given to the Israelis in 1917, and then, of course, we know Israel gained its independence in 1948.

So we have the archeological reasons. We have seven reasons. Here is the third reason. The third reason the land belongs to Israel is because of the practical value of the Israelis being there. Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture. Israel is able to bring more food out of a desert environment than any other country in the world. The Arab nations ought to make Israel their friend and import technology from Israel that would allow all the Middle East, not just Israel, to be exporters of food. So Israel, unarguably, has success in agriculture. They have been able to develop when nobody else has.

The fourth reason I believe Israel has a right to the land is on the grounds of humanitarian concerns. There were 6 million Jews slaughtered in Europe in World War II. The persecution against the Jews was very strong in Russia since the advent of communism. Persecution was against the Jews even before that time under the czars.

These people have a right to their homeland. If we are not going to allow them a homeland in the Middle East, then where? What other nation on Earth is going to cede territory? They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel fits into my State of Oklahoma seven times. So on humanitarian grounds alone, Israel ought to have the land.

The fifth reason I disagree with President Obama and think Israel should have the right to the land, without any changes and not going back to 1967, is because it is a strategic ally to the United States. Whether we realize it, Israel is a detriment, an impediment to certain groups hostile to democracies and to those things we believe in, hostile to the very things that make us the greatest Nation in the history of the world. Israel has kept them from taking complete control of the Middle East. If it were not for Israel, they would overrun the region. Israel is our only strategic ally.

It is good to know we have a friend in the Middle East we can count on. They vote with us in the U.N. more than England, Germany, Canada, and France--more than any other country in the world. So they have been our consistent ally for strategic reasons.

The sixth reason Israel should be entitled to the land is that Israel is a roadblock to terrorism. The war we are now facing is not a war against a sovereign nation, it is a fluid group of terrorists moving from one country to another. They are almost invisible. That is whom we are fighting against. We need every ally we can get. If we do not stop terrorism in the Middle East, it will be on our shores. I have said this and said this and said this.

One of the reasons I believe that spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States is because

the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand with pressure, that they not retaliate against the terrorist attacks that have been launched against them.

Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars, and they were not the aggressor in any of them. Some people may argue that they were the first ones there with Egypt. Everybody knew what was going to happen in Egypt. Israel was attacked in all four cases. Israel won all four wars against the impossible odds. They are great warriors. I have spent some time over there. They consider it a level playing field when they are outnumbered 2 to 1. They are great people.

There were 39 Scud missiles that landed on Israeli soil during the gulf war. Our President asked Israel not to respond. Our policy was trying to get them not to respond. We asked them not to respond. In order to have the Arab nations on board, we asked Israel not even to participate in the war. They showed incredible restraint, and they did not. We asked them to stand back and not do anything over these attacks.

We have criticized them. They have been criticized in our media, local people in television and radio offer criticisms of Israel not knowing the true issues. We need to be informed.

Years ago, I was so thrilled when I heard a reporter pose a question to our former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, during the gulf war. He said:

Mr. Powell, the United States has advocated a policy of

restraint in the Middle East. We have discouraged Israel from

retaliation again and again and again, because we have said

that it leads to continued escalation--that it escalates the

violence.

He said:

Are we [the United States] going to follow that preaching

ourselves?

Mr. Powell indicated we would strike back. In other words, we can tell Israel not to do it, but when it hits us, we are going to do it. That is one of the reasons I believe the door was opened--because we held back our tiny little friend. We have not allowed them to go to the heart of the problem. This was a mistake.

Terrorism is not going to go away. If Israel were driven into the sea tomorrow, if every Jew in the Middle East were killed, terrorism would not end. You know that in your heart. Terrorism would continue.

It is not just a matter of Israel in the Middle East; it is the heart of the very people who are perpetuating this stuff. Should they be successful in overrunning Israel--they will not be--but should they be, it would not be enough. They would never be satisfied. We learned that at Camp David.

The seventh reason--and this will upset some people, but I have to say it, and it is printed up there--that Israel has a right to the land--and this is the most important reason--because God said so. As I said a minute ago, look it up in the book of Genesis. In Genesis 13, verse 14, 15 and 17, the Bible says:

The Lord said to Abram, ``Lift up now your eyes, and look

from the place where you are northward, and southward,

eastward, and westward: for all the land which you see, to

you will I give it, and to your seed forever. . . . Arise,

walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth

of it; for I will give it to thee.

That is God talking about Israel.

The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is what we call the Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank, right here on the map. It is this place where God appeared to Abram and said: ``I am giving you this land,'' the West Bank.

Everybody will yell and scream because I am quoting the Bible, but that is their problem, not mine.

This is not a political battle at all; it is a contest over whether the Word of God is true.

The seven reasons, I am convinced, clearly establish that Israel has a right to the land.

Years ago on the lawn of the White House, Yitzhak Rabin shook hands with PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat. It was a historic occasion. It was a tragic occasion.

At the time, the official policy of the government of Israel began to be ``let us appease the terrorists. Let us begin to trade the land for peace.'' They tried. This process continued unabated. Here in our own Nation, at Camp David in the summer of 2000--I remember it so well-- then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the most generous concessions to Yasir Arafat that had ever been laid on the table.

He offered him more than 90 percent of all of the West Bank territory, sovereign control of it. There were some parts he didn't want to offer, but in exchange for that, he said he would give up land in Israel proper that the PLO was not even asking for. He also did the unthinkable--we cannot imagine it today. He even talked about dividing Jerusalem and allowing the Palestinians to have their capital in the east. Arafat stormed out of the meeting. Why would he do that? Everything he asked for was offered to him.

A couple months later, there began to be riots and terrorism. The riots began when Ariel Sharon went to the Temple Mount--and we remember this. This was used as the thing that lit the fire and caused the explosion. This is the excuse the terrorists used.

Did you know Sharon did not go to the Temple Mount unannounced? He contacted the Islamic authorities before he went. He secured their permission. He had permission to be there. It was no surprise. Their response was carefully calculated. They knew they would not pay attention to the details. So they would portray this in the Arab world as an attack on the holy mosque. They would portray it as an attack on that mosque and use it as an excuse to riot. We know what happened since that time. Over the following years, during the time of the peace process, where the Israeli public has pressured its leaders to give up land for peace because they are tired of fighting, there has been increased terror.

It hasn't helped, hasn't worked. Nothing worked. It has been greater than at any other time in Israel's history. Showing restraint and giving in hasn't produced any kind of peace. It is so much so that the leftist peace movement in Israel didn't exist because the people felt they were deceived.

They did offer a hand of peace, and it was not taken. That is why the politics of Israel have changed drastically. The Israelis have come to see that ``no matter what we do, these people do not want to deal with us. They want to destroy us.'' That is why even yet today the stationery of the PLO has upon it a map of the entire State of Israel, not just the tiny part they call the West Bank. They want it all.

The unwavering loyalty we have received from our only consistent friend in the Middle East has to be respected and appreciated by us. No longer should foreign policy in the Middle East be one of appeasement. As Hiram Mann said:

No man survives when freedom falls. The best men rot in

filthy jails and those who cried ``appease, appease'' are

hanged by those they tried to please.

Islamic fundamentalist terrorism came to America on 9/11. We have to use all our friends and assets, all our resources, to defeat the satanic evil.

Patrick Henry said:

We will not fight our battles alone. There is a just God

who reigns over the destiny of nations who will raise up

friends who will fight our battles with us.

He said:

We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means

which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The

millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and

in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by

any force which our enemy can send against us.

Listen to this:

We will not fight our battles alone. There is a just God

who reigns over the destiny of nations who will raise up

friends who will fight our battles with us.

He was talking about all of our friends, including Israel. That is what is happening. I thank God Israel is in the battle by our side. It is time for our policy of appeasement in the Middle East and appeasement to the terrorists to be over. With our partners, our victory must and will be absolute.

I mentioned that a few weeks ago I was with Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel. At that time, he had this growing concern for the land. We did not know what was coming. We did not know what was going to happen. We did not know that which did happen just a week ago was going to happen. I quote from the Associated Press. I am so proud of him. Think of the courage it took for Prime Minister Netanyahu to stand next to the most powerful man in the world and make a statement like this. He said:

[He] sat alongside President Barack Obama on Friday and

declared that Israel would not withdraw to the 1967 borders

to help make way for an adjacent Palestinian state. Obama had

called on Israel to be willing to do just that thing a day

earlier.

Prime Minister Netanyahu said his Nation could not

negotiate with a newly constituted Palestinian unity

government that includes the radical Hamas movement, which

refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.

And its commitment to Israel's destruction.

Those are the seven reasons I believe the land belongs to Israel. We need to respect that, and we need to declare: God bless Israel.

Mr. President, I know I have a couple more. I would like to cover one last topic because something is about to happen in the next week. Some people are going to be killed. It has nothing to do with Israel; nothing to do with the subject here. It is very serious.

You might recall six different times on the floor of the Senate I have talked about the problems that are taking place in a country in West Africa called Cote d'Ivoire. The fact is we had a President--his name is Laurent Gbagbo--with his wife Simone. They were ruling when an election came along. It was stolen from him by a man named Alassane Ouattara. He is in the northern part of Cote d'Ivoire.

What I have tried to show--I explained well before this all happened, before we got involved, that France and the United Nations and now our State Department are joining in with them. This picture was in yesterday's paper. This is one of Ouattara's death squads that are killing people in Abidjan, which is the capital.

I show this picture. It is one that shows this is still happening today. Reprisal attacks are still being committed by forces loyal to Alassane Ouattara of Ivory Coast 6 weeks after he came to power vowing peace and reconciliation.

It also said that Alassane Quattara, championed by the French and the United Nations during a deadly post-election conflict, has failed to condemn atrocities against real or perceived supporters of ousted President Laurent Gbagbo.

Those are the death squads of Ouattara. This is a picture of them. You can identify them. They are in there killing people. We don't know how many tens of thousands of people have been murdered in cold blood. Amnesty International came out the other day and criticized the U.N. mission for ignoring pleas for help and failing to prevent the massacre in the town of Duekoue. That is the town of Duekoue. See the charred bodies. People are saying they actually had hogs eating the bodies. This is what Ouattara did in a little town called Duekoue.

I have another picture of what is happening. It is really criminal. These are all of Ouattara's people. These are the ones our State Department supported, and it is serious. Amnesty reports that a manhunt was launched against Gbagbo loyalists in Abidjan, and several senior officials close to him were beaten in the hours after his arrest.

This is a picture of the Secretary of the Interior. We had a hearing the other day, and our State Department tried to say Ouattara is hiring a lot of the people from the Cabinet of Laurent Gbagbo. There is the Secretary of the Interior. They shot him in the face so it would take a long time to painfully die. He died.

Here is another member of the Cabinet being executed. This is what is going on. Nobody cares. Anyway, I care.

What we are looking at right now is the Ouattaras publicly.

There is a way out of this right now. What has happened is Ouattara is trying to figure out a way to kill the President and the First Lady. I will wind up by letting you know and seeing firsthand what we are talking about.

President Gbagbo is someone I have known quite well. He is a jovial guy. This is a picture as I remember him. I spent a lot of time with him. This is right after his arrest. He was beaten almost to death. We see what has happened to his face.

His wife is a beautiful lady, Simone Gbagbo. I have been with her many times. She is a beautiful lady. She is the First Lady. I first knew her 15 years ago when she was a member of Parliament before they were married. There she is. You will not find a more beautiful lady than that. There she is, after they ravaged their home--Ouattara and the United Nations in agreement with our State Department. This is what she looked like the next day. They went in and grabbed her by the hair and pulled her hair out. You can see other things happened to her.

I hesitate to put up the last photo, but this one you have to put your imagination to work. It takes a lot of imagination to see what is happening. There she is, the beautiful First Lady. You can imagine what happened with all of Ouattara's people around here.

What is the answer? All we have to do is encourage the State Department to take a different stand and say: Let's take the Gbagbos-- the President and the First Lady--and allow them to have asylum. I already located a country in Sub-Saharan Africa willing to host them. That is all that needs to happen.

By the time we get back 9 days from now after this recess, both of them will be dead if we do not do something. As we speak right now, they are being tortured.

There we have it. We have an opportunity to do something. We can save not only these people but save those around them who have always loved peace in Cote d'Ivoire.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have introduced a bill, S. 1085. I have some cosponsors, including Senator Snowe from Maine. The bill addresses something that has become very controversial. It is certainly not partisan in any way. It is more geographical; that is, I have been one who has been opposed to the corn ethanol mandates ever since they first came out. I opposed the 2007 Energy bill because it doubled the corn- based ethanol mandates, despite the mounting questions surrounding ethanol's compatibility with existing engines, its environmental sustainment, as well as transportational infrastructure needs. I can remember back when they first did it, all the environmentalists were saying corn ethanol will be the answer. They were all for it, but they are against it now. They all recognize that corn ethanol is bad for the environment.

Now, the three areas I personally have a problem with are, No. 1, the environment; No. 2, you have a compatibility situation. You talk to any of the farmers, any of the marine people, they will tell you it is very destructive to the small engines. Thirdly, everyone is concerned with the high price of fuel, with the fact that corn ethanol is not good for your mileage. Kris Kiser of the Outdoor Power Equipment Manufacturers testified before the Environment and Public Works Committee on ethanol's compatibility or lack of compatibility with more than 200 million legacy engines across America which are not designed to run on certain blends of ethanol. I will quote her testimony before our committee. She said:

In the marine industry, if your machine fails or your

engine fails and you are 30 miles offshore, this is a serious

problem. If you are in a snow machine and it fails in the

wilderness this is a serious problem.

Consumers complain about the decreasing fuel efficiency around corn ethanol, containing 67 percent of the Btu of gasoline. We call it clear gas. This is a good time to say we are not talking about biomass. We are only talking about corn ethanol. Another problem I have in my State of Oklahoma is we are a big cattle State and that has driven up the cost of feedstock to a level that is not acceptable. According to the EPA, vehicles operating on E85 ethanol experience a 20-percent to 30- percent drop in miles per gallon due to ethanol's lower energy content. Consumer reports found that E85 resulted in a 27-percent drop in fuel.

As a result, you drive around Oklahoma--first of all, we are in Washington. It is my understanding there is no choice in Washington or Virginia or in Maryland and those areas. In my State of Oklahoma, we still have a choice, and the choice is very clear. The problem is the way this is set up, we will run into a barrier where they will no longer have clear gas available under the current formulas. For that reason, we have people who--at almost every station you see, the majority of the stations you see in Oklahoma, you have signs such as this: Ethanol free. 100 percent gasoline. This is all over the State of Oklahoma.

There is a solution to this problem, and it is one I have introduced in this bill. Before describing that, I think the most pressing issue of this so-called blend wall is that EISA mandated 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol by 2015, but today it is readily apparent that the country cannot physically absorb this much corn ethanol. It is too much, too fast. In Oklahoma, ethanol's blend wall has nearly eliminated consumer choice. The fuel blenders and gas station owners have little option but to sell ethanol-blended gasoline, despite strong consumer demand for clear gas. There is the consumer demand all over the State of Oklahoma.

What is the solution? I introduced a very simple, five-page bill. The bill would allow individual States to opt out of the mandate. It would require their State legislature wants this and they pass a resolution, it is signed by the governor, and they would be able to opt out. The State would pass a bill. It is signed by the Governor, stating its election to exercise this option. The Administrator of the EPA would then reduce the amount of the national corn ethanol mandate by the percentage amount of the gasoline consumed by this State.

This option nonparticipation would only apply to the corn portion of the RFS and would not affect any of the volumetric requirements of advanced biofuels. We are big in advanced biofuels in my State of Oklahoma, the various foundations, Oklahoma State University. We have switchgrass we are working on, and it is something we are all for. The bill actually redefines cellulosic biofuels as next generation biofuel. The previously defined cellulosic biofuel carveout is expanded to include algae and any nonethanol renewable fuel derived from renewable biomass. So this is something that is not going to be incompatible. It is going to be very compatible with our interest here. So for those people who say: We demand to have corn-based ethanol, you can have it. All this is is choice, and if we and the people of my State of Oklahoma want a choice of clear gas or corn ethanol, they should be able to do it. I honestly don't think there is a legitimate argument against that. I plan to try to get some cosponsors. I think my good friend from Florida might be interested in cosponsoring something such as this because this gives choice to the people of his State as well as my State.

Mr. President, I have introduced a bill, S. 1085. I have some cosponsors, including Senator Snowe from Maine. The bill addresses something that has become very controversial. It is certainly not partisan in any way. It is more geographical; that is, I have been one who has been opposed to the corn ethanol mandates ever since they first came out. I opposed the 2007 Energy bill because it doubled the corn- based ethanol mandates, despite the mounting questions surrounding ethanol's compatibility with existing engines, its environmental sustainment, as well as transportational infrastructure needs. I can remember back when they first did it, all the environmentalists were saying corn ethanol will be the answer. They were all for it, but they are against it now. They all recognize that corn ethanol is bad for the environment.

Now, the three areas I personally have a problem with are, No. 1, the environment; No. 2, you have a compatibility situation. You talk to any of the farmers, any of the marine people, they will tell you it is very destructive to the small engines. Thirdly, everyone is concerned with the high price of fuel, with the fact that corn ethanol is not good for your mileage. Kris Kiser of the Outdoor Power Equipment Manufacturers testified before the Environment and Public Works Committee on ethanol's compatibility or lack of compatibility with more than 200 million legacy engines across America which are not designed to run on certain blends of ethanol. I will quote her testimony before our committee. She said:

In the marine industry, if your machine fails or your

engine fails and you are 30 miles offshore, this is a serious

problem. If you are in a snow machine and it fails in the

wilderness this is a serious problem.

Consumers complain about the decreasing fuel efficiency around corn ethanol, containing 67 percent of the Btu of gasoline. We call it clear gas. This is a good time to say we are not talking about biomass. We are only talking about corn ethanol. Another problem I have in my State of Oklahoma is we are a big cattle State and that has driven up the cost of feedstock to a level that is not acceptable. According to the EPA, vehicles operating on E85 ethanol experience a 20-percent to 30- percent drop in miles per gallon due to ethanol's lower energy content. Consumer reports found that E85 resulted in a 27-percent drop in fuel.

As a result, you drive around Oklahoma--first of all, we are in Washington. It is my understanding there is no choice in Washington or Virginia or in Maryland and those areas. In my State of Oklahoma, we still have a choice, and the choice is very clear. The problem is the way this is set up, we will run into a barrier where they will no longer have clear gas available under the current formulas. For that reason, we have people who--at almost every station you see, the majority of the stations you see in Oklahoma, you have signs such as this: Ethanol free. 100 percent gasoline. This is all over the State of Oklahoma.

There is a solution to this problem, and it is one I have introduced in this bill. Before describing that, I think the most pressing issue of this so-called blend wall is that EISA mandated 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol by 2015, but today it is readily apparent that the country cannot physically absorb this much corn ethanol. It is too much, too fast. In Oklahoma, ethanol's blend wall has nearly eliminated consumer choice. The fuel blenders and gas station owners have little option but to sell ethanol-blended gasoline, despite strong consumer demand for clear gas. There is the consumer demand all over the State of Oklahoma.

What is the solution? I introduced a very simple, five-page bill. The bill would allow individual States to opt out of the mandate. It would require their State legislature wants this and they pass a resolution, it is signed by the governor, and they would be able to opt out. The State would pass a bill. It is signed by the Governor, stating its election to exercise this option. The Administrator of the EPA would then reduce the amount of the national corn ethanol mandate by the percentage amount of the gasoline consumed by this State.

This option nonparticipation would only apply to the corn portion of the RFS and would not affect any of the volumetric requirements of advanced biofuels. We are big in advanced biofuels in my State of Oklahoma, the various foundations, Oklahoma State University. We have switchgrass we are working on, and it is something we are all for. The bill actually redefines cellulosic biofuels as next generation biofuel. The previously defined cellulosic biofuel carveout is expanded to include algae and any nonethanol renewable fuel derived from renewable biomass. So this is something that is not going to be incompatible. It is going to be very compatible with our interest here. So for those people who say: We demand to have corn-based ethanol, you can have it. All this is is choice, and if we and the people of my State of Oklahoma want a choice of clear gas or corn ethanol, they should be able to do it. I honestly don't think there is a legitimate argument against that. I plan to try to get some cosponsors. I think my good friend from Florida might be interested in cosponsoring something such as this because this gives choice to the people of his State as well as my State.

Mr. President, first, let me say I will be supporting the bill that we have before us today. It did not go far enough, though. What we ought to do is open everything. I am talking about the Pacific, the Atlantic, the gulf, the North Slope, the public lands. That is what we really need to be doing.

I know there are some reasons they are confining it to the gulf in terms of this legislation. While I respect that, again it does not go far enough.

Let me make one comment about yesterday's vote. Right now the single issue people have in terms of energy is the price of gas at the pump. I know it is not just my wife, they are all that way. I can see that. But when the Democrats came up with their bill last night, I hope people remember who was voting for this. That was for a major tax increase on what they call Big Oil.

Big oil is the five biggest oil companies. I hate to say this, but sometimes you walk on the floor with half truths and get by with it, and people will assume that is true. As much as I love my fellows on the other side, some of the things that were stated were actually just totally inaccurate.

To say the big five don't pay taxes--they pay huge taxes. I don't know where they come up with some of these numbers. I am going to single out one company, ExxonMobil, and tell my colleagues something they are not aware of because it has not been said on the Senate floor yet.

In 2010, ExxonMobil's total tax expenses in the United States were $9.8 billion. That is what they paid in taxes in 2010. That includes income tax expense of more than $1.9 billion. That $9.8 billion in taxes exceeded the 2010 U.S. operating earnings of $7.5 billion.

What we are saying is, they paid $9.8 billion in taxes. They only received $7.5 billion in terms of earnings from the United States. Why is that? It is because about 80 percent of their operations are in other countries. They are in 100 different countries. Not one of the other countries charges taxes when they go offshore. I believe we are the only country that charges a U.S. tax on production that takes place in some other country.

For that reason, if we tax them like most people do it would have been a tax credit and not a tax at all. Nonetheless, they were accountable for paying taxes that year of $9.8 billion. Look at this year. That was 2010. During the first quarter of this year, our U.S. operating earnings of this particular company were $2.8 billion--that is the first quarter of 2011. The rest of their earnings, more than $8 billion, came

from operations in more than 100 countries worldwide.

Here is a number we will not hear in Washington. During the first quarter on those earnings, U.S. earnings of $2.6 billion, they incurred a tax expense and paid a tax of $3.1 billion. They are paying more than they are getting out of this country. I think sooner or later we have to come up and just tell the truth of what is happening. It is all class warfare. I think we know that: Big, bad oil. They are all bad.

We have a lot of production in my State of Oklahoma. We have companies such as Devon and Anadarko and others that are doing a lot to relieve this problem. I know what is going to happen. It did not pass, obviously, and is not going to pass, but if it had the next target would be some of the smaller domestic companies.

I remember coming down to the floor last year when the good Senator from Vermont had a bill and was bringing it up by unanimous consent, and I just happened to get here in time to stop it and debate it and defeat it. In that bill they even held up a picture of a check from ExxonMobil as to what their tax liabilities were--totally wrong, in my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of 61 of the 100 Senators because they joined me in opposing that particular legislation.

We have a solution to the problem. This is not rocket science. Right now we have the data. It just happened in the last 8 months that the Congressional Research Service--nobody has stood on the Senate floor and questioned the fact that they are nonpartisan; they are objective. They looked at our recoverable reserves in coal, oil, and gas and found they are greater in America than any other country in the world. We have those recoverable reserves.

The problem is, we have a political problem where the liberals here, along with liberals in the White House, including the President, will not exploit our own resources. We have all the oil and gas and coal that is out there. We could be totally independent of the Middle East in a very short period of time if we would just go offshore on all three coasts, along with the North Slope, ANWR, and with our public lands. As I say, every other country does it.

So we have to wonder: Why don't we do it? Why is it we don't care about supplying ourselves with homegrown oil, gas and coal and taking care of our own energy needs? We have the ability, but the politicians will not let us do it.

There is one reason. That is--and this is disturbing--that in the case of this administration, they don't want to do it. This administration has said many times they are not interested. Listen to what Alan Krueger, Assistant Secretary of Treasury, said:

The tax subsidies that are currently provided to the oil

and gas industry lead to inefficiency by encouraging an over

investment of domestic resources in industry.

Secondly, he says:

The administration believes that it is no longer sufficient

to address our nation's energy needs by finding more fossil

fuels. . . .

Look, I am all for coal, gas, oil. I am for nuclear. I am for all of the above. I am for all of the renewables: Sun, wind, and everything else. But we have to run this machine today, tomorrow, and the next 5 and 10 years. We can't do that without fossil fuels.

Further, they stated:

The administration's goal is to have resources invested in

ways which yield the highest social return.

Social return, that is a totally different thing--not an economic return, not the ability to run our country ourselves but some kind of a social engineering that is going on.

The best quote and the most telling is the one that came from Secretary Chu, the Energy Secretary for President Obama. Listen to this:

We are going to have to get some sort of regulatory thing

going on that [hydraulic fracturing].

He said:

Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of

gasoline to the levels in Europe.

This is our administration saying this. This is the Secretary of Energy:

Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of

gasoline to the levels in Europe.

They are intentionally raising the price of gas and it is by their own admission.

We were warned way back during the campaign when President Barack Obama was a Senator. He said:

Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates

would necessarily skyrocket.

So we have an effort by them. I would just warn my good friends on the Democratic side of the aisle to watch this pretty closely because just because the President wants to increase the price of oil doesn't mean that your constituents do. In fact, I can assure you your constituents do not, unless there is something unusual about my State of Oklahoma.

Let's see what the CRS report said a little bit more specifically. They said, in the updated report, America's combined recoverable oil, natural gas, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth. America's recoverable resources are far larger than those of Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada combined. That is the resources we have in oil, coal, and gas.

America is the world's third largest oil producer and is endowed with 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil which will run the United States of America for 50 years. We can run it. All the oil we will need for 50 years, we have it. We just have to get the politicians out of the way so we can produce it.

Natural gas, in terms of trillions of cubic feet, America's future supply of natural gas is over 2,000 trillion cubic feet, an increase of more than 25 percent just since the committee's 2006 estimate. At today's rate of use, this is enough natural gas to meet America's demand for 90 years.

Keep in mind natural gas is not just natural gas to develop energy, but also natural gas is something we are going to be using in our cars today. It is available. They are working on technology. We are working on the certification of engines that will burn natural gas. When we are, it is going to relieve that tension also. Right now, the price of a comparable gallon of natural gas to run an automobile is $1.60 gallon--$1.60 as opposed to $4, so it is out there.

I have to say this. The President made a speech, and I responded on a couple of TV stations. This was probably 3 weeks ago. It was on energy. He said in that speech: We have an abundant supply of good, clean natural gas. We need to be using it. Then, at the end of that speech, he said: However, we have to be very careful what we are going to be doing because we don't want to contaminate our drinking water with hydraulic fracturing.

I happen to come from Oklahoma. The first hydraulic fracturing job in Oklahoma was done in 1948. We have not had one documented case of groundwater contamination ever since 1948, 60 years. Yet, right now, they are going to stop us from going after natural gas by taking away hydraulic fracturing. In these tight formations, the shale formations, you can't develop a cubic foot of natural gas without using hydraulic fracturing. It is a way of inserting liquids in to force the gas out so we can develop it. So it is there. So the President is saying we need to use natural gas, but we don't want to use hydraulic fracturing.

There is an effort right now by many Members to try to take that over as a Federal function, the regulation of hydraulic fracturing. Right now, there has never been a problem with it. It is regulated differently in different States. For example, in my State of Oklahoma, in the Anadarko Basin, we are talking about depths of some 35,000 feet. If you go just north in Kansas, it is between 3,000 and 4,000 feet. So it is different in different States. It needs different regulation. It is not broken and we don't need to fix it.

What has the President done? He has put Secretary Chu in charge of determining what we are going to do with hydraulic fracturing. Secretary Chu is the same guy who said we have to raise the price of our gasoline to be comparable to the gasoline price in Europe. So that is the wrong guy for that kind of a study.

Besides that, I would remind my colleagues we actually have a study that is going on right now by the Environmental Protection Agency on hydraulic fracturing that isn't through yet. It would seem to me we ought to at least finish and get this study before we rush in and try to pass something that will stop us from being able to develop our natural gas.

I can say the same thing for coal. America is No. 1 in coal reserves. Right now--people aren't aware of it--we are reliant upon coal for 50 percent of the power it takes to run this machine called America. America is No. 1 in coal resources, accounting for more than 28 percent of the world's coal.

So we have it here. We have gas. We have coal. We have oil. All we have to do is develop them.

How many people in America who have gone through elementary school don't remember supply and demand? We have a huge supply and there is a great demand for it, but we have our politicians who will not let us develop our supply. As long as that holds, it is going to be very difficult for us to do it.

So I would just say this. This is a wakeup call for the American people. We have a vote this afternoon. It is not good enough. I am going to vote for it. But we ought to be opening our exploration and production all over America. To do that, we have to go beyond this bill. This is a start and it is a start that is worthwhile.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to announce the reintroduction of a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to eliminate the taxable income limit on percentage depletion for oil and natural gas produced from marginal properties.

Since 1926 small producers and millions of royalty owners have had the option to utilize percentage depletion to both simplify their accounting methodology and to account for the decline in the value of minerals produced from a property. Percentage depletion is particularly important to America's 611,000 low-volume marginal wells. The average marginal well produces barely 2 barrels per day, yet cumulatively they account for nearly 28 percent of domestic production in the lower 48 States. Since every on-shore natural gas and oil well eventually declines into marginal production, the economic life span and corresponding production of all wells is extended by allowing the use of percentage depletion.

Until 1998, the deduction marginal producers could take from percentage depletion was limited to 100 percent of taxable income from each individual property. Many producers, however, specialize in marginally producing wells and have many properties operating simultaneously. Naturally, some wells in a producer's portfolio are more productive than others. Some would have depletion rates greater than 100 percent of taxable income, while others would have depletion rates lower than the limit. Removing the taxable income limitation allows producers to take percentage depletion deductions on a portfolio-wide basis, which makes their entire operation more efficient.

Since 1998, Congress has understood this fact and has suspended the limitation. Unfortunately, the provision has never been made permanent. It has just been extended year after year as part of the Tax Extenders Package. Since we have had this suspension on the books for more than a decade, I think it is time to give producers the predictability they need by making this common sense tax accounting provision permanent.

At a time when our unemployment rate is at 9 percent, we need to be doing everything we can to encourage economic growth. The energy industry is a major contributor to our economy, and it has a lot of room to grow. The Congressional Research Service recently released a report that says the United States has the most energy potential under its soil than any other country on earth. Hiding beneath our soil are jobs, wealth, and lower deficits. We should allow this sector to grow. This is a common sense, easy way to do this, so I urge swift passage.

Mr. President, I would like to bring to your attention a bill I am reintroducing that would make permanent the current tax provision that allows capital assets on Indian lands to be depreciated on an accelerated schedule.

For many years, the Federal tax code has provided an incentive for businesses to invest in operations on Indian reservations and lands across the country. According to the law, businesses that purchase capital equipment and use it on Indian lands will be able to depreciate it, on average, more than 40 percent faster than would otherwise be allowed.

This tax provision is important to Oklahoma because of our longstanding history and unique relationship with Indian tribes. In light of the weak and ongoing economic recovery, we need to be doing all that we can to encourage businesses to reinvest in and expand their operations. This alone is what will create sustainable job growth.

The accelerated depreciation schedule helps do that by giving businesses the opportunity to recover investment dollars in capital assets more rapidly. This frees up capital and allows companies to reinvest that money more quickly than would have otherwise been possible. This is money that would have been tied up in the value of their capital assets, things like buildings, equipment, and machinery.

According to the Oklahoma Department of Commerce, 96 companies in Oklahoma announced $1.7 billion of investments during the 2009-2010 period, creating an estimated 10,500 jobs. The trickledown effect of these investments

is strong: 12,000 additional jobs and additional capital stock investments of over $200 million. Companies enjoyed at least $50 million in economic incentives as a direct result of the accelerated depreciation schedule.

The Oklahoma Department of Commerce has also reported that many companies attribute this provision as a key reason for relocating to and expanding within the State. One Oklahoma food processing plant manager recently stated that the credit was a significant factor in the company's decision to expand. Had the credit not been there, the business may not have expanded, and the unemployment rate would be worse than it is today.

The accelerated schedule is currently allowed, but the law states that it will expire at the end of this year. While the provision has typically been renewed each year, many business leaders have expressed concern that it is not permanent. I can understand why. As a former businessman myself, I understand the problem of unpredictability. More and more, unpredictability is the most serious concern I hear of from Oklahoma's business leaders. They are frustrated that many government policies, ranging from environmental regulations to the tax code, are changing so dramatically that they have no way of estimating how the new regulations will impact their businesses. How do you expect anyone to make investment decisions in that kind of environment? Businesses need stability, and this is particularly true during times of economic weakness. We in Congress should take this point seriously, and we can take a step in the right direction by making permanent this important tax provision. I urge swift passage.