Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I did not sign the conference report on this legislation. I did not do it for a number of the same reasons articulated by the Senator from Arizona.

There are some good provisions in this bill. It does increase the size of our military, the Army, Marines, Air Force, and the Navy. Specifically, it authorizes 30,000 new additional Army troops through fiscal years 2011 and 2012 but provides no funding, which means the Army is going to have to take it out of its hide somewhere else. This concerns me.

It does provide a pay raise. That is good. It improves TRICARE eligibility. It adds eight congressionally appointed members to the independent panel that will consider the Quadrennial Defense Review. That was a program of Senator Thune's. It does do that. That is good.

It provides $350 million to train and equip. Train and equip has been one of my favorite programs for a long period. It is one that we are getting the most out of right now. I am pleased that is in there. It also adds some funding for the new AFRICOM, African Command. It used to be divided into three different commands--the European command, the Pacific command and Central Command--but now it is in one. However, even though AFRICOM is good, and General Ward is doing a great job, it was not adequately funded in terms of resources. Now it is much better. We have extra funding in there.

Having said that, I would have to say that on modernization and the things I have been trying to do since I have been serving in this body and on the Armed Services Committee, military modernization has been kicked down the road. It seems all we ever do around here is take care of what is on fire at any given time.

President Obama said, in his February 2009 speech to a joint session, that he would push for removal of Cold War era equipment we do not need. I agree with that statement. That is not what this legislation does though. We are still using the Bradley fighting vehicle and the M1 Abrams tank, both developed in the 1970s and 1980s. The Army's Paladin howitzer was developed in the 1950s back when I was in the Army. We do have the Paladin Integrated Management, P.I.M., program to upgrade it but, nonetheless, there is no current modernization plan to replace that cannon. It terminates the C-17 program. Fortunately, we were able to get some things in Defense appropriations to correct that and add funding for additional C-17s. It terminates the F-22 program. I can remember when that program was first introduced. We were going to have some 900 aircraft. As it turned out, that was dropped down to 750 and has now been reduced to purchasing only the 187 aircraft already produced. Let's keep in mind that the F-22 is the only fifth-generation fighter we have, and other countries--China and Russia--are cranking theirs out now.

I think the worst part of this, though, was what they did to our missile defense system. The chart is complicated but it shows that during the boost phase, we have two capabilities--the airborne laser and the kinetic energy interceptor. Those were, for all practical purposes, terminated with this bill. That is the easiest and earliest phase to knock down an incoming missile, if you can get it during the boost phase. It cut down the number of missile interceptors in Alaska and California from 40 to 33. But to me the worst part is--and we have talked about this on the floor over and over--it eliminated our ground- based interceptor capability that was ongoing in Poland and the Czech Republic. I was there when this European plan was first being discussed.. I talked to the Polish Parliament as well as the Czech Parliament to encourage them to let us have that capability. I remember a member of the Parliament asked me: Are you sure that if we do this and take a controversial position in allowing an interceptor capability to take place, that America won't back down? I said: I am absolutely certain we won't. Obviously, we did back down. I am very much concerned about that. I wish there were time to go into it. There is not.

I will say this: We are pretty well protected with our capability, even though they decreased the number of interceptor missiles in Alaska and California in this legislation. But the interceptor missiles based in Alaska and California are intended to protect against missile threats from the west of the United States from Asia. Something coming from the East is a different situation. We needed this added capability and protection. I know the administration says that we already have the capability of knocking down a short and medium-range hostile missiles with our PATRIOT missiles, our THAAD system and our SM-3. The problem with that is, those systems do not adequately address the long-range missile threats from nations like Iran. Our intelligence says Iran is going to have a long-range missile capability by around 2015. If we had stayed with our program to have this capability in Poland and the Czech Republic in advance of that, we would have the capability of knocking down an ICBM coming toward the United States.

As it is now, we will not have until around 2020. If our intelligence estimate is right, that means we have a 5-year period, between 2015 and 2020, where we are pretty much naked on the east coast and Europe against long-range missile threats.

Let me ask, because I know there is another Senator who wants part of this time, how much time remains on our side?

I am very much concerned about some of the other things that have been approached in this legislation. One is the lack of testing capability for our existing stockpile of nuclear capability.

I am concerned about the additional money, some $560 million, to continue development and procurement of the alternate engine for the F- 25 Joint Strike Fighter. We debated this over and over again. The end result would be, if this continues in the way it is right now, it would eventually knock us down by about 50 F-35 aircraft. This is something that should not take place.

While this authorization bill does prohibit the Gitmo detainees coming into the United States, it does allow for detainees to be transferred into the United States 45 days after the President has submitted a plan to Congress. It does not say that Congress has to approve the plan, just that they must submit the plan to Congress. Anytime I look at what has happened and the capability we have there at Gitmo--and to think we would shut it down for no reason I have ever been able to determine--that is concerning.

The last thing I would mention is, if we look at our responsibility of defending America, we are down now to a very small percentage of GDP compared to where we have been in the past. During the gulf war, our defense spending was 4.6 percent. It was 6 percent during the buildup of the Reagan years. If this trend continues on the road we are on now, it would be at 3 percent of GDP by 2019.

I would only remind you, Mr. President, we went through this same thing back at the beginning of the Clinton administration. As this chart shows, this line right here is a baseline. The Clinton budget is the red line down there. So we are talking about a degradation of some $412 billion in that period of time.

On the heels of that--I remember so well the jubilant cries that: The cold war is over. We don't need a strong defense anymore. I see that same sentiment coming on the horizon. I am very much concerned about that.

For that reason, I will be opposing the vote we will be facing in a short period of time. There still is time to send this back to conference and get some of those things taken care of. I would encourage our colleagues to give us the opportunity to do that.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, last summer in my hometown of Tulsa, OK, when gasoline prices were near $4 a gallon, a person driving a compressed natural gas-powered car was able to fuel up for just 90 cents a gallon. This was when gasoline was at $4 a gallon. That was a savings of $3 a gallon. Consequently, I was the first in Congress to introduce a comprehensive bill to

promote the use of natural gas as a realistic alternative for the many Americans who were looking for price relief, which is about everybody. The bill I introduced was called the Drive America on Natural Gas Act.

A year later, I am encouraged to see that several Members on Capitol Hill have introduced similar bills promoting the use of natural gas and propane as transportation fuel. Last summer, I joined with Senator Pryor to once again introduce a comprehensive bill to promote these fuels for America's drivers. Additionally, majority leader Harry Reid recently announced his firm support for natural gas vehicles and hopes to bring a standalone bill to the floor in the near future. I welcome the majority leader's support and encourage him to make this a priority for floor consideration.

One of the major components of my Drive America on Natural Gas Act addressed a desperate need to overhaul the EPA emissions certification process which effectively prohibits the ability of nearly all car owners the option to legally convert cars to bifuel operation. Bifuel is a car that can run on natural gas and via the flip of a switch go to gasoline. Now, why? With certification and emissions testing expenses ranging between $50,000 and $150,000 per conversion system type, the costs are prohibitive for the aftermarket conversion system manufacturers to produce these systems for more than just a handful of different vehicle models each year. These heavy costs are ultimately borne by the consumer. Due to the rigidity and the cost constraints of these regulations, the EPA has issued less than 300 certificates over the past 8 years--that is 300 certificates over the past 8 years.

This is a solution to the high price and the fluctuating price of automobile gas. Now, oftentimes the vehicle models eligible for conversion are only sold for a short period of time since the certification lasts less than a year before a conversion system manufacturer must decide it will rectify that particular system.

Today, I am pleased to join Senator Wicker, Congressman Dan Boren from my State of Oklahoma, and Congressman Heath Shuler to introduce bipartisan, bicameral legislation to simplify and streamline the EPA emission certification process for aftermarket conversion systems.

The Streamline Alternative Fuel Vehicle Conversions Act makes critical changes in five key ways so that vehicle conversions can become a commonplace option for all Americans:

First, our bill eliminates the need for subsequent yearly recertification systems that have already been certified. I might add that the EPA is a friend in this effort. They want these changes to take place as much as we do, but they are not able to do this right now. Under the current law, you have to get recertified, so we eliminate that problem.

Secondly, the legislation directs the EPA to establish criteria that would cover several different yet similar makes and models under a single certification conformity.

Here is the problem. We have an organization in Tulsa that has a conversion system where they can actually change the fuel and refuel and they can change conversions into automobiles. The problem is, the way the law is today you have to get paid for this conversion each time. It might be the same engine that has already been converted before, but if it is in a different model, you have to convert it again. This is something we are going to be changing.

The third thing we change is to instruct the EPA to allow the submissions of previously tested data if a vehicle or the conversion system has not changed in a way which would affect compliance--very similar to the last problem, but nonetheless it is in the current law.

The fourth thing we would do is direct the EPA to promulgate regulations to help conversion system manufacturers comply with potentially different onboard diagnostics--which is called OBD-- requirements and compatibility. Since 1996, these onboard diagnostics systems have been required in all light-duty cars and trucks to monitor engine and emission components.

Finally, we clarify the treatment of vehicles which are beyond their useful life as defined by the EPA. These older vehicles, typically those that are at least 10 years old and have at least 125,000 miles, are by default regulated under the Clean Air Act's tampering provision, causing regulatory uncertainty. Our legislation would allow the conversion of these vehicles as long as the conversion system manufacturer for the converter is able to demonstrate that the emissions would not degrade due to conversion.

Over the past several months, this legislation has been through numerous drafting reiterations with the assistance of the Natural Gas Vehicles of America, the National Propane Gas Association, and the Environmental Protection Agency. As I said before, they have been very helpful to us. I especially thank the EPA for their input and assistance in helping us craft a bill which will aid the agency in their efforts to streamline their compliance. They actually want to streamline. This is not normally the case.

I am also encouraged by EPA's internal efforts to reform the process, and I am pleased that our bill will complement and enhance their actions.

By simplifying this compliance process, the Streamline Alternative Fuel Vehicle Conversion Act will not only incentivize conversion system manufacturers to offer more systems for additional vehicle makes and models but will eventually reduce the cost of these conversion systems for interested car owners, perhaps by hundreds or even thousands of dollars.

Ultimately, the legislation will allow Americans to choose whether propane- or natural-gas powered vehicles are right for their own individual and business needs while simultaneously preserving the country's stringent emission standards.

The promise of natural gas and propane as mainstream transportation fuels is achievable today--not 20 years from now or 25 years from now but today. It is something no one should be against. Stop and think about it. I know the price of gas is down to $3. In my State of Oklahoma, it is down to around $2 a gallon. But today's price for natural gas, a comparable gallon would be 90 cents, and that is one that would be stabilized. When we stop and think about the reserves that are out there in natural gas, what we can do and what is available for us today, it can only get better.

Hopefully, this bill will pass. I am very proud of the bipartisan support, the bicameral support. I encourage our colleagues to get involved in this very logical response to the high price of motor fuel.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized as in morning business.

Madam President, it was called to my attention a few minutes ago that our deadline for comments about Ted Kennedy is coming up tomorrow. I wanted to beat the deadline. I always wait until the last minute, it seems. One of the reasons I did is because there are so many things

people are not aware of, so I took the time to send to places such as Western Sahara and elsewhere to get documents that better explained a little bit more about who Ted Kennedy was than has already been stated on the floor of the Senate.

I have a good friend whose name is Mouloud Said. He is the Ambassador at Large of Western Sahara. He and I worked together for many years trying to bring some sanity into what has happened over the last 35 years in Western Sahara.

For the record, since people are not aware of this conflict that took place, back in 1975, the Moroccans invaded what was then called Spanish Sahara, later called Western Sahara. There were a lot of people chased out at that time. They fled. War ensued between 1975 and 1991. It continued during that time. When Morocco invaded that area that was later called Western Sahara, the refugees, the people who were living there who rightfully should be in that area, who should be living there today, were chased into Algeria. Tindouf is an area I have been to a couple times. The refugee camps there are so large. There are actually 175,000 refugees who were chased out of Western Sahara and have been wanting to be repatriated ever since then.

One of the former Secretaries of State, James Baker, was a hero in this area. He did the best he could to see that repatriation would take place. It seemed like every time they got close to working out something with Morocco, they would get right up to the altar and then they would cut it off. They would agree something should be done, but as they would come to agreement and get together, Morocco would back down. That took place for a long period of time.

You cannot be empathetic with the people who are there until you have walked through the little alleys and the stucco houses in Tindouf and see how these people are living, hearing their chants, their cries for freedom. Three generations now have been trying to escape, to be repatriated, and it hasn't worked.

I have a letter--I will read part of it--that ties Senator Kennedy and me to this issue. This is from Mouloud Said, who is Ambassador at Large of Western Sahara:

Indeed, this was precisely the case when Senator James

Inhofe and the late Senator Edward Kennedy reached across the

political aisle to jointly promote the cause of justice and

freedom in the Western Sahara, and respect for human rights

of the Sahrawi people. As recognized by the United Nations

Charter, the African Union, and the American Constitution,

all people have the inalienable right to freedom and self-

determination, and the Sahrawi people will be forever

indebted to these great Senators for their principled and

bipartisan stand on behalf of the Sahrawi's fundamental

rights.

That is what it is all about. We would see these people out there, and they had no one to take care of them. The Moroccans, they have friends. I have to say this: I testified probably 2 or 3 years ago at a House committee hearing. At that time, we made a list of all the lobbyists Morocco had hired. They had everybody. The money was all on one side, and only the Lord and a few people who were sympathetic to them were on the side of those people who have been living on the Algerian border for the last 35 years. That is what they are going through at this time. It is very sad.

I want to mention, talking about Ted Kennedy, how persistent he was. This goes all the way back to his involvement, back to the time when the war was still taking place. I have statements I am going to enter into the Record. They are not long. One goes back to October 1, 1992, a ``Statement by Senator Edward M. Kennedy at Senate Foreign Relations Africa Subcommittee Hearing on the Western Sahara.'' He goes through and tells the story of what he has attempted to do, and he had not been able to successfully get it done. The same as with James Baker and myself.

January of 1994, ``Statement by Edward M. Kennedy in Support of Amendment Promoting Implementation of Peace Plan in Western Sahara.'' January of 1994, we thought at that time we had it done. Again, an arrangement was made. It was agreed to by all parties until they got together.

June 23, 1999, ``Senator Kennedy Calls for Greater Progress in the Western Sahara Referendum.'' A referendum is all they want. They want self-determination. They want to be able to vote as to whether they want to be repatriated, which is something we in America would assume everybody has that right. But that is not the situation.

Senator Kennedy, again, went to battle to help them in June 23, 1999, and was not able to get it done.

Then, again, in 2000, he actually offered amendments for holding referendums in Western Sahara.

Later in that same year, he appealed to King Mohammed VI of Morocco to give these people a chance, at least, of self-determination. He was unable to get that done.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these documents.

Madam President, let me conclude by saying that other things were happening too. When you think about countries, I often said Africa is the forgotten continent. I can remember so well back when they were talking about taking our troops into Bosnia and then later Kosovo, the excuse they were using--this is back in the Clinton administration--they were saying it was ethnic cleansing taking place there. I said on the Senate floor standing at this podium--this is way back in the late nineties--I said for every person who has been ethnically cleansed in Bosnia, there are hundreds on any given day in any Western Africa country. But people did not care about it. Senator Kennedy did.

I know this is a little bit sensitive subject, but even to this day, right now, every other week, there is a group of people, staff people, who get together. They have nothing in common except a heart for Africa. There are liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. They meet every other week, in Senator Kennedy's office and then in my office, and they pray for Africa. This is something about Senator Kennedy people did not know. That is something that takes place even to this date.

I have a letter written recently by Lindsey Gilchrist of Senator Kennedy's office:

I know Senator Kennedy and Senator Inhofe had always been

thought of as the bipartisan leaders on this issue. The

Africa prayer group was not something Senator Kennedy was

directly involved in [or Senator Inhofe]--

But they have stimulated and motivated us to do this very thing. That was one of the things that occupied 20 years of Senator Kennedy's time. I feel committed to continuing to work with the people of Western Sahara to try to make that a reality. When that happens, we are going to be able to say--he will be watching down: All right, we finally did it.

Let me share a couple personal experiences I had with Senator Kennedy. One is a little bit humorous. In 2005, the Republicans were in the majority. I was chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We did the 2005 transportation reauthorization bill. It was a huge thing. I am a conservative, but this is something we need to be doing in this country, something about infrastructure.

As is always the custom of the Senate, as the Chair is well aware, when we pass a big bill, we stand on the floor and thank all the staff people and talk about the significance of it and how important it is.

We had just passed the bill when I was getting ready to make my speech about what a great job we did when the

bells went off. They said: Bomb threat, bomb threat; evacuate, evacuate. Everybody started running. I had not made my speech yet, so I stood up. It is kind of eerie when you are the only person in the Capitol and giving a speech. Of course, there was nobody here, and the cameras were still going.

I remember, after finishing my speech, I looked down at the bottom of the stairs and saw a very large man walking out. I went down and I said: Ted, we better get out; this place might blow up.

He said: Well, Jim, these old legs don't work like they used to.

I said: Let me help you. It happened, by the way, this was right after the American Conservative Union came out with the ratings where I was the No. 1 most conservative Member of the Senate and he was the second from the most liberal Member of the Senate. I said: Let me help you. I put my arm around his waist and he put his arm around my arm. Someone took a picture. It ended up on the front page of a magazine. The caption was: ``Who Says Conservatives are Not Compassionate?'' That is the kind of relationship we had. I will always remember this.

He did things that people are not expected to do. There was a show-- they don't have it on television anymore--called ``Crossfire.'' Some might remember that. It was an aggressive program, where you get two people debating each other on an issue. The issue that particular day-- this was back in 2000--was Vieques. Vieques is an island off Puerto Rico. They were trying to shut it down. They were successful. I don't blame it on the Democrats or Republicans. President Bush went along with Al Gore and closed down the live range at Vieques, which was the only place the Navy and marines could do integrated training.

I was actually debating Bobby Kennedy--he was his nephew--on the ``Crossfire'' show. It was one of these things where I really knew the issue. I knew I had him on this debate. It came down to the end, and I could have put the knife in at that time. I didn't have the heart to do it.

I was sitting, Madam President, where you are sitting the next day, presiding over the Senate, and Ted Kennedy came up. He said: Well, Jim, I came up to say thank you.

Thank you for what?

He said: I was watching this debate you had last night, and I knew what you were thinking and I knew that you had won this thing and right at the last you could have inflicted great harm to Bobby. You elected not to do it. I want to tell you I appreciate it very much.

That was Senator Kennedy.

There are things still going on today to which he committed his life. We are going to win some of those, and we are going to rejoice when that happens. He will be right here with us.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak as in morning business.

It is my understanding that we have someone coming down wanting to speak, but there are a couple of things I wanted to mention.

First of all, when the Senator from South Dakota talks about health care reform, there are some things we can do for health care reform that we have promoted for quite some time. Certainly, medical malpractice is very significant. It is a huge cost. Defensive costs are a very large part of our health care costs. HSAs came into being a few years ago, and we have pilot programs where they--let's keep in mind, health care is the only product or service in America that I know of where there is no encouragement to shop around. Well, if you have HSAs, this is encouragement because if you spend less, you can enjoy the benefits of that; that is, put that into other programs. So I think there are some things we can do.

The second thing I would say about the subject that was covered very well by the Senator from South Dakota is that we don't know for sure what is going to be in the bill that comes out, but we do know this: Speaker Pelosi, over on the House side, has said that any bill that comes out of conference is going to have a government option. So they can masquerade it, they can talk about co-ops, they can talk about all of these things; we are going to eventually get something that comes out of conference and it is going to have a government option. That is, some people would say, socialized medicine. You can't compete with the government and have a system that has delivered the benefits our system has.

Cap and Trade

Secondly, the Senator from South Dakota could just as well be talking about another piece of legislation that is up right now; that is, the cap-and-trade bill. It is another one that has the same thing where you do not know the blanks.

Last Wednesday, there was a news conference by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, and the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, and they gave this program--they talked about this new kind of cap and trade, but they did not give any specifics. Nothing that was in there was specific in terms of where is the cap, how does the trading take place, how does the rationing take place.

The bottom line is this, though: Anything that has to do with any kind of cap and trade is going to be at least--at least--a $300 billion annual tax increase. That was true back as long ago as the late 1990s when the Kyoto bill was up. We had the Kyoto bill; they did a study on this thing; it was done by the Wharton School of Economics. They said that the cost of this, if we were to comply with the restrictions of that treaty, would be somewhere between $300 and $330 billion a year. To put that into perspective, because sometimes it is confusing when you are talking about billion dollars and trillions of dollars, I remember the largest tax increase that was a general tax increase was back in 1993 in the Clinton-Gore White House, and it was $32 billion. So this would be 10 times that amount.

So we have had several bills in the Senate since that time, and I would only say this: This is a different debate. It is going to come up and we are going to have a chance to talk about it. But the bottom line is that the Administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, a very fine person, a person who was appointed by President Obama, made the statement that if we were to pass the Waxman-Markey bill, something like that, sign it into law, it wouldn't have the effect of reducing CO2 at all. The reason is very obvious: We would only be doing that here in the United States.

Amendment No. 2566 to H.R. 3326

Lastly, I did want to make one comment about a couple of votes that are going to come up, or at least one vote that is coming up at 3:45 today. My junior Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, has an amendment. It is an excellent amendment. It is one I will support, although I have to say that I was tempted not to because I would only like to start the ball rolling, that if this body is willing to redefine what an earmark is, we could be unanimous on this side. An earmark should be an appropriation without authorization. This has been a 200-year fight between authorizers and appropriators, and if we will get to the point where we will accept the fact that if something has gone through the scrutiny of an authorization--the highway bill is a good example of this. We have 30 criteria in that authorization bill. We come up with criteria to determine how much should be spent in different categories. And on the floor, there are always things coming up that did not go through the authorization process, and therefore I would call those earmarks.

So I would only say this: In the amendment Senator Coburn has, it is going to address some 55 that are called earmarks, of which 6 were authorized. I would like to be able to take those six out. I don't know whether we can do that. It would be very difficult to do prior to the vote.

But nonetheless, for future reference, if we are going to talk about earmarks, I think we need to define what an earmark is. It is an appropriation that has not been authorized. That is the thing we need to get after, and that will be one of my new wars I am starting.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2618. I send a modification to the desk for its consideration. It would not require a rollcall vote.

Mr. President, back in August of 2008 there was a directive that we should try to privatize as many of the Army Corps as possible. All this does is say, before any more are privatized, the Army should have to certify that--two things--it would not increase the cost or negatively impact national security. It has been cleared on both sides. I urge its adoption.

I reserve the right to object. Let me inquire as to what is pending now.

I object.

Madam President, it is my understanding the Senator from Louisiana is going to be the next speaker, but I ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of her remarks that the Senator from Georgia be recognized, and that I be recognized after him.

Madam President, let me first comment on the comments made by the Senator from Georgia, because I was privileged to be in Afghanistan several years ago with the Oklahoma 45th, which actually took a great responsibility in the training over there and also turning over some of the training to the Afghans. They have done a good job, but as the Senator pointed out, this takes resources and it takes equipment and it takes money. I applaud him and join him in this effort to provide the resources necessary to make that happen.

Let me make a couple of comments. We will have some amendments coming up concerning the C-17. I wish to share maybe an opposing view to some of the things we have heard. I was deeply distressed, I guess it was in April, when we got the defense portion of the President's budget and the termination of such programs as the F-22, next generation bombers, the Future Combat System, and particularly doing away with our commitment to Poland and the Czech Republic to have an opportunity there to knock down a missile, an ICBM coming to the United States from Iran, when we know they should be having that capability by around 2015.

Today I want to mention a couple of things about the C-17. The Air Force budget justification documents state:

The C-17 can perform the entire spectrum of airlift

missions and is specifically designed to operate effectively

and efficiently in both strategic and theater environments.

I can remember when the first C-17 came in. The training takes place actually in my State of Oklahoma at Altus Air Force Base, and in 1995, it was the spring of 1995, the first C-17 swept into Altus Air Force Base. At that time the chief was General Fogleman, and I was honored to accompany him and actually sit in the right seat and see what this new spectacular airplane was.

We never dreamed at that time we would have the use of the C-17 to the extent we did in Bosnia and Kosovo, missions we did not dream at that time we would have to be confronted with.

Every time you watch the news or see a disaster or emergency of some type anywhere in this Earth where our military is involved, you are going to see the C-17. The country and its military must be able to engage globally, and the C-17 enables that engagement.

In my 22 years on the Hill, I have seen our airlift requirements increase, not decrease. I have had experience. Sometimes you talk about a system, a platform such as the C-17. Our dealing

with that doesn't happen in a vacuum. Right now we have other lift vehicles. We have the C-130s, better ones, the C-130Js and the C-130Es, which are getting old and outdated. I actually had two experiences on two of my trips coming into and out of Baghdad. One experience was when we actually lost not one engine but two engines. We are talking about some pretty old, beat-up E models that should not be flying right now.

The very next trip, I remember, was the first trip of our recently retired Senator from Florida when we actually received some SAM activity. We had to fire the flares. The reason we did, it was 8 minutes after taking off from Baghdad and the engines should have had us out of SAM's range. However, the E models are getting old and tired. So it is life threatening. I say that even though I am here to talk about C-17s.

We can absorb a lot of deficiencies we have in other areas by increasing our number of C-17s. Currently it is the only aircraft capable of performing every airlift mission, whether ferrying troops and supplies to remote airfields overseas or returning wounded servicemembers back home.

The Congressional Research Service has indicated that the C-17 was designed to fly 1,000 hours a year over 30 years. However, as our overseas commitments have grown since 2001, the fleet has averaged 1,250 hours per year instead of 1,000 hours a year. Some aircraft have even reached as high as 2,400 hours in a single year.

A November 2008 GAO study stated the C-17:

--production line is currently scheduled to close in

September 2010 with the supplier base and portions of the

line closing sooner.

The study concludes that:

Analysis indicates that once closed it would not be

feasible or cost effective to restart the production due to

the costs for hiring and training a new workforce,

reinstalling tooling, and reestablishing the supply base.

That is what the study concluded. The GAO estimates that restarting the line could cost up to $1 billion.

This is something we are always concerned with when you talk about altering the life of a particular platform, but this is one I don't see how we can get along without. I know we have the C-5. I remember the old C-141--a lot of lift capacity--a lot of tired C-130s, but the prize of all these capabilities is the C-17. While the administration objects to funding 10 additional C-17s based on 205 C-17s and the existing fleet of C-5 aircraft, the Air Force has cut the number of C-5s it plans to fully modernize by more than half because of substantial cost increases in the modernization efforts. In testimony to the House Armed Services Committee in May of 2009, the Air Force said it will fully modernize only 52 of the 40-year-old C-5s.

While we are upgrading some of these aircraft, some of these, specifically the C-5A, had to be retired. However, this Congress, by bill language, is preventing the Air Force from retiring any of the C- 5s. In terms of cost, the GAO calculated ``the DOE would need to fully modernize 7 C-5s to obtain the equivalent capability achieved from acquiring 1 C-17 and the costs would be 3 times more.''

It found the unit cost of modernizing one C-5 is $132 million, while the unit cost of one new C-17 is $267 million.

To put it another way, it would take seven modernized C-5s to provide the capability equivalent to one new C-17, or $924 million worth of work on modernizing the C-5 to provide the capability equivalent to procuring one additional new C-17 at $276 million. I am hoping when this issue does come up we will have a chance to think that through.

I would say this: Even if we were inclined to do that, to go along with the smaller number, it would seem to me that we should not be doing that until we have the Quadrennial Defense Review and the upcoming Mobility Capability and Requirements Study. It is my understanding these would come sometime early in 2010. I suggest we at least wait until we have the benefit of that report before taking such drastic action.

Let me mention one other thing that happened last night, for clarification. At midnight last night the highway program of the American people suffered a major loss because of a calculated decision that politics should trump common sense.

I have often thought that congressional inaction is a good thing sometimes, but in this case we failed miserably to do our job. As a result, we are unable to pass the 3-month extension of the highway program that Senator Boxer and I were pushing. It is very interesting when you have a combination such as that. Senator Boxer is a very proud liberal Democrat, I am a very proud conservative Republican, and we both agree one of the major functions of government is infrastructure, and right now we have a crumbling infrastructure. So our failure to work together to fix the rescission, which was $8.7 billion of highway money, before midnight yesterday has resulted in the following: Up to 17,000 jobs could be lost because States may be forced to cancel $500 million worth of projects. We are now stuck with a 30-day extension that cuts highway spending by 25 percent compared to 2009. The 3-month extension would have funded the 2010 equal to 2009.

The short length of this extension is now going to create uncertainty and erratic funding for States that are going to delay projects and gear down the letting of contracts.

I have to say this, too. There will be contracts, due to this 25- percent reduction, that are going to have to be defaulted. There are going to be lawsuits. There will be all kinds of problems that will result from this. It is not just my State of Oklahoma. I am sure the State of Alabama and other States have a crumbling infrastructure that needs to be addressed.

I was on the phone with Gary Ridley, who was our highway director for many years, and I always said he was the best highway director in the country. He is now Oklahoma's transportation secretary. He gave me the impact of our failure to act, just on my State of Oklahoma. He said we would normally receive $53.6 million of Federal money but instead are likely only to receive $36 million. That is the 25-percent reduction. They have a $28 million bond obligation which leaves them only about $8 million for letting projects, instead of $26 million. This means that they will likely only be able to let three or four projects in November, the first letting of the year, and probably none in December. That is my guess. That was his guess.

Here is the real-world impact of what we do here. This will be devastating for construction workers in Oklahoma and will be repeated in every State. This may come as a surprise to those in the other body who have said that this will have no effect on States. They are the ones over there in the House who have made it impossible for us to send something over there and get it complied with. I have been trying to pass a long-term extension with rescission fix since July. At that time opposition from Congressmen and Senators from both sides of the aisle prevented taking care of the problem.

Our attempts to set a prudent length for highway extension has been plagued by some people's unrealistic expectation that we can complete a 6-year transformational highway bill and plug a $150 billion shortfall in the next 3 months if we ``keep the pressure'' on. We do not even have the 3 months now, as of midnight last night. We are looking at 30 days, so it obviously cannot be done. We may have to repeat what we did a few years ago. Between the years of 2003 and 2005 we had a series of short-term extensions where you can't do any funding, planning in advance. That is kind of where we are today.

I was proud to be the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee in 2005 when we had a very robust transportation reauthorization bill.

Taking up an extension is always problematic. Unfortunately, some view this as an opportunity to make a point. There are those on my side of the aisle who will not hesitate to hold the entire highway program hostage in order to enumerate yet again their distaste for congressionally directed spending on highway projects. At the same time, the majority leadership has known for months this was coming but was unable to force the issue and take the time to have votes on this important issue. This could have been resolved weeks ago if they had been invested in it.

Fixing the rescission would increase the deficit by just under $500 million.

This is very significant. The other body wanted an offset for this, and they were right. So did I. I wanted an offset. I think the most reasonable offset is the unused stimulus funds. I have stated all along that there was not enough there in the stimulus bill to actually stimulate the economy. In fact, I had amendments during the debate on the stimulus bill that would almost triple the amount of money that would go into highway construction. Those are real jobs. That would be very meaningful. But according to CBO's most recent analysis that was done a month ago, only $85 billion of stimulus funds has actually been spent. Furthermore, less than 60 percent of the stimulus funds has even been obligated, leaving $150 billion in unobligated balances.

Money being unobligated means they do not have a plan for how they are going to spend it and are now nowhere near doing so.

This is clearly not stimulating the economy. It makes sense to move a fraction of this money to something that will actually save jobs--in this case, 17,000 jobs we can identify. It is something that would stimulate the economy and give us something at the end of the day for our money. It is a perfect source to pay for fixing the rescission.

In fact, Senator Vitter's approach from last July was to actually give President Obama's OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, the discretion to pick which stimulus funds would be cut. So he did not care which ones were cut; just we need to put these stimulus funds to work to create jobs. So they couldn't cut the things that were not working or were just congressional pet programs. This is simply cutting the worst 1 percent of the stimulus--something everybody should be able to agree to whether or not you voted for the stimulus, which I did not. But the other side blocked this approach in a show of partisanship. So Senator Boxer and I brokered a bipartisan agreement to use TARP funds, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. To me, this made sense because this would have offset the amount of money that would be lost in the rescission fix, as a way of doing it, and it would have actually taken care of the problem.

Some people thought this would have somehow affected the deficit, but it would not. It meant we would reduce TARP authority by $8.7 billion, which would reduce the deficit by $4.35 billion, according to CBO. Putting aside politics, penciling this out shows that $4.35 billion in deficit reduction, minus the cost of the rescission--$500 million-- means a deficit savings of just under $4 billion. I thought this was a good thing. We would preserve up to 17,000 jobs and reduce the deficit--clearly a win-win solution, I thought. I thought this up until late last night because I thought we were going to be able to do it. But there were objections.

We reduced funding for a program that was a bad idea from the inception. I opposed it initially. We are talking about TARP. I voted against it. A lot of those people who are complaining about the amount of money being spent voted for a $700 billion bailout, as it has been referred to. But I did not. I opposed it. Some people supported it, thinking the government buying so-called toxic assets was necessary. But then, when this money was given to unaccountable bureaucrats, it was used for buying insurance companies, car companies, and bailing out banks.

But some of my conservative colleagues opposed this approach because they want to use TARP money for debt reduction. I agree with that. As I pointed out, the compromise Senator Boxer and I were pushing would have resulted in a net reduction of the deficit of about $4 billion.

Even as I say this, I honestly don't understand their opposition. Those who talk about using TARP funds were willing to stimulate the funds, but the Democrats refused to do that. So we came up with another idea: Let's go ahead and use stimulus funds. If we used stimulus funds, I tought that would have overcome the objections that were on the floor last night, and I thought that was a good idea. Unfortunately, the Democrats did not want to do that.

So I think we have tried. I think it kind of demonstrates that it is a serious problem. We had a fix, and the Republicans and the Democrats were equally responsible for not getting it. Now we are going to pay the price. I don't know that the problem is worse in Oklahoma. It is probably not. It is about the same throughout the Nation. But speaking now as a conservative, one who is always ranked in the top two or three conservatives, I have always felt conservatives can be big spenders in some areas. One is defending America, as I talked about a few minutes ago, and the other is in our infrastructure. That is a function our government is supposed to perform.

So I think we failed last night. Hopefully, we will find some way to overcome this problem and get back on track.

I thank Senator Boxer and Secretary LaHood. They both tried very hard. We talked and worked for many hours. There are countless others on both sides of the aisle who worked together and tried to fix this problem. We didn't do it. Let's hope we can do it shortly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first of all, let me thank the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee--a position I held at one time, but I am the ranking member for the minority. This is a huge issue. This is one we cannot let go unattended. Tonight at midnight this thing expires. So we have to do it. Let me compliment Senator Boxer in being willing to go to some extremes that, quite frankly, I did not know she would be able to agree to.

What is at stake right now is about $500 million of projects that will have to be canceled. If you cancel these projects--these contracts have already been let--we are talking about lawsuits. We are talking about around 17,000 jobs being lost unless we are able to fix this recision thing and to get it offset. Well, that is what is going to happen.

We are drafting an amendment right now. I know the hour is late. I know we are going to come back for a vote at 6:30. But I think this absolutely has to be done, and I think it will be done. I am looking right now for any of the Republicans who might be objecting to this so I can talk to them. Quite frankly, I do not think there will be objection on our side.

The highway money at risk would put people to work, unlike much of the so-called stimulus. So I think we have an opportunity now to do this, and it is only going to be done because of the cooperation between the chairman of this committee and myself as ranking member.

So let's do everything we can. I say to the Senator, I think you have come up with a solution. We have, together, come up with a solution. Let's make it happen.

Mr. President, I only want to be here to thank the Senator from Alaska and Senator Thune for trying to bring to our attention the issue of the endangerment findings. I have been discussing the incoming economic train wreck that can result from these regulations since the case of Massachusetts v. EPA was decided back in 2007. The EPA's regulatory reach could go everywhere. It could go into schools, hospitals, assisted-living facilities, and just about any activity that meets the minimum thresholds of the Clean Air Act.

Despite the attempts to draft an exemption for small businesses by the senior Senator from California, this effort would be hollow at best. Upon issuance of mobile source regulations the EPA has proposed in its light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards, the farmers and small sources still retain the obligation under the Clean Air Act, and this obligation is enforceable through citizen suits which we have confirmed through environmental groups will follow. So we know that is going to happen.

I would have to say, as the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, the more we get into this, the more complications we find. In the process of coming up with some type of an endangerment finding, we find that the information science has been suppressed. We know of the case of Dr. Alan Carlin, who claims his assessment of the latest science on global warming wasn't considered in the endangerment proposal. So we have the endangerment proposal. And some people are not aware of how this process works; that ultimately, if the findings are there, that is when they reach into every life in America. However, this Dr. Carlin has been with the EPA for a long period of time, and he was upset that his information was intentionally suppressed.

Then we find out that information concerning the economics, such as we found through the U.S. Treasury's assessment when they were trying to say, during the consideration of, perhaps this modified bill that it would be the cost of a postage stamp a day, that in fact it would have been some $1,761 per family every year--we tried to relate that back to what kind of a tax increase this is. If you remember back in the year 1993, we had the Clinton-Gore tax increase--the largest tax increase in decades. It was the inheritance tax, marginal rates, capital gains, and every kind of tax imaginable. If you add all that up, that was a $32 billion tax increase. This would be almost 10 times that much.

So I think, as we progress along the lines of the endangerment finding, we know how it will be life changing for every element of our society. So I appreciate the efforts of both Senator Murkowski and Senator Thune to bring this issue of endangerment findings to the forefront. I am not sure it is the best idea to try to get a 1-year moratorium because in a way that might suppress some of the activity that is going on to expose how bad this is to the public.

Having said that, I appreciate being yielded a small amount of time, and I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2549

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

Madam President, let me thank the Senator from California for allowing me to go first in this group that I am sure will appear down here to talk in morning business.

As the cap and trade continues to languish in the Senate, President Obama is trying to salvage international climate change talks that are on the brink of collapse. So he gave a

climate change speech at the United Nations, hoping to inspire hope in the process marred by failure. His speech, however, fell short of expectations, offering only to talk of rising sea levels and climate refugees, sort of resurrecting things that have been refuted in the old Gore speeches.

President Obama's speeches have been delivered against a backdrop of confusion and disagreement in the international community over climate change. The European Union is angry that the Senate is stalling cap and trade. China and India refuse to accept binding emissions cuts. The New York Times admits that global temperatures ``have been stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.'' In other words, we are actually in a cooling period right now, maybe not as dramatic as the one I recall back so well in 1975, when they said another ice age is coming, nonetheless it is cooler. We are not involved in global warming right now.

He was addressing the global economic recession that has taken precedence over climate change in countries throughout the world. This global economic recession is one that has captured the interest of the people all over the world and has them looking to see: Is this science really there that they were talking about, going all the way back to the late 1990s and the Kyoto treaty? This is deja vu all over again. These are some of the same issues that have stymied climate talks ever since Kyoto.

We were told all rancor and disagreement would evaporate once the new administration assumed power in the United States. After all, the failure to achieve an international climate pact was simply George Bush's fault. President Obama would bring change and the ability to persuade the likes of China and India to transcend their national self- interest for the global good. That has not happened and is not going to happen.

I was surprised President Obama failed to define what success will mean in Copenhagen, so I will have to do it for him. From the standpoint of the Senate, success will not mean a vague, open-ended commitment on the emissions from India or China, the world's leading emitter. Success can only mean that China and other developing countries agree to mandatory emission cuts comparable to those required in America and that any treaty or agreement that did not avoid causing harm to our economy would not be acceptable. Unless those conditions are met, no such treaty or agreement will be approved by the Senate.

I remember the Senate resoundingly rejected exempting developing nations such as China way back in 1997. That is still alive today. It passed 94 to 0. It said we will not agree to any treaty. At that time, Vice President Gore had signed the Kyoto treaty. They were trying to encourage us to ratify that treaty. President Clinton never brought it to the floor. It is because we had spoken loudly and clearly with a unanimous vote in the Senate that said we are not going to ratify anything that either doesn't force the developing countries such as India and China to have the same requirements as we have or that hurts us economically. That is the position--it was then and is today--of the U.S. Senate. I think that still commands support in the Senate. Any treaty the Obama administration submits must meet that resolution.

We hear that China is making progress in reducing emissions and that the administration will persuade China to agree to more aggressive steps in Copenhagen.

By the way, that is where they have the annual meeting, the big bash the United Nations puts on. I went to one of those back in about 2003, I guess it was, in Milan, Italy.

The administrations's climate change envoy, Todd Stern, is saying something different. On September 2--he is the person from the Obama administration--on September 2, he said: ``It is not possible to ask China for an absolute reduction below where they are right now'' because, as he said, ``they are not quite at that point to be able to do that. And, in that respect, developing countries are different''-- totally violating the intent of the 1997 agreement that this Senate had.

This is the first time someone from the administration has said let's treat developing countries different from developed countries.

Let me restate a bit. Stern is saying China simply can't make reductions that would be comparable to anything the United States accepts domestically. This is not a surprise considering China is now the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide while U.S. emissions have remained relatively stagnant. Make no mistake here, China is unapologetic for its refusal to accept binding emissions cuts, and it will pursue an all-of-the-above strategy, including burning coal as it deems necessary; all of the above: oil, gas, coal, nuclear; they are very big in nuclear over there.

China also stated that before it accepts absolute, binding emissions reductions, developing countries must reduce their emissions by at least 40 percent by 2020.

Let me say that again. China won't accept absolute reductions until developing countries--that is, the United States, including the United States--reduce their emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. This is really astounding considering that the Waxman-Markey bill only calls for a 14-percent reduction and they are saying they expect us to have a 40-percent reduction.

Accepting the Chinese position would mean certain economic disaster for the United States, for jobs and businesses--not to mention emissions--going to China.

Over the coming days and weeks, we will hear much about China's national mitigation plan, its 5-year plan to reduce emissions. We will hear stern warnings that China is outpacing the United States on clean energy. But this is a smokescreen to hide the chaos and failure of international climate change negotiations.

In the coming weeks, President Obama will reach some sort of bilateral agreement with China on climate change, but it won't require China to do anything other than business as usual. We have gone through this before. I can understand China's position. If I were in China, in that government, I would say the same thing. I would say: Let's go ahead and let's get the developed nations to have some kind of reductions so that will move manufacturing jobs to us, to China. I have to say this about the new Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, in her honesty the other day in a public hearing--I asked her the question: If we were to pass one of these bills where we unilaterally pass something in the United States, like Waxman-Markey, if we did that, would that have any reduction in worldwide reductions in CO2? She said no, it would not have any effect. Obviously, it wouldn't.

Anyway, you could argue that if we were to pass Waxman-Markey, it would have the effect of increasing worldwide emissions because our manufacturing base would go to countries where they didn't have any emission requirements.

So, in the final analysis, President Obama's speech to the United Nations was a failure to define success, a failure to provide real solutions for international energy security, and a failure to sketch the outlines of a meaningful international climate change agreement that will pass the Byrd-Hagel test of 1997.

I think surely after the August recess, after so many people were beaten up on the fact that they did not want to have any type of a government-run health system, they certainly did not want to pass something that would be a cap and trade that would have the effect of providing the largest single tax increase in the history of America, a tax increase in the range of $300 to $366 billion a year.

I can remember back when we passed that very large tax increase in 1993. It was called the Clinton-Gore tax increase. It increased the marginal rates, increased capital gains, it increased the death tax, all of the other taxes. I was pretty upset about it at that time. I talked on the Senate floor. I said that was a $32 billion tax increase. This would be 10 times that size. So I do not think it is going to happen. This commission will listen to the speeches between now and Copenhagen. I plan to make a few myself.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, Jones Academy was founded over 100 years ago, in 1891, on the site of an earlier school operated by the Choctaw Nation. Its sister institution was the Wheelock Academy for Girls, founded earlier than Jones and providing an academic curriculum for girls. Both programs were federally funded through the Office of Indian Affairs--later renamed the Bureau of Indian Affairs--with many private and tribal donations.

Until 1950, the situation worked. While the Bureau of Indian Affairs technically ran the school, the relative isolation of the school and the constant presence of a large Indian Tribe meant that the children at Jones Academy received an education adequate for their academic and personal needs. In 1952, the Federal Government instituted the termination policy. In 1953, the BIA approached the Public School District of Hartshorne, OK. They offered to close the academic programs for Jones Academy and totally close Wheelock Academy. The children were to be bused to Hartshorne School District, in exchange for local public education of these children. The school district agreed, provided they continued to receive Johnson-O'Malley payments as well as impact aid payments for Indian students. Over tribal objections, this arrangement was instituted and Jones Academy became a dormitory-only program. It has remained such for 45 years.

An agreement between the Choctaw Nation and the Hartshorne School District was reached in 2003 to allow children in the lowest grades, 1- 6, to attend classes on campus, at Jones Academy, thus receiving better support and avoiding lengthy busing. As part of this agreement, and to assist the children through better programs, the Choctaw Nation has constructed and equipped state-of-the-art facilities, and it did so without any Federal assistance. In recent years, the programs at Jones Academy School site have won numerous awards for being one of Oklahoma's highest achieving schools.

However, the Choctaw Nation is not able to implement control over the Jones Academy program or exercise self determination as other tribes do. They wish to do so, as a normal extension of Jones' recent success and the Choctaw Nation's desire to improve continuously. This can only be done if the tribe is allowed to actually operate Jones Academy academic program under its own policies and programs, reflecting its push for excellence.

Because of a moratorium enacted in 1995, which prevents any tribal school from receiving Federal academic program support for any program not operated at that school, the Jones Academy is prevented from reestablishing their programs and entering the Federal grant schools system. This moratorium was originally enacted as a ``temporary'' halt to changes to allow the BIA time to develop and institute a new construction and facilities system. However, the moratorium has been continued as a provision of the law.

My Oklahoma colleague in the House, Mr. Boren, has been working on this issue, and the House committee report accompanying the proposed fiscal year 2010 Interior appropriations bill contains language to address the issue in the form of a BIA study. I support the inclusion of this language and support the prompt completion of the study. I support the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and Chief Pyle on this issue.

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

I ask when the majority would then be recognized?

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Madam President, as we speak, there is an announcement coming from the White House, it is my understanding, that they are going to cancel the Eastern European sites we have been working on for such a long period of time. I think it is appropriate to quote something I saw many years ago and was foreseen by President Reagan when he was President. He said:

Since the dawn of the atomic age, we have sought to reduce

the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by

seeking genuine arms control. Deterrence: Making sure the

adversary who thinks about attacking the United States or our

allies or our vital interests concludes that the risks to him

outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he

won't attack. We maintain the peace through our strength;

weakness only invites aggression.

I wish people today would understand those words of Ronald Reagan quite some time ago and how prophetic they were as we look right now and see the administration is talking about canceling this program.

I arranged to be in Afghanistan at the time Secretary of Defense Gates announced the budget, I believe last February, the Obama budget, so far as defense was concerned. I was very much concerned. I was concerned about what happened to the F-22. Initially, we were going to have the only fifth-generation fighter that this country has. We, initially, were going to have 750 of them. He terminated the program at 187.

I was concerned about the termination of the C-17 program. I was concerned about the termination of the Future Combat System. The Future Combat System is the only ground system that has gone through a major change in probably 50 or 60 years. So we will not have that improved ground capability for our young men and women who go into harm's way.

Also, I made the comment that I suspected at that time, when he suspended the radar site in the Czech Republic and the interception capability in Poland, that that was easing into terminating that program. I think we are finding out today he is terminating that program.

On February 3, 2009, Iran launched a satellite, on the 30th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. On July 9 of 2008, Iran tested nine missiles, including the Shahab-3, which has a range of 1,240 miles.

I recognize the threat to Western Europe--this wouldn't quite do it. It is 1,240 miles. I think the range in order to be able to get something to Italy would be about 2,000 miles.

On the other hand, we never guess these things right. I remember so well, in 1998, the Clinton administration made a statement in response to a question I asked on August 14, 1998: How long will it be until they have the multiple-stage capability in North Korea? The White House responded it was going to be between 10 and 15 years. Seven days later, on August 13, 1998, they fired it.

This is how far off we are in our intelligence. We don't know. I don't want to guess this thing too close. Riki Ellison from the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance said:

The Islamic Republic of Iran has just proved for the first

time that it has the capability to place satellites in space

by successfully launching a 3-stage liquid fueled rocket that

has placed two objects in low-Earth orbit. . . .Iran has

demonstrated the key technologies of propulsion, staging, and

guidance to deliver a weapon of mass destruction globally.

I am hoping the White House doesn't come out and say that is launching a satellite. It is the same technology, launching a nuclear warhead. This is getting very serious right now. The U.S. intelligence community has estimated Iran may have long-range ballistic missiles capable of threatening all of Western Europe and the United States by 2015.

Madam President, 2015, that sounds reminiscent of August of 1998, when they said it would be 10 to 15 years. Delaying this creates all kinds of problems for us. Our credibility in Eastern Europe is something that bothers me. I was recently in the Czech Republic. President Vaclav Klaus--they were cooperative in saying yes. The Parliament debated it and decided we could put a radar site there which would allow us to see something coming in; otherwise, we would not be able to do it. Then, next door in Poland, to have an interception capability--they agreed to do that. Parliament didn't want to do it. They were concerned about Russia's response and a lot of opposition that there might be. The thing I do not understand is why Western Europe is not lining up with us and saying we have to have those two sites. They are the ones who are naked now if we don't have that.

I am very much concerned about that. MG Vladimir Dvorkin, who is the head of the Center for Strategic Forces in Moscow, said: ``Iran is actively working on a missile program,'' adding that Iran is ``1 or 2 years'' from having a nuclear weapon. This concerns me. We have those individuals we seem to be catering to, the Russians, in order to leave ourselves without a type of defensive system to protect Western Europe and the Eastern United States. It is troubling to me.

In April 2009, North Korea furthered their missile and nuclear development by a Taepodong-2 missile in the China Sea. That has a range of over 2,000--about 2,500 miles. That would reach Rome. That would reach Berlin. There has to be a concern that they have this capability, they have demonstrated this capability very clearly.

NATO leaders stated in December of 2008, last Christmas, that:

Ballistic missile proliferation poses increasing threat to

allied forces, territory and populations. Missile defense

forms a part of the broader response to counter this threat.

We therefore recognize the substantial contribution to the

protection of allies from long range ballistic missiles to be

provided by a planned development of the European-based

United States missile defense assets.

That is what we are talking about. In Poland, the site in Poland would include up to 10 silo-based, long-range interceptors capable of shooting down hostile missiles from Iran in their midcourse. Let's put the chart up here.

A lot of people do not realize this is very sophisticated. Our missile defense system takes into consideration three courses. For the segment here, the boost phase, we don't have anything there yet. We are supposed to be working on it. I was disturbed that one of the things that was terminated by this administration is that effort.

The terminal defense segment is one we are working on right now. The airborne laser in the boost phase is one of the programs I believe the administration is canceling. The site in Poland would include up to 10 silo-based, long-range interceptors. The radar site in

the Czech Republic would house a narrow beam midcourse tracking radar that is currently used by our missile defense system in the Pacific. These are things we know work.

I am very concerned about it. I have not heard the statement from the White House, but I have a feeling we are going to hear the same thing we heard back in 1998, and it is very troubling. This is something that can be--should be an act of desperation in terms of Western Europe at this time.

Cap and Trade

Having said that, this is some good news. That was the bad news. The good news is we have notice this morning that the Democratic caucus, as reported in Politico, is split over the bill, the cap-and-trade bill we are talking about, with coal-, oil- and manufacturing-State Democrats raising concerns that a cap-and-trade system would disproportionately spike electricity bills for consumers and businesses in their regions.

There is a recognition now that this thing we have been talking about ever since the Kyoto treaty--the threat at that time that they were talking about is now. Everyone realizes that is not what it was. Science has changed dramatically and most scientists now are saying this is something that was overstated that one time.

The cost, though, is the big thing. I quit arguing about the science a long time ago. I gave a speech from this podium not too long ago. If anyone is interested, I ask my colleagues to go to the Web site inhofe.senate.gov, where we listed 700 scientists who were on the other side of the issue who are now on the skeptics' side, recognizing the science is not there. David Bellamy from Great Britain is one who was always talking about--he was on Al Gore's side on this thing. After going through and restudying and reevaluating the science, he agreed everything wasn't there.

The same thing is true with leaders in France and Israel. But what we have now is something people do understand and that is the cost of this, the consistent cost. Kyoto's cost, if we lived by the emission standard, would be somewhere, according to the Wharton Econometric Survey, I think it was called back during the Kyoto days, would be between $300 billion and $330 billion every year. As bad as the stimulus was, at least that is a one-shot deal and the people would not have to pay for it every year. This will be every year.

Then along came McCain-Lieberman in 2003 and 2005 and the same estimates came about that it would be a $300 billion tax increase. I remember 1993 when we had the Clinton-Gore tax increase, which was the largest tax increase in three decades.

During that time we looked at it, it was a $32 billion tax increase: increasing inheritance taxes, marginal rates, capital gains, and all of that. That is only $32 billion. This is 10 times that size.

Well, the White House was trying to say, and several of them on the other side in our committee--in fact, the chairman of our committee--it is going to cost a postage stamp a day. People are willing to pay for that.

Those postage stamps must be getting pretty expensive. Now we have found out there is an analysis released by the U.S. Department of Treasury that was held down, not released. Now we know what it is. They said the cost would be between $100 and $200 billion a year.

The cost--this is according to their figures now--to an American household would be an extra $1,761 a year. This is their analysis. I think that is right. In fact, we have seen the CRA report that shows the cost of this--and MIT agrees with this, I might add, because they evaluated the Warner-Lieberman bill 12 months ago--right now being closer to $366 billion a year, with a cost per family, the study has shown, in my State of Oklahoma and in the State of Texas, we would be the highest taxed. It would be $3,300 a year per family. That is huge. I know the east coast and the west coast is a little bit more than half of that, but still it is a huge tax increase.

Finally, this report that was put together by the Department of Treasury has been released. And they admit it. So we can quit talking about some of these things that are not realistic.

We know what the cost is. We know also the likelihood of it coming up this year is most unusual. I do not think it is going to happen. The Senate majority leader stated, I think 2 days ago, that the Senate may not act on comprehensive energy and climate change legislation.

Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska, a Democrat, I might add, said: We have enough on our plate at the moment. With the fight over health care reform, it is questionable to open another front.

The Senate majority whip, Dick Durbin, last week added that: It is a difficult schedule. Members are already anxious about health care reform. So I do not think it is going to come up. And I frankly will be ready here to fight to make sure it does not come up when the new year comes in.

I do not think there are too many people in the Senate who want to go into their reelection in 2010 having voted for the largest tax increase in the history of America. This is exactly what it would be. Let's keep in mind, what was the largest tax increase in the history of America was the 1993 tax increase. This would be 10 times greater than that. And the people now realize that. That was good news today.

Madam President, I wish to add my comments to a few other comments on Mel Martinez whom we all loved so much. I do not think I have ever seen anyone since Jesse Helms who was loved by so many people as Mel Martinez. He had a way of smiling, and in talking about things in a way that others did not understand. My colleagues have already come to the floor and talked about his escape from Cuba and how he came over and how then he was able to get his father over. It is a story that America will always remember. It will always be in our history books.

He was always such a great guy. He will be missed around here.

One of the things that was not said much about him was his sense of humor. I have to say I enjoyed being around him because he was, in his own subtle way, a very humorous person. I can remember, and I have had the occasion, probably more than any other Member, going into the areas in Iraq and Afghanistan and Africa where there were hostilities. But I was making probably my 12th or 14th trip into Baghdad on a C-130. It happened to be Mel Martinez's first trip. So we were talking about: Once you get out, you are going to run over to the helicopter, and they are going to take you to the Green Zone, all of the things to anticipate. I said to him: One of the problems we are going to have is that when we leave, we have these old C-130E models. They should be re- engined. We should have J models, but we do not. Because of the cuts in the military, we have not been able to upgrade those systems.

So I said: When we climb out of here, it is going to be in a C-130E model. We are not going to be able to climb as high and as fast as we want, and there are surface-to-air missiles out there that we have to be concerned about. And, of course, they are all set up. We have very capable pilots and crews in these C-130s. So I said: We will be well taken care of if something happens. Sure enough, it happened.

The first thing you do when you get out of your helicopter in Baghdad to get on a C-130 to come back to Kuwait or wherever you might be going is you take your helmet, your life jacket, your vest off, because they are so heavy and uncomfortable--you get in there and you take them off. Well, we all did that.

I was sitting up with, as I do quite often, the pilots, when all of a sudden the explosion came, the light was there, and we deployed the heat-seeking devices that are on a C-130. Of course, that is already very loud. Someone who has never gone through that experience before would assume we were about to go down.

I ran downstairs and I saw Mel Martinez sitting there without his helmet, without his protective vest by him; he had put them back on. I said: Mel, what are you doing putting your vest and your helmet back on?

He said: Well, I assumed that we were going to be shot down. And if Kitty--that is his wife--if she found out that I did not have my vest and my helmet on, she would kill me.

Well, that is Mel Martinez. He had all of those jewels. I think he is going to be missed by a lot of us for all of the reasons we have articulated on the floor.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today with my colleague, Senator Ron Wyden, to introduce the Improving Access to Clinical Trials Act, I-ACT, a bill to allow patients with rare diseases to participate in clinical drug studies without losing their eligibility for public assistance like Supplemental Security Income, SSI, and Medicaid. This bill provides potentially lifesaving treatments through clinical trials for those suffering with rare diseases, like cystic fibrosis, CF, a life-threatening genetic disease that affects about 30,000 people nationwide. This hits especially close to home for me because I have a staff member, Sage Streck, with CF, and she has participated in some of these trials that further drug research as they seek better treatments for rare diseases. About half of these patients are on Medicare or Medicaid and are eligible for SSI benefits.

Cystic fibrosis used to be primarily a childhood disease because people simply didn't live long enough to reach adulthood. But now, thanks to the many treatments discovered through clinical trials, the average life expectancy is 37 years old. Additionally, these advances in science allow CF patients to live more normal lives and not spend all their lives in hospitals or

using respiratory machines. The more CF patients can participate in clinical trials, the faster scientists can discover new treatments and eventually a cure.

Sage has personally seen in her lifetime five drugs that started in clinical trials and are now available to CF patients. Each medication has increased her quality of life and decreased the amount of time she has spent in the hospital or on IV antibiotics. There are more than 30 promising drugs in the research pipeline right now that the CF Foundation is calling miracle drugs so it is imperative that patients have access to clinical trials so these drugs can get on the market.

Under current law, the small compensation provided to trial participants, which averages around $500, is included as additional income that could cause a person to lose their public assistance benefits, like Supplemental Security Income, SSI, and Medicaid. These benefits are crucial for patients living with rare diseases. For instance, nearly 50 percent of the CF population uses SSI or Medicaid. As a result, patients choose not to enroll in clinical trials that could dramatically improve their lives out of the fear that they may lose the benefits on which they rely.

This bill allows patients with a rare disease to disregard up to $2,000 of compensation received for participation in a clinical trial in their SSI and Medicaid income calculations. Though it will have a negligible impact on the Federal budget, it will make a dramatic difference in the lives of those who will gain access to potentially life-saving treatments by enrolling in clinical trials as well as all those in the future whose lives will be improved by the medical advances that arise from this research.

Please join me in supporting this legislation that will provide patients with rare disease access to potentially lifesaving clinical trials without losing their public assistance health benefits.