[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 37 (Monday, March 15, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1492-S1496]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             GLOBAL WARMING

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, after weeks of the global warming 
scandal--and we talked about it on the floor, what happened with 
climategate just prior to the Copenhagen convention--I had the 
opportunity to visit and to uncover some of the things we had suspected 
were going on for a long period of time. Five years ago, I had occasion 
to give a speech on this floor, where I outlined, from information that 
had come through the backdoor to me from scientists, how bad the 
science was and how it had been, in fact, cooked. Then, of course, 
along came climategate.
  After weeks of the global warming scandal, the world's first 
potential climate billionaire is running for cover. Yes, I am talking 
about Al Gore. He is under siege these days. The credibility of the 
IPCC is eroding, EPA's endangerment finding is collapsing, and belief 
that anthropogenic global warming is leading to catastrophe is 
evaporating. Gore seems to be drowning in a sea of his own global 
warming illusions. Nevertheless, he is desperately trying to keep 
global warming alarmism alive.
  It is my understanding that tonight he is having a high-level meeting 
of all his global warming alarmists around the country to see how they 
can resurrect this issue and regroup.
  Consider Gore's nearly 2,000-word op-ed piece that recently appeared 
in the New York Times. It is a sure-fire sign of desperation. Gore's 
piece was about China, solar and wind power, globalization, rising sea 
levels, big polluters, melting glaciers, and cap and trade. One 
searches in vain for any explanation of the IPCC's errors and mistakes 
or of Phil Jones, the former director of the Climate Research Unit. 
That is in East Anglia. We heard a lot about him. He was the one who 
was actually assembling a lot of the science--or so-called science--or 
creating the science, I should say, to support the position of those 
who believe anthropogenic gases cause global warming.
  Seven years ago, I believe this month, I had occasion to study on the 
floor and find out that, in fact, we had spent so much time on this 
issue that everyone was believing this to be true. When we realized the 
science was not there, I made the statement that the notion that 
anthropogenic gases are causing catastrophic global warming is the 
greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.
  What is Gore's take on the climategate scandal? Climate scientists, 
he wrote, were ``besieged'' by an ``onslaught'' of hostile information 
requests from climate ``skeptics.'' That is it, nothing else. Even the 
IPCC announced last week an independent review of its process and 
procedures.
  You see, former Vice President Gore was saying: Oh, that was nothing; 
that was just a few comments. I might add, one of the largest and most 
respected publications in the UK, which is called the UK Telegraph, 
said this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation.
  The Atlantic Monthly, the Financial Times, the New York Times, the 
Chicago Tribune, Newsweek and Time and many others are saying this is a 
legitimate scandal and reform of the IPCC is absolutely essential. 
Let's keep in mind, IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change, is the United Nations. They put this together back in 1988 to 
try to scare people into changing our policy in this country.
  By the way, I mentioned Time magazine as one of the many magazines 
and publications that have now said, looking at climategate, this 
investigation

[[Page S1493]]

should be there. This is the same Time magazine--and I don't blame them 
for doing this; I would have done the same thing--that back in 1975, on 
the cover they had: Another Ice Age is coming, we are all going to die. 
A couple years ago, you might remember the last polar bear standing on 
the last cube of ice and it said: Global warming is coming; we are all 
going to die. Anyway, the publications are coming around.
  When it comes to reform, openness, transparency, and peer review, 
when it comes to practicing good science, Gore stands alone. He wants 
the world to put its head in the sand and pretend nothing is happening.
  It reminds me of the story of the two boy ostriches chasing two girl 
ostriches through the woods, and they were catching them. One girl 
ostrich said to the other, when they came up to a clearing: What do we 
do? Well, let's hide. Each of the girl ostriches stuck their heads in a 
respective hole, and the boy ostriches came galloping up to the 
clearing and one looked at the other and said: Where did the girls go?
  That is what we are looking at here. They are hiding their heads in 
the sand. Then Gore is writing in this op-ed piece, even if all these 
disasters will not happen, we still have to deal with national security 
risks and energy independence. Of course, Gore fails to mention that 
the United States leads the world in technically recoverable resources 
of oil, coal, and natural gas. According to a recent release from a 
report from the Congressional Research Service, America's combined 
recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on 
Earth. America's recoverable resources are far greater than those of 
Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada combined, and that is without including 
America's absolute immense oil shale and methane hydrate deposits.

  It is always kind of humorous when people say: We have to get rid of 
our oil and gas and our coal. Yet those are the things which we are 
using to generate the energy necessary to run America.
  They say: Well, we have to become independent. But they want to do 
away with all of that. We have enough oil and gas and coal--and now 
nuclear, which we are expanding--to take care of our needs so we 
wouldn't have to be dependent upon any foreign country for any of our 
energy. The problem is a political problem. Democrats will not allow us 
to go ahead and explore our own resources and exploit them. We are the 
only country that doesn't do that.
  Gore has to know the edifice of alarmism is starting to crumble, so 
he is swinging for the fences, hoping for a home run to change the 
game. But Gore is striking out, as he loses his support almost daily in 
Congress and from the American people. Let's face it; Gore's side of 
the argument is collapsing. He and his allies are running short on 
facts, and Gore's criticism of recent events rings hollow. For example, 
after the climategate scandal broke, Gore was asked by an online 
publication called Slate as to what he thought of it.
  Gore's response: Well, I haven't read all of the e-mails, but the 
most recent one is more than 10 years old. Obviously, of course, that 
is not true because they go all the way up to 2009. So all he is left 
with is a two-pronged fork of anger and attack. Just read the New York 
Times op-ed piece.
  By the way, I was told his op-ed piece in the New York Times was 
three times larger than that which they normally will receive. He wrote 
that those who question climate alarmism are members of a ``criminal 
generation.'' That is me--a criminal? Is Roger Pielke, Jr., a criminal? 
How about Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Richard 
Lindzen of MIT, Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center? No, 
they haven't committed any crimes. They just want honest, open 
scientific debate.
  I might add that thus far the only scientists who commit crimes are 
those at the CRU. Again, that is the collection point of all the 
science that the United Nations has put together in this thing called 
IPCC--those involved in climategate, according to findings of the UK's 
Information Commissioner.
  The Weekly Standard recently placed Al Gore on its cover--we have 
that right here--showing that the emperor has no clothes. The cover 
story, by Steven Hayward, of the Weekly Standard is entitled, ``In 
Denial: The Meltdown of the Climate Campaign.''
  Hayward writes a compelling narrative of climategate and its 
consequences. This story is a must read for anyone interested in the 
recent implosion of global warming alarmism.
  Let me mention this: If you look at the movie ``An Inconvenient 
Truth,'' the one where he made, I guess, most of his money, the last 
sentence says, I believe: Are you willing to change the way you live?
  Well, we thought that was probably a good idea, so let's put that up 
here. It has now been 1,009 days since we have invited Al Gore to sign 
this pledge. Here is what it says:

       As a believer that human-caused global warming is a moral, 
     ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival; that 
     home energy use is a key component of overall energy use; 
     that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will 
     lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and that leaders on 
     moral issues should lead by example; therefore, I pledge to 
     consume no more energy for use in my home, my residence, than 
     the average American household 1 year from today.

  Well, it hasn't been a year; it was 3 years ago. It was 1,009 days 
ago.
  Then, of course, there is always the question: What if we are wrong? 
What if we should do something? Since the Kyoto treaty failed--and we 
came this close, Mr. President. You weren't in your current position at 
that time, but this is how close we came to actually signing on and 
ratifying the Kyoto treaty. We didn't do it.
  Then along came Members of Congress in 2003, where we had the McCain-
Lieberman bill--cap-and-trade bill--and in 2005 we had the McCain-
Lieberman bill, then the Warner-Lieberman bill in 2008, we had the 
Boxer-Sanders bill in 2009, and now it looks as if we are going to have 
the John Kerry and Lindsay Graham bill that is up. What do they all 
have in common? It is all cap and trade.
  Mr. President, I have some respect for James Hansen. But the one 
thing I really respect is that he has made this statement about cap and 
trade. He said cap and trade is a devious way of getting away from the 
issue. The main issue is that we have to do something about greenhouse 
gas emissions, anthropogenic gas, CO2. Well, why not just go 
ahead and have a tax on them? There is a good reason the cap and 
traders don't want a tax. Because then the American people would know 
what it is costing them.
  What is the cost of cap and trade? With any of these bills I just 
mentioned, it is approximately the same because cap and trade is cap 
and trade. You have to somehow make everyone think they are winners and 
everyone else is a loser. So we had the ranges come from the Wharton 
School of Economics, from MIT, from the CRA, and the range is always 
somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. Now, that is 
significant--$300 to $400 billion a year.
  Mr. President, if you are like I am, it is kind of hard to relate to 
billions and trillions of dollars. So what I try to do is relate it to 
what it would cost the average family that pays taxes in my State of 
Oklahoma. How much would this cost that family? It comes out to be a 
little over $3,000 a year. Now, $3,000 a year is an awful lot of money.
  What do we get for that? Let's get the other chart up here. I had 
occasion the other day to hear from Lisa Jackson, who is President 
Obama's Administrator of the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency--
a fine lady whom I think an awful lot of--when she was testifying 
before us. Now, this chart--and people are not questioning this chart's 
reliability--reflects what would happen: U.S. action without 
international action will have no effect on world CO2. It 
just stands to reason. And these are the bills that have been 
introduced that I mentioned before--the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2003, 
McCain-Lieberman in 2005, Warner-Lieberman in 2008, and some of the 
rest of them. It reflects what would happen if we had passed those and 
what would happen if we don't pass them. The chart shows nothing.
  I asked the question of Lisa Jackson, President Obama's Administrator 
of the EPA. I said: This chart up here, is this an accurate chart? In 
other words, to put it in plain words, to better understand it, if we 
were to pass--at that time it might have been the Markey bill. I am not 
sure which one it was, but it doesn't matter because cap and

[[Page S1494]]

trade is cap and trade. If we had passed that bill or any of the Senate 
bills we have talked about, how would that have reduced CO2 
worldwide?
  Her response: Well, it wouldn't really reduce it because we are doing 
that unilaterally in the United States of America.
  What happens when we take away our ability to have energy in America? 
We have to manufacture it somewhere, and they have estimated how many 
thousands of manufacturing jobs if we were to pass any of these bills.
  Those are polar bears, by the way, and they are all smiling in case 
you can't see that too well, Mr. President.
  We would lose our manufacturing jobs to countries such as China and 
Mexico and India. Right now, in China, they are cranking out two new 
coal-fired generating plants every week. Some people are saying: Oh, 
they are going to follow us and our example and start restricting their 
CO2. No, they are not. They are preparing right now to be 
able to generate the electricity necessary as the people start coming 
in. So that is what is happening right now.

  I would say this, though. I don't want you to feel--even though his 
world is crumbling, don't feel sorry for Al Gore because he is doing 
all right. There is actually an article that just came out--this is the 
National Review--at the same time a New York Times article did, and I 
have kind of put together things from both of them. This from the New 
York Times says:

       Former Vice President Al Gore thought he had spotted a 
     winner last year when a small California firm sought 
     financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture 
     capital firm where Al Gore is a partner. The company, the 
     Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to 
     make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. 
     Gore's firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon 
     Valley's top venture capital providers, looking for $75 
     million to expand its partnership with utilities seeking to 
     install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and 
     businesses.
       Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and 
     in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, 
     another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate 
     advisers. The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last 
     week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in 
     smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went 
     to utilities with which Silver Spring has contacts.

  Wait a minute, we are talking about Silver Spring, the company with 
which Al Gore is connected.

       Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could 
     recoup their investment many times over in the coming years.
       Silver Spring Networks is a foot soldier in the global 
     green energy revolution Mr. Gore hopes to lead. Few people 
     have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and 
     the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes 
     energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy 
     as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this 
     green transformation if and when it comes.
       Critics, mostly the political right and among global 
     warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the 
     world's first ``carbon billionaire,'' profiteering from 
     government policies he supports that would direct billions of 
     dollars to the business ventures that he has invested in.
       Representative Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from 
     Tennessee, asserted at a hearing this year that Mr. Gore 
     stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate 
     policies he was urging Congress to adopt.
       Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his 
     mouth is. ``Do you think there is something wrong with being 
     active in business in this country?'' Mr. Gore said. ``I am 
     proud of it. I am proud of it.''
       In an e-mail message this week, he said his investment 
     activities were consistent with his public advocacy over the 
     decades. ``I have advocated policies to promote renewable 
     energy and accelerate reductions in global warming pollution 
     for decades, including all the time I was in public 
     service.'' Mr. Gore wrote: ``As a private citizen, I have 
     continued to advocate the same policies. Even though the vast 
     majority of my business career has been in areas that do not 
     involve renewable energy or global warming pollution 
     reductions, I absolutely believe in investing in ways that 
     are consistent with my values and beliefs. I encourage others 
     to invest in the same way.''
       Mr. Gore has invested a significant portion of the tens of 
     millions of dollars that he has earned since leaving 
     government in 2001 in a broad array of environmentally 
     friendly energy and technology business ventures, like carbon 
     trading markets, solar cells, and waterless urinals. He has 
     also given away millions more to finance the nonprofit he 
     founded, the Alliance for Climate Protection, and to another 
     group, the Climate Project, which trains people to present 
     the slide show that was the basis of his documentary ``An 
     Inconvenient Truth.'' Royalties from his new book on climate 
     change, ``Our Choice,'' printed on 100 percent recycled 
     paper, will go to the alliance, an aide said.
       Other public figures, like speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert 
     F. Kennedy, Jr., who have vocally supported government 
     financing of energy-saving technologies have investments in 
     alternative energy ventures. Some scientists and policy 
     advocates also promote energy policies that personally enrich 
     them.
       As a private citizen, Mr. Gore asked not to have to 
     disclose his income and assets, as he did--

  as I do, as others do in this Chamber

     in his years in Congress and the White House. When he left 
     government in 2001, he listed assets of less than $2 million, 
     including homes in suburban Washington and in Tennessee. 
     Since then his net worth has skyrocketed, helped by timely 
     investments in Apple and Google, profits from books and his 
     movie, and the scores of speeches for which he can be paid 
     more than $100,000 . . .

  a speech. I suggest now that price may be going down a little bit for 
Al Gore.

       Mr. Gore's spokeswoman would not give a figure for his 
     current net worth, but the scale of his wealth is evident in 
     a single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment 
     Group. . . .

  It goes on and on. I ask unanimous consent to submit the rest of this 
for the Record because it is pretty good reading.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Mr. Gore's spokeswoman would not give a figure for his 
     current net worth, but the scale of his wealth is evident in 
     a single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment 
     Group, a private equity fund started by his friend Jeffrey 
     Skoll, the first president of eBay.
       Ion Yadigaroglu, a co-founder of Capricorn, said that Mr. 
     Gore does not sit on the fund's investment committee, but 
     obviously agrees with the partners' strategy of putting long-
     term money into promising ventures in energy, technology and 
     health care around the globe.
       ``Aspirationally,'' said Mr. Yadigaroglu, who holds a 
     doctorate from Stanford in astrophysics, ``we're trying to 
     make more money than others doing the same thing and do it in 
     a way that is superior in ethics and impacts.''
       Mr. Gore has said he invested in partnerships and funds 
     that try to identify and support companies that are advancing 
     cutting-edge green technologies and are paving the way toward 
     a low-carbon economy.
       He has a stake in the world's pre-eminent carbon credit 
     trading market and in an array of companies in bio-fuels, 
     sustainable fish farming, electric vehicles and solar power.
       Capricorn holds a major stake in Falcon Waterfree 
     Technologies, the world's leading maker of waterless urinals. 
     Generation has holdings in Ausra, a solar energy company 
     based in California, and Camco, a British firm that develops 
     carbon dioxide emissions reduction projects. Kleiner Perkins 
     has a green ventures fund with nearly $1 billion invested in 
     renewable energy and efficiency concerns.
       Mr. Gore also has substantial interests in technology, 
     media and biotechnology ventures that have no direct tie to 
     his environmental advocacy, an aide said.
       Mr. Gore is not a lobbyist, and he has never asked Congress 
     or the administration for an earmark or policy decision that 
     would directly benefit one of his investments. But he has 
     been a tireless advocate for policies that would move the 
     country away from the use of coal and oil, and he has begun a 
     $300 million campaign to end the use of fossil fuels in 
     electricity production in 10 years.
       But Marc Morano, a climate change skeptic who until 
     recently was a top aide to Senator James M. Inhofe, 
     Republican of Oklahoma, said that what he saw as Mr. Gore's 
     alarmism and occasional exaggerations distorted the debate 
     and also served his personal financial interests.
       Mr. Gore has testified numerous times in support of 
     legislation to address climate change and to revamp the 
     nation's energy policies.
       He appeared before the House Energy and Commerce Committee 
     in April to support an energy and climate change bill that 
     was intended to reduce global warming emissions through a 
     cap-and-trade program for major polluting industries.
       Mr. Gore, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his 
     climate advocacy, is generally received on Capitol Hill as 
     something of an oracle, at least by Democrats.
       But at the hearing in April, he was challenged by Ms. 
     Blackburn, who echoed some of the criticism of Mr. Gore that 
     has swirled in conservative blogs and radio talk shows. She 
     noted that Mr. Gore is a partner at Kleiner Perkins, which 
     has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in firms that 
     could benefit from any legislation that limits carbon dioxide 
     emissions.
       ``I believe that the transition to a green economy is good 
     for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested 
     in it,'' Mr. Gore said, adding that he had put ``every 
     penny'' he has made from his investments into the Alliance 
     for Climate Protection.
       ``And, Congresswoman,'' he added, ``if you believe that the 
     reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is 
     because of greed, you don't know me.''


[[Page S1495]]


  Mr. INHOFE. ``Marc Morano, a climate change skeptic who was recently 
a top aide to [me], Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, 
said that what he saw as Mr. Gore's alarmism and occasional 
exaggerations distorted the debate and also served his personal 
financial interests.''
  I say don't feel sorry for Al Gore. He is doing fine right now.
  Last, on this subject, my wife and I have been married for 50 years. 
We have 20 kids and grandkids. They are achievers. They are great 
people. All 20 of them, all but 6, live within walking distance of my 
home in Tulsa, OK. Not many people can say that. The one who doesn't is 
the family of six of my daughter Molly, her husband, and four children.
  It happens one of these children you can't see very well right here, 
Zegita Marie, actually was one we found in Ethiopia. My daughter 
adopted her. Molly only had three boys and always wanted a girl so she 
adopted this cute little girl. This little girl, by the way, is 9 years 
old. She is reading at college level. She came up to Washington to 
speak to a group I sponsor every year. It is called the African Dinner, 
about 400 or so of them.
  Anyway, when they are up here, I say to my friend in the chair, they 
found, because of the global warming problem we had, we had all these 
snowstorms and blizzards and consequently the airport was closed and 
they were stuck here. What do you do with a family of six when they are 
stuck? They went out and built, of all things, an igloo. They are kind 
of engineering oriented. This is not an igloo. It sleeps four people 
with ice bricks and all that. On top of that they put ``Al Gore's New 
Home.'' It is right next to the Library of Congress. This is a picture 
of it. I thought that was fun.
  I regret to say one of the real liberal stations, Keith Olbermann, 
declared my daughter's family as ``The Worst Family in America.''
  One last subject here I want to address. I want to compliment Sean 
Hannity for something I saw last night. I happened to get in at the 
last of it, so I found out what this guy is up to. What he has done is 
he has taken--there is a lot of wasteful, stupid spending in America. 
He has taken 102 of the ridiculous things that we spend money on around 
here and he has listed them. He started several days ago.

       No. 102: Protecting a Michigan insect collection from other 
     insects--$187,00O;
       No. 101: Highway beautified by fish art in Washington--
     $10,000.

  It goes on and on.
  Over those last few evenings he listed these. Last night was the last 
20 of them. Let me quickly run over these in reverse order.

       No. 20: Researching how paying attention improves 
     performance of difficult tasks in Connecticut.

  That was just $850,000.

       No. 19: Kentucky Transportation Department awarded 
     contracts to companies associated with the road contractor 
     accused of bribing the previous state transportation 
     secretary--$24 million.
       No. 18: Amtrak losing $32 per passenger nationally but 
     rewarded with windfall--$1.3 billion.
       No. 17: Widening an Arizona interstate even though the 
     company that won the contract has a history of tax fraud and 
     pollution--$21.8 million.

  I am going to submit this for the Record. To get on down to the last 
items--

       No. 9: Resurfacing a tennis court in Montana--$50,000;
       No. 8: University in Indiana studying why young men do not 
     like to wear--

  I will not say that.

       No. 7: Funds for Massachusetts roadway construction, to 
     companies that have defrauded taxpayers, polluted the 
     environment, and have paid tens of thousands of dollars in 
     fines for violating workplace safety laws

  --in the millions of dollars.

       No. 6: Sending 11 students and 4 teachers from an Arkansas 
     university to the U.N. climate change convention in 
     Copenhagen, using almost 54,000 pounds of carbon dioxide from 
     air travel alone--$50,000.
       No. 5: Storytelling festival in Utah--$15,000.
       No. 4: Door mats to the Department of the Army in Texas--
     $14,000;
       No. 3: University in New York researching young adults who 
     drink malt liquor and smoke pot--

  that is only $389,000;

       No. 2: Solar panels for a climbing gym in Colorado--
     $157,800;
       No. 1: Grant for one Massachusetts university for 
     ``robobees''--miniature flying robot bees.

  That was $2 million.
  I want to ask you, Mr. President, what do you think all 102 of these 
projects have in common? Do you think they are congressional earmarks? 
A lot of people probably believe they are. They are not. The one thing 
they have in common is they are all done by the President, President 
Obama. He said back when they passed the $787 billion stimulus bill, 
there would not be one earmark in this bill. Everything you are looking 
at there was all in this bill. That was not done by Members of 
Congress, that was done by unelected bureaucrats.
  The inconvenient truth is that we do have a problem with earmarks in 
America, but it is not congressional earmarks. I was distressed, the 
other day, last Thursday, when I saw my fellow Republicans over in the 
House did something they should not have done. They actually said we 
are going to stop, we are going to put a permanent moratorium on all 
earmarks that we in the Republican Party have over there.
  Let's stop and think about that. One of the things people do not 
understand is if you kill what they call--what people think is a 
Congressional earmark, it does not save a penny. What happens to it, 
because it is part of an underlying bill, is it goes to the 
bureaucracies, the unelected bureaucrats, the President, President 
Obama. I suggest there is a serious problem with what the House did. 
They resolved that it is the policy of the Republican conference that 
no Member shall request a Congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, 
and so forth, all in conjunction with clause 9, rule XXI of the Rules 
of the House of the 111th Congress.
  Let's see what that is. Clause 9 of rule XXI applies to all 
legislation in the House of Representatives, whether it be 
authorization, appropriation, tax or tariff.
  That is what we are supposed to be doing here, and then said we are 
not going to do it. I think that is rather interesting because we all, 
everyone in this room who serves here--I have done it four times--takes 
an oath of office. In that oath of office we solemnly swear we will 
support and bear true allegiance to the Constitution of the United 
States.
  Here they have come out and said we are not going to do that. This is 
mind boggling, that this can take place. It is something that will have 
to be reversed. When you go back and look at the Federalist Papers, 
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, made it very clear. He 
is the one who coined the phrase ``power of the purse.'' That is what 
we do here in the Constitution. In article I, section 9 it says what we 
are supposed to do. We are supposed to do the appropriations and spend 
the money that comes in. That is what we are supposed to do. That is 
our constitutional responsibility.
  We have a serious problem in this, what they are talking about, the 
moratorium. I think there are some of those who want the Senate to do 
it. I am hoping we will not follow that course. I respect my friends 
over in the House but they made a mistake and we do not want to march 
down that same path. I think it is very important for us to understand 
earmarks, what they call appropriations over here; that is what an 
earmark is, if you want to define it. They do not save any money. That 
money merely goes to the bureaucracy so they can spend it. All 102 of 
the things I mentioned were bureaucratic earmarks. Not one of them was 
a congressional earmark.
  We have this as a very serious problem right now. One of the reasons 
I have always said I do not like the idea of the earmark discussion is 
that people do not understand. They think they are something if you 
eliminate you save money. You don't save a cent. By the way, earmarks 
of the spending that takes place are discretionary, not mandatory 
spending. It constitutes 1.5 percent. I am concerned about the 98.5 
percent. For that reason I have introduced a bill that is very similar 
to something President Obama said. Everyone rejoiced during the State 
of the Union Message when he stood up and said I am going to freeze 
nondefense discretionary spending at the 2010 level. Everyone 
applauded. They thought that was a great statement to make until I went 
back and I looked and found out that this nondiscretionary spending had 
increased between 2008 and 2010 by

[[Page S1496]]

act of this President, Obama, by 20 percent. So what he is saying is we 
are going to increase discretionary spending by 20 percent and then we 
are going to freeze it. I do not want to freeze it. I want to bring it 
back down. So I have taken the same bill and said we are going to 
freeze that at 2008 levels.
  I encourage my friends, we have now about 40-some cosponsors of that 
legislation. That being the case, I hope we will look very carefully 
and consider not just what people are thinking out there but do them a 
great service and tell them in fact what the real issue is on earmarks.
  With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 
10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________