[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7577-7593]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT; A LEGACY FOR USERS--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed on H.R. 3, which the 
clerk will report:
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of a bill (H.R. 3) 
     to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety 
     programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on Friday, the leader filed a cloture 
motion on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3, the highway bill. I believe 
the cloture vote has been scheduled for tomorrow at 11:45 am. I 
strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote yes.
  The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, expired 
on September 30, 2003, nearly 19 months ago. Yet we are still 
attempting to get a bill done. The Federal-aid program has been 
operating under a number of short-term extensions--a total of six to 
date.
  We need to get this done. The vote on Tuesday on cloture is critical. 
If we cannot proceed to this bill, we will miss yet another deadline 
and our States will continue to pay the price. The current May 31 
expiration date for the highway, transit and safety programs is fast 
approaching. The House bill, H.R. 3, has some very significant 
differences from S. 732 the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act of 2005, SAFETEA, the bill reported out by 
the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 16. We will need as 
much time as possible to work out a compromise. Although we may not all 
be in perfect agreement here on the Senate floor on each and every 
provision of S. 732, one thing I believe we are all in agreement on is 
that we need to get this done. In addition to conversations with 
colleagues, I have visited with community leaders and outside interest 
groups and the message is clear . . . get the bill done.
  My committee colleagues and I are asking the Senate to consider 
essentially the same language that 76 Senators voted for in 108th 
Congress. The Environment and Public Works Committee used as its mark 
the Senate-passed S. 1072 with the exception that we adjusted the 
numbers to reflect the President's proposed spending level of $284 
billion over 6 years. During our markup we accepted several non-
controversial amendments from committee members. None of these 
amendments substantially changed the policy goals of the bill as passed 
last year.
  Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the pending 
cloture motion and allow us to move to H.R. 3. We really need to keep 
this moving. The longer we delay enactment of a long-term bill, we are 
negatively effecting economic growth. According to DOT estimates, every 
$1 billion of Federal funds invested in highway improvements creates 
47,000 jobs. The same $1 billion investment yields $500 million in new 
orders for the manufacturing sector and $500 million spread throughout 
other sectors of the economy.
  State contract awards for the 2005 spring and summer construction 
season are going out to bid. If we fail to send a bill to the President 
by May 31st, States will not know what to expect in Federal funding and 
the uncertainty will potentially force States to delay putting these 
projects out for bid. According to the American Association of State 
Highway Transportation Officials--AASHTO, an estimated 90,000 jobs are 
at stake. This problem is exacerbated for northern States, such as 
Alaska, that have shorter construction seasons. Many State 
transportation departments have advanced State dollars to construct 
projects eligible for Federal-funding in anticipation of our action to 
reauthorize the program. Without a new bill, States are essentially 
left ``holding the bag.''
  Over the past 6 years under TEA-21, we have made great progress in 
preserving and improving the overall physical condition and operation 
of our transportation system. However, more needs to be done. A safe, 
effective transportation system is the foundation of our economy. We 
are past due to fulfill an obligation to this country and the American 
people.
  I am pleased that the President's budget assumed more funding for 
reauthorization over his previous level of $256 billion. I and along 
with many of you believe we need more. Certainly that is an issue that 
will be thoroughly debated on the floor of the Senate, but we can't 
even have that debate unless we get to the floor.
  Again, if we are able to proceed, the language that the Senate will 
be considering is essentially the same bill that was passed on the 
Senate floor last year--a bipartisan product of many months of hard 
work and compromise. This bill remains a very good piece of legislation 
which I hope will require few, if any, changes here on the floor. 
However, I am anxious to discuss with Senators their amendments so that 
we can debate them and hopefully get this bill in conference with the 
House prior to the recess, but we need to get to the bill first.
  S. 1072 passed the Senate last year guaranteed all donor States a 
rate of return of 95 percent. I can remember that was 75 percent when I 
first came here. At a lower funding level we were able only to achieve 
a 92 percent rate of return but kept the 10 percent floor over TEA-21. 
The scope, or split of percent funding above and below the line, remain 
the same at 92.5 percent.
  In order to get this bill off the floor, we have to balance the needs 
of donor and donee States. I will be the first to acknowledge that this 
balance--as with any compromise--is not perfect. My colleagues 
representing donee and donor States that receive lower rates of return 
or growth rates than they feel fair have made this fact very clear to 
me over the past year.
  I am very sympathetic to the concerns of both donors and donees in 
this situation. Both have significant transportation needs that cannot 
be ignored. Addressing their concerns has become more difficult in the 
last year due to the fact that we have less money. Providing either 
group with more money would add significantly to the cost of the bill 
or take away from other programs. But holding up even consideration of 
this bill will not solve the problem. We need to proceed to H.R. 3 so 
that donor and donee States will have the opportunity to offer their 
amendments on how to improve their State's treatment.
  I am certain my colleagues share my strong desire to get a 
transportation reauthorization bill passed. We must act to get a bill 
to and through conference prior to the May 31 expiration

[[Page 7578]]

of the current extension. This will be a very difficult challenge, but 
if we act quickly we can do it.
  Now let's look at the alternative. What will happen if we do not pass 
a highway bill? There will not be another extension. If we don't pass 
the bill there will be no chance of improvement on donor State rate of 
return and no new safety core program to help Spates respond to 
thousands of deaths each year on our roadways.
  Our bill up has many safety provisions, as the ranking Democrat, 
Senator Jeffords knows. We didn't agree on all these, but we finally 
agreed on a final product. Without a bill, there will be no real 
streamlining of environmental reviews, so critical products would be 
still subject to avoidable delays. There will be no increased ability 
to use innovative financing, thereby giving States more tools to 
advance projects.
  Out in California, they have done some things that are working very 
well. We have studied these and put some very innovative provisions in 
this bill to allow us to get more for the dollar than we can get today. 
But without a bill, we cannot do that.
  Without a bill, we would not have any Safe Routes to School. This is 
a program many of the Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate 
have embraced. But without a bill, we will not have that.
  Without a bill, the States will continue to have uncertainty in 
planning, thereby delaying projects and negatively impacting jobs.
  It is easy to sit up here in Washington and be indecisive about these 
things, but the States have to make plans in advance. For each delay, 
that is less they are going to get.
  Without a bill, we have no new border program, which is critical to 
border States dealing with NAFTA.
  Without a bill, we have delay in the establishment of the national 
commission to explore how to fund transportation in the future. It is 
something we have been doing essentially the same way year in and year 
out, but we are studying new methods now as motor vehicles are more 
fuel efficient and a tax collection system based solely on fuel 
consumption becomes less practical.
  Without a bill, we won't have any increased opportunity to address 
choke points at intermodal connectors.
  The firewall protection of the highway trust fund would not be 
continued, thereby making the trust fund vulnerable to raids in order 
to pay for other programs.
  It is very important that we move forward. We studied this for a year 
and a half before coming to the Senate a year ago right now. Certainly 
the ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Jeffords, can remember 
the months and months we worked on it. We came to the Senate with a 
good bill, passed it, went to conference, and were unable to get a vote 
on the conference report. Because of that, all these 10 things I 
mentioned did not happen this year. For all these things to happen, to 
move forward, we have to have a bill. We cannot have a bill until we 
vote on the motion to proceed so that we will be able to move to the 
bill. That is what this is all about.
  I recognize the ranking Democrat on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Senator Jeffords.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Frist for the 
opportunity to debate this important legislation.
  I also thank Senator Reid for his leadership in getting us to where 
we are today on this bill.
  In addition, I thank Chairman Inhofe, Senators Bond, and Baucus, as 
well as other chairmen and ranking members for all of their hard work 
and cooperation on this legislation.
  A little over a year ago, I stood before my colleagues, in the same 
place I am standing now, asking for their support of our Nation's 
surface transportation system.
  I am hopeful now, as I was then, that we will be able to work in a 
bipartisan fashion to pass this legislation quickly so our states can 
proceed with their critical work.
  Today we are in a similar situation as we were a year ago.
  Our bill maintains the important principles that were developed over 
the years of work in our committees.
  We continue to grow and support the core programs that are the 
building block of a strong transportation system.
  We maintain flexibility for States, because they know best how to 
meet their needs.
  We also try to increase the funds going out to the States.
  This bill will enhance safety on our Nation's highways through 
education, better infrastructure, and enforcement.
  The increased intermodal flexibility set forth in the bill will allow 
States, if they wish to improve freight handling and movement.
  The growth in congestion mitigation and air quality funding will help 
States improve air quality, reduce pollution and address congestion.
  The bill makes it easier for States to mitigate project effects on 
habitat and wetlands, and retains and expands popular programs such as 
enhancements recreational trails and scenic byways.
  This bill also reduces congestion on our Nation's roadways by 
enhancing public transportation and promoting intermodal solutions to 
regional transportation problems.
  These are all critical components to a successful bill and I am glad 
that, through much hard work, we were able to develop strong national 
policy.
  It may not be exactly what any one Member would have crafted on his 
or her own, but this is a strong and unified step in the right 
direction.
  There are, however, some key differences.
  A year ago, we presented you with a well-funded bill that struck a 
delicate balance between the core programs and flexibility on program 
and modal spending at the State and local level.
  This time our job was made more difficult by fiscal constraints 
insisted upon by the administration.
  The White House has suggested an overall funding level for surface 
transportation of $284 billion over 6 years.
  This despite the President's own Transportation Department saying we 
need at least $300 billion to simply maintain the status quo, and 
something well above that level to make progress on conditions and 
performance.
  Last year the Senate passed a highway bill at $318 billion with 76 
votes.
  It is unfortunate that the President fails to see the value of a 
robust transportation program.
  It is unfortunate the President fails to see the jobs that will be 
lost, and the roads and bridges that will go unrepaired and unbuilt.
  It is unfortunate the President doesn't see the lives that could be 
saved with better roads and the time that will be wasted sitting in 
traffic.
  All of this is the result of inadequate funding.
  While my colleagues and I have continued to impress upon him the 
value of increased funding, we continue to work within the box that the 
administration has put us in.
  We tried to meet everyone's needs while not neglecting our 
responsibilities to the highway trust fund.
  This is a very difficult task given the restrictions this 
administration has imposed on us.
  But we did what was asked of us.
  All of the committees have acted and passed a bill at $284 billion.
  Make no mistake--we have made sacrifices that none of us wanted.
  I am hopeful we will increase the funding in this bill as we move it 
through the Senate in the coming days.
  That said, I stand here before you with the structure of a bill that 
has the potential to move our transportation system forward--not the 
giant leap we had hoped to make but meager steps that I hope will be 
the first of many in helping us get where we need to go.
  Mr. President, I need not remind you that the authorization for this 
program expired 19 months ago.
  In that time, there have been nearly 70,000 traffic fatalities with 
an economic cost of over $370 billion.
  Americans continue to sit in traffic for close to 50 hours a year, 10 
minutes more per hour traveled than when the last reauthorization bill 
was passed.

[[Page 7579]]

  Mr. President, 18 percent of our roads are in poor or mediocre 
condition; 29 percent of bridges are deficient or functionally 
obsolete; over a quarter of our transit facilities are in below average 
condition; more than 3 million jobs are waiting to be created.
  While we neglect to act, transportation in this country continues to 
degrade.
  Things are getting worse, not better.
  We have lost one construction season and are on our way to missing 
another.
  In northern States such as Vermont, this is not a little problem. It 
is a big one.
  We must act on this legislation now.
  We must pass a nationwide surface transportation reauthorization bill 
this year.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to debate H.R. 3 on the 
Senate floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, Senator Jeffords, 
we are not political equals in philosophy; yet I, as a conservative, 
agree with everything the Senator has said in terms of the need for 
roads and the need for infrastructure.
  Senator Jeffords talked about some of the deficiencies we have, but I 
have to say in my State of Oklahoma the FAWA goes out and they rate 
roads and bridges. Oklahoma is dead last in bridges. This is a life-
and-death situation. We lose lives every year.
  A lot of my friends say: Well, you did not want to have a robust, 
expensive highway bill. I say to them: That is what we are supposed to 
be doing here.
  I am a conservative. There is no one more conservative, according to 
the ACLU, than I am in this Senate. Yet I can say we need to spend 
money on infrastructure in the United States.
  I will say a little bit about the formula of which I have been very 
proud. Both my good friend from Vermont and I used to serve in the 
other body before we came to the Senate. At that time, I was on the 
Transportation Committee in the House. I watched the way we did things 
there and how we do things here. I don't want to be critical of the way 
the other body operates, but we do it in a more fair and equitable way.
  It would be easy--if we needed 60 Senators, we could give them 
projects until everyone signed on, and then forget about the other 40, 
have a vote, and go home. That could happen, but we did not do that. We 
have a complicated formula.
  This creates different anxieties in different States where there is 
opposition because in one particular area they do not do as well as 
another State. Let me give an example of how complicated the formula 
is.
  In a formula, you take into consideration an abundance of items, such 
as interstate lane miles. This is something in the formulas we take 
into consideration. Obviously, there is a reason. Or vehicle miles 
traveled, which is referred to as VMT. Over the next few days we will 
hear that quite often. The vehicle miles traveled on interstate has to 
be something to consider in terms of authorizing a 6-year program.
  The contributions to the highway trust fund are very significant. We 
hear from some of the large States that they give more to the highway 
trust fund. I suggest it is not just people in that State who are 
making those contributions; people driving through the State also have 
to buy fuel in those States.
  The lane miles on principal arteries, excluding the intersection, is 
weighted in the formula to a percentage. The VMT on principal arteries 
is considered. Diesel fuel used on highways is a consideration. Total 
lane miles on principal arteries divided by population is considered 
when we look at a formula that would affect all 50 States. So total 
lane miles on Federal aid highways, total vehicle miles traveled on 
Federal aid highways, the contributions to the highway trust fund, or 
the highway account, attributable to highway users, the cost to repair 
or replace deficient highways and bridges have to be considered. In the 
State of Alaska, for example, the Presiding Officer's State, it is more 
expensive. They have severe winters in Alaska. We do not have severe 
winters in some of the Southern States. This has to be part of the 
consideration.
  The weighted nonattainment and maintenance area, population, the 
equal shares to each eligible State on highways, recreational trails 
program, the border planning, borders and corridors--this is 
significant to States such as California and Arizona, Texas, Florida, 
and, of course, the northern tier of States. The border States' share 
of cargo weight, what their share is of cargo value, the number of 
commercial vehicles entering the border State, the number of passenger 
vehicles entering the border State--all these are part of the formula.
  We have low-income States. My State of Oklahoma is a low-income 
State. The State of Arizona is a high-income State. That is a 
consideration. One of the chief workers on the bill has been Senator 
Baucus from Montana. He is the ranking member on the committee; Kit 
Bond chairs that subcommittee on transportation within our committee. 
He has a low-population State. Obviously, if you have a low-population 
State, that has to be a consideration. There still have to be roads so 
they can travel and other people can travel through their States. But 
if they base it all on getting 100 percent back, and they do not have 
extra consideration--that has to be part of the formula.
  Low-population-density States is a factor. The high fatality rates 
are a factor. The fatality rate in my State of Oklahoma is higher than 
average. The guaranteed minimum growth of each State--there is a limit 
applied to that--and the guaranteed minimum rate of return for donor 
States is a consideration. I remember when that guaranteed minimum rate 
of return for donor States was 75 percent, and it only crept up to 80, 
85 and 90; now we operate on 90.5 percent. If we passed the bill 
offered last year, the way it passed in Senate, we would be at 95 
percent. Every State would be guaranteed 95 percent return of donations 
of that State.
  If we did not do it this way, we could do it the politically easy 
way--handing out projects until it is done. But that is where pork 
comes in. That is where most of the criticism comes from. I have heard 
a lot of the commentators talk about the highway bill the Senate has is 
full of projects and pork. My response is they have not read it yet. 
There are only two projects in the entire bill. Only two. On the other 
side, there are several hundred. It is a totally different approach.
  So we have these things that are of major consideration. We have to 
get this bill done. The best way to get it done, of course, is to vote 
favorably tomorrow on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to 
proceed, and then to move on to the bill.
  Now, we have several people who may wish to speak. I mentioned 
Senator Bond, who is the chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee. 
Senator Baucus, who has been very helpful in working with us, is the 
ranking member of the subcommittee. There is Senator Jeffords and 
myself. Of course, we have 18 members of our committee. We would like 
to invite them to come down right now. I will defer to anyone who wants 
to come down and talk about this legislation. In the event that nobody 
shows up, I have more to say. I think, probably, the Senator from 
Vermont might have more to say, too.
  So at the present time I will go ahead and suggest the absence of a 
quorum and encourage members of our committee and others who want to be 
heard on the highway bill to come down and speak.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to speak for up to 30 minutes as in morning business. 
However, I want to say if anyone comes down to speak

[[Page 7580]]

on the motion to proceed to the highway bill, I will stop at that point 
so they can be recognized. I will yield to them. However, I want my 
entire speech to be printed in the Record as if given intact.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Third Pillar of Climate Alarmism

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I will continue my series of the 
four pillars of climate alarmism. This is the third pillar speech. In 
my first speech, I outlined how the media and some of the environmental 
extremists distorted, exaggerated, and mischaracterized a major climate 
change report from the National Academy of Sciences.
  I showed how the left and the media exaggerated a document that 
contained numerous caveats about the uncertainties of current knowledge 
and the caution that its conclusions were tentative, proclaiming the 
report showed conclusively that global warming due to man is occurring.
  In my second speech, I described some of the more serious and, 
indeed, fatal flaws in the 2001 Third Assessment Report from the U.N.'s 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, known also as the IPCC, 
which I will refer to from time to time. In that speech, I exposed how 
Michael Mann's now infamous ``hockey stick,'' the flagship of the 
IPCC's claims that global warming is real, has been thoroughly 
discredited in scientific circles, and that the IPCC's projections of 
future carbon emissions, which drive temperature model conclusions, 
have been proven to be based on political decisions that, by the end of 
the century, countries such as Libya will be as wealthy or wealthier 
than the United States.
  Now, I would like to examine the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment 
Report, which received considerable attention on its release late last 
year. Last November, the Arctic Council, described as a ``high-level 
information forum'' that includes the United States, Canada, Denmark, 
Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, and Sweden, released 
its 140-page arctic synthesis report, entitled, ``Impacts of a Warming 
Arctic.'' It details the major findings from the Arctic Council's 
1,200-page scientific report, which will be released in the coming 
weeks.
  The essence of the synthesis report is this: The Arctic is 
experiencing unprecedented climate change, caused, in large part, if 
not entirely, by manmade greenhouse gas emissions, while projections 
show dramatic Arctic warming accompanied by even more pronounced 
changes that will have serious repercussions for the entire planet.
  At first blush, the report appears to be quite impressive. It 
contains glossy photos, charts, and graphs, and was produced by some 
300 scientists from several nations. But it lacks virtually any 
scientific documentation, which casts doubt on the report's page after 
page of unqualified, matter-of-fact claims about Arctic warming. That 
documentation, we are told, is forthcoming in the more lengthy 
scientific report. So it is unclear if the 140-page document accurately 
reflects the contents of the scientific report.
  If it does, then the scientific report simply ignores or dismisses 
reams of peer-reviewed scientific work contradicting the Arctic 
Council's conclusions. If it does not, then the synthesis report would 
appear to be an exercise in global warming propaganda.
  The release of the report created a media sensation with nearly every 
major news outlet declaring, once again, that the scientific consensus 
on global warming had been reaffirmed.
  Here is the Chicago Tribune's report from November 24, 2004:

       The council's 140-page report, four years in the making, 
     warns of immense ice melts, a dramatic rise in ocean levels, 
     the depletion of the Gulf Stream and other sea currents, wild 
     fluctuations in weather patterns, increased ultraviolet 
     radiation and wrenching dislocations in the food chain and 
     habitat.

  In equally dramatic fashion, the Associated Press described the 
report this way. It said:

       This most comprehensive study of Arctic warming to date 
     adds yet more impetus to the projections by many of the 
     world's climate scientists that there will be a steady rise 
     in global temperature as the result of greenhouse gases 
     released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels 
     and other sources.

  Such descriptions of the report are really not far off the mark, and 
for good reason. In this case, the media and extremist groups got 
exactly what they wished for--140 pages detailing a daunting list of 
projected environmental catastrophes: permafrost melting, 
infrastructure collapsing, glaciers vanishing, sea levels rising, 
coastal communities flooding, polar bears facing extinction.
  Worse, the authors left the impression that these scenarios were all 
but assured, despite the fact that the assumptions on which they are 
based are highly uncertain--a point I will examine later in this 
speech. Thus, no spin, distortion, or exaggeration on the media's part 
was necessary.
  The synthesis report constructs a deceptive picture of climate 
changes that have occurred in the Arctic over the last 30 years, 
particularly with respect to temperature change. A major piece of 
evidence supporting the Arctic Council's alarmist conclusions is the 
Arctic's ``unprecedented'' temperature increase over the last several 
decades. The report's authors make the following statement on page 23. 
I am quoting now. It says:

       Examining the record of past climatic conditions indicates 
     that the amount, speed, and pattern of warming experienced in 
     recent decades are indeed unusual and are characteristic of 
     the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases.

  Specifically, according to the Council, annual average temperature in 
the Arctic has increased at almost twice the rate of the rest of the 
world, while winter temperatures in Alaska and western Canada have 
increased about 3 to 4 degrees Celsius over the past half century, with 
larger increases projected in the next 100 years.
  Surely, this is proof of unprecedented, human-induced warming, and of 
worrisome warming trends for the future? Not quite. Let's take a closer 
look at the peer-reviewed literature on the temperature history of the 
Arctic, which the Arctic Council's synthesis report totally ignored.
  First, in the November 2002 issue of the Journal Holocene, 
researchers examined proxy temperature data in northern Russia spanning 
over 2,000 years. They found that ``the warmest periods over the last 
two millennia in this region were clearly in the third, tenth to 
twelfth, and during the twentieth centuries.'' The earlier periods, 
they claim, were warmer than those of the 20th century, while 20th 
century temperatures appeared to peak at around 1940.
  For a much broader perspective on Arctic temperatures, one can read 
the 2003 paper by researcher Igor Polyakov in the journal EOS, a 
publication of the American Geophysical Union. In the paper titled 
``Trends and Variations in Arctic Climate Systems,'' Polyakov studied 
land and ocean data from northward of latitude 62.5 degrees north, 
dating back to 1870.
  As is obvious from this chart, one can see that current temperature 
over the entire region is similar to that measured 70 years ago. 
According to Polyakov:

       Two distinct warming periods from 1920 to 1945, and from 
     1975 to the present, are clearly evident.

  He goes on to note that ``compared with the global and hemispheric 
temperature rise, the high-latitude temperature increase was stronger 
in the late 1930s to the early 1940s than in recent decades.''
  Strangely there is no mention of this in the Arctic report, but 
alarmists don't seem to care. They would probably respond that: 300 
scientists from all over the world believe such warming is occurring. 
You, sir, have merely identified two whose research presents a contrary 
view.
  To answer that charge I will submit for the Record an impressive list 
of scientists from several countries, including the United States, 
whose peer-reviewed work shows current Arctic temperatures are no 
higher than temperatures recorded in the 1930s and the 1940s.
  Let me quote from a few salient examples. In a 2003 issue of the 
Journal of

[[Page 7581]]

Climate, seven researchers concluded the following:

       In contrast to the global and hemispheric temperature, the 
     maritime Arctic temperature was higher in the late 1930s 
     through the early 1940s than in the 1990s.

  Here is another excerpt from the 2000 International Journal of 
Climatology, Dr. Rajmund Przybylak of Nicholas Copernicus University in 
Torun, Poland. It reads:

       The highest temperatures since the beginning of 
     instrumental observation occurred clearly in the 1930s and 
     can be attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation.

  Finally, in 2001, researchers examined a 10,000-year span of sea core 
sediment in the Chukchi Sea and concluded that ``in the recent past, 
the western Arctic Ocean was much warmer than it is today.'' They also 
found that ``during the middle Holocene [approximately 6,000 years ago] 
the August sea surface temperature fluctuated by 5 degrees Celsius and 
was 3-7 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today.'' Obviously, the 
middle Holocene period was not known for SUVs and coal-fired 
powerplants.
  To get a fuller sense of the report's bias, consider the Arctic 
Council's geographical definition of ``the Arctic.'' This is important 
because the temperature record differs depending on one's definition. 
The Arctic report's temperature record includes data from northward of 
latitude 60 degrees North. Why the Arctic Council chose this point is 
not explained. In fact, the report's authors responsible for defining 
the Arctic admitted last November that their choice was arbitrary.
  The Arctic Council's starting point is problematic for two reasons. 
First, Dr. George Taylor, Oregon's State climatologist and a past 
president of the American Association of State Climatologists, recently 
examined Arctic temperature trends using different starting points. As 
Dr. Taylor found, ``[u]sing 60 degrees North introduced a lot of . . . 
questionable Siberian stations.'' In other words, measurements at that 
point are based in part on bad data.
  Second, other researchers see the Arctic differently, and probably 
more accurately when describing long-term temperature trends. Polyakov, 
for example, defined Arctic as northward of 62.5 degrees North. This 
2.5-degree difference is not trivial. Temperatures can change 
significantly between 62.5 degrees North and 60 degrees North. In fact, 
pushing the geographical boundaries southward, as the Arctic Council 
did, contributes to a substantial upward bias in temperature 
measurements.
  Not only was the Arctic region arbitrarily defined, it appears that 
marine and coastal-based data were arbitrarily excluded from the 
report's temperature record. This is strange, considering two-thirds of 
the Arctic is covered by the Arctic Ocean. So it seems unreasonable to 
use only land-based stations, as the Arctic Council did, and not to 
include coastal stations, Russian drifting stations in the Arctic 
Ocean, and drifting buoys from the International Buoy Programme, as 
Polyakov and his colleagues did.
  Using such data reveals a less dramatic temperature picture than the 
Arctic Council's. In 1993, University of Wisconsin climatologist 
Jonathan Kahal examined declassified data collected over the Arctic 
Ocean during the Cold War. In a paper in the journal Nature, Kahl found 
an ``absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean 
in the past 40 years'' and a net decline in Arctic temperature. 
Admittedly, Kahl's temperature history stretches only from 1958 to 
1986. But more importantly, it relies on marine and coastal-based data.
  Dr. Taylor was among many mystified by these omissions. For him, 
there is only one possible explanation: ``The [Arctic Climate Impact 
Assessment] appears to be guilty of selective use of data.'' He further 
explained, ``Many of the trends described in the document begin in the 
1960s or 1970s--cool decades in much of the world--and end in the 
warmer 1990s and early 2000s. So, for example, temperatures have warmed 
in the last 40 years, and the implication, `if present trends 
continue,' is that massive warming will occur in the next century. Yet 
data are readily available for the 1930s and early 1940s, when 
temperatures were comparable to (and probably higher than) those 
observed today. Why not start the trend there? Because there is no net 
warming over the last 65 years?
  This is kind of interesting because I can remember also giving a 
speech where I showed the cover of ``Newsweek'' magazine and the cover 
of ``U.S. News and World Report.'' This was back in the 1970s. And the 
headlines were: Cooling period is coming; a new ice age is coming. We 
are all going to die. It is the same thing people are saying about a 
warming climate. If your starting point is at the end of that cold 
period, it gives a distortion, if there has been no net warming over 
the last 65 years.
  In the pop culture version of global warming, there is no greater 
attraction than melting glaciers and sea ice. Press accounts appear 
daily of new studies purporting to show a widespread glacial retreat 
stemming from man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Warnings abound that 
this melting will cause a calamitous rise in sea levels. True to form, 
the Arctic Council follows the same story line, asserting that, 
``glaciers throughout the Arctic are melting.'' ``This process is 
already under way,'' the report states, ``with the widespread retreat 
of glaciers, snow cover, and sea ice. This is one reason why climate 
change is more rapid in the Arctic than elsewhere.'' but is this really 
the case?
  Interestingly, the IPCC Third Assessment Report references peer-
reviewed studies that contradict the Arctic Council's assessments. The 
IPCC, an organization convinced of the validity of the global warming 
consensus, noted that, ``Glaciers and ice caps in the Arctic also have 
shown retreat in low-lying areas since about 1920,'' but also stated, 
`'However, no increasing melting trend has been observed during the 
past 40 years.''
  Sonar data on sea ice collected in the 1990s also tell a different 
story. As the BBC wrote in 2001. ``The latest and most comprehensive 
analysis yet of the sonar data collected in the 1990s shows little if 
any thinning--at least towards the end of that decade. Indeed, at the 
North Pole, there are indications in the data that the ice even got a 
little thicker.''
  What they are saying is, there are some areas that you can visibly go 
to and say yes, glaciers are melting, but in other areas it is getting 
thicker.
  Among other omissions, the Arctic Council gave little weight to the 
observed variability of Arctic sea ice thickness. The term ``observed 
variability'' of sea ice thickness has specific meaning in the Arctic: 
Scientists estimate that sea ice mass there can vary by as much as 16 
percent in a single year. As Dr. Seymour Laxon, a lecturer in the 
Department of Space and Climate Physics at the University College 
London, explained, ``The observed variability of Arctic sea ice 
thickness contrasts with the concept of a slowly dwindling ice pack, 
produced by global warming.''
  So what causes these variations in sea ice mass? In 2002, Dr. Greg 
Holloway, of the Institute for Ocean Sciences in Sidney, Canada, and 
his colleagues Dr. Tessa Sou, showed that decadal wind pattern changes 
caused a shifting of Arctic sea ice, creating thinner ice in some 
regions and thicker ice in others. As Dr. Holloway explained, ``It's a 
circumstance where the ice tends to leave the central Arctic and then 
mostly pile up against the Canadian side, before moving back into the 
central Arctic again.'' Based on this research, Dr. Holloway believes 
that ``we have been a little bit overly stampeded into the idea that 
here is a terribly alarming melting taking place.''
  Holloway is not alone in his assessment. In 2003, German researchers 
Cornelia Koeberle and Ruediger Gerdes found evidence of natural ``wind 
stress'' strongly affecting variability in Arctic sea ice. ``The 
results make connecting `global warming' to Arctic ice thinning very 
difficult for two reasons,'' the researchers wrote. ``First, the large 
decadal and longer-term variability masks any trend . . . Second, the 
wind stress strongly affects the

[[Page 7582]]

long-term development of ice volume. A long-term change in wind stress 
over the Arctic, possibly by an increase in the number of atmospheric 
circulation states that favor ice export, would affect the ice volume 
in a similar manner as a temperature increase.''
  In addition to questionable claims about Arctic sea ice, the Arctic 
report includes dubious projections about the Greenland Ice Sheet. 
Climate models, the Arctic Council reports, ``project that local 
warming in Greenland will exceed 3 degrees Celsius during this 
century.'' The result? ``Ice sheet models project that a warming of 
that magnitude would initiate the long-term melting of Greenland Ice 
Sheet.'' And furthermore, ``Even if climactic conditions then 
stabilized, an increase of this magnitude is projected to lead 
eventually (over centuries) to a virtually complete melting of the 
Greenland Ice Sheet, resulting in a global sea level rise of about 
seven meters.''
  This sounds ominous, but again, peer-reviewed literature on the 
subject, excluded from the Arctic report, tells a countervailing story. 
For example, a team of experts at Los Alamos National Laboratory 
recently examined Greenland's instrumental surface temperatures. Here's 
what they found: ``Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations 
data have undergone predominately a cooling trend. At the summit of the 
Greenland ice sheet, the summer average temperature has decreased at 
the rate of 2.2 [degrees Celsius] per decade since the beginning of the 
measures in 1987.'' We are talking about a reduction in temperature, of 
an increase.
  Finally, the report's projections for the Greenland ice sheet, 
glaciers, and sea ice were based on data obtained from global climate 
models. Those projections assume anthropogenic warming, and proceed to 
show a gradual but persistent melting of glaciers and ice, leading to a 
dangerous rise in sea levels. However, as climate scientists have 
repeatedly pointed out, climate models are highly imperfect. In fact, 
they are notoriously inaccurate in how they simulate the complexities 
of the climate system.
  This is especially true of Arctic climate. According to a letter 
signed by 11 climate scientists, sent to the Senate Commerce Committee 
last fall, ``Arctic climate varies dramatically from one region to 
another, and over time in ways that cannot be accurately reproduced by 
climate models. The quantitative impacts of natural and anthropogenic 
factors remain highly uncertain, especially for a region as complex as 
the Arctic.''
  Researchers associated with the University of Alaska-Fairbanks 
wholeheartedly endorsed this view. They recently wrote, 
``Unfortunately, most global climate models are not capable of 
sufficiently reproducing the climatological state of the Arctic Ocean, 
sea ice and atmosphere . . . as [an] example, the simulated sea ice 
thickness is overestimated, and its overall pattern is in error, with 
the thickest ice located in the Siberian instead of the Canadian sector 
of the Arctic Ocean.''
  Based on these well-documented technological constraints, how can one 
take seriously the Arctic Council's claim that ``While the models 
differ in their projections of some of the features of climate change, 
they are all in agreement that the world will warm significantly as a 
result of human activities and that the Arctic is likely to experience 
noticeable warming particularly early and intensely''?
  The alarmist nature of the Arctic report is to be expected. How else 
can they justify its enormous costs of regulating carbon dioxide? We 
know the costs of this would be enormous. Wharton Econometrics 
Forecasting Associates--this is from the Wharton School of Economics, 
not from Senator Jim Inhofe--estimates that implementing Kyoto would 
cost the average American family of four $2,715 a year. Acknowledging 
the holes in the science underlying claims of catastrophic global 
warming would undermine their agenda. What is the agenda? Two 
international leaders have said it best.
  Margot Walstrom, the EU's environmental commissioner, said that Kyoto 
is ``about leveling the playing field for big business worldwide.'' 
French President Jacques Chirac said during a speech at The Hague in 
November 2000 that Kyoto represents ``the first component of an 
authentic global governance.'' That is what they want to do, level the 
playing field for big business worldwide, bring the United States down 
to Third World status eventually, and have an authentic global 
governance.
  Based on these and other major deficiencies, the Arctic Climate 
Impact Assessment hardly serves as compelling proof that greenhouse gas 
emissions are causing unprecedented changes in Arctic climate, or that 
trends point to a future marred by widespread damage to Arctic 
ecosystems. To be sure, the report fails to provide a thorough, 
balanced, comprehensive overview of the most compelling research on 
Arctic climate.
  Instead, the so-called ``synthesis report'' is a biased, selective 
examination of climate trends in the Arctic. It completely ignores 
well-known, established facts. For instance, it is firmly established 
that Arctic temperatures in the late 1930s and early 1940s were higher 
than in the 1990s and that Greenland's temperatures in recent decades 
have undergone a cooling trend, not a warming trend. It is also well 
known that sea ice mass can vary by as much as 16 percent in a single 
year. Moreover, this report fails the test of transparency and openness 
and lacks virtually any documentation. It reads more like an 
ideological tome. Extremist groups are using it as a legal brief to sue 
energy producers on behalf of Arctic peoples. Hardly surprising.
  Dr. George Taylor, Oregon's State climatologist, succinctly described 
the report when he said: ``Nice graphics, but bad science.''
  This is what we have been hearing. The extremists have to make us 
believe that something catastrophic will happen. The same people who 
are talking about global warming today were the ones who, in the 1970s, 
were talking about global cooling, saying another ice age is coming. It 
is interesting.
  I recommend reading a book by Michael Creighton called, ``The State 
of Fear.'' Michael Creighton is one of the best-known authors in 
America. He writes fiction; these are novels, but he is a scientist and 
also a medical doctor. He was going to write a novel on global warming 
and the terrible things that could happen. Instead of that, after he 
did research, he wrote another novel. While it is fiction, its 
footnotes are all scientific. I recommend that book. As any thoughtful 
person who has a scientific background will tell you, the idea of 
global warming very well may be the greatest single hoax ever 
perpetrated on the American people.
  With that, I made the comment before speaking that I am anxious for 
Members to come down and talk about our bill. We are now under debate 
on the motion to proceed to the consideration of the highway bill, H.R. 
3. We will have a vote on that motion to proceed tomorrow morning. The 
vote is set for sometime around 11 o'clock tomorrow morning. I have 
been told there are some Members who wish to speak in morning business. 
I would like to inquire, if there are any real long speeches, if at 
some point someone comes down to speak on the highway bill, or on the 
motion to proceed to that bill--I would not want a commitment, but I 
would request they defer to them when they should arrive on the floor.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Challenges in the Senate

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first of all, I am really pleased we 
finally have the highway bill on the floor. I appreciate the leadership 
of the chairman and the ranking member. This is an authorization that 
is, I think, 2\1/2\ years old or so. Many of us have been frustrated. I 
know the chairman and Senator Jeffords have been frustrated that we 
have not been able to finish this work. I hope we can finish this bill 
and move it through the Senate.

[[Page 7583]]

  I wanted to comment about another couple of issues. I am worried 
about the way things develop here in the Senate. We treat serious 
things too lightly; we treat light things too seriously. We have, it 
seems to me, the framework for a huge brawl in the Senate over 
procedure, and there are so many challenges facing our country that 
this President and this Congress are not looking in the eye with the 
thought of responding directly to them. I will mention a few of them 
today.
  Politics, regrettably, in recent times has become a sport in which 
one side trashes the other side, and it is either our way, or no way, 
or the highway. Now, we have a circumstance where we are facing serious 
challenges: we face fiscal policies that are off the rail, the largest 
budget deficits in history; we face the largest trade deficit in 
history, with massive numbers of American jobs being shipped overseas; 
we face energy problems that are causing severe pain and dislocation, 
and everybody knows what the price of gasoline is these days; we 
struggle with health care costs that are skyrocketing; and all of these 
issues are hard for families to deal with. And yet, despite these 
issues, we are confronted by the prospect of a majority that doesn't 
like the current rules with respect to judgeships, so they will try to 
break the rules of the Senate, for the first time in history, in order 
to change the rules because we have approved only 205 out of 215 judges 
sent to us by the President--again, we have approved 97 percent of all 
of the judges sent to us by the President for lifetime appointments on 
the bench. But because there are 10 that have not been approved, the 
President and the majority party believe they want to break the rules 
of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate.
  There are so many other important things we ought to deal with. It is 
just Byzantine that this issue is what we are fighting about. There is 
a constitutional role for the Congress--particularly the Senate--with 
respect to judgeships. The President proposes, and we advise and 
consent. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we cannot use 
the rules of the Senate for those few judges we believe are 
inappropriate, those few we think represent the extreme and should not 
be on the bench for a lifetime.
  Yet, because, again, 3 percent of the judges have not been approved, 
while 97 percent have, we have the prospect of what is commonly called 
the ``nuclear'' option of trying to change the Senate rules by breaking 
the Senate rules.
  I will tell you what I think we should be working on. First, health 
care costs. The fact is, when most families sit around their supper 
table and talk about their lives, they are talking about things that 
relate to their everyday existence: Do I have a good job? Does it pay 
well? Do I have job security? Do grandpa and grandma have access to 
good health care? Are we sending our kids to good schools? Do we live 
in a safe neighborhood?
  These issues affect the daily lives of the American people. Health 
care is not an option. When you are sick, you need health care. We have 
45 million people without health insurance. We have the cost of health 
care skyrocketing. It is rising at a much more rapid pace than 
inflation. The cost of prescription drugs is going out of sight. Yet, 
is this Congress tackling health care issues? No, we are not. Will we 
allow legislation on the floor of the Senate that would provide for the 
safe reimportation of prescription drugs to put downward pressure on 
prescription drugs? No. Will we allow the Federal Government to 
negotiate lower prices with the pharmaceutical companies like the VA? 
Will we allow that negotiation for the Medicare Program? No. In fact, 
this Congress explicitly says you may not do that. It is unbelievable. 
We have these huge health care challenges, but we will not look that 
issue in the eye.
  Our budget deficits are the largest in the history of our country. We 
just passed an $80 billion emergency bill last week. We knew for 2 
years that is what it would cost--$5 billion, $6 billion a month in 
Iraq and Afghanistan--and there was zero in the President's budget 
request for it. So they proposed spending it on an emergency basis. 
Nobody talks about raising money for it; just spend it. In fact, I have 
raised questions about how it is being spent--and I offered an 
amendment saying we are being stolen blind with respect to contractors 
in Iraq--to wit, Halliburton. Halliburton is charging us for 42,000 
meals a day served to U.S. soldiers, when it turns out they are serving 
only 14,000 meals a day. In my hometown, they have a word for that sort 
of thing.
  I asked for an investigation into this kind of waste, fraud, and 
abuse in contracting. It is massive. But you cannot get a committee to 
investigate that. The Congress doesn't want to have a select committee 
to investigate that. So it is just throwing the money out the door in 
hopes that some of it will stick. In fact, there is massive waste, 
fraud, and abuse and everybody knows it. But nobody wants to confront 
it.
  Education. We have a serious problem with education in this country. 
There are 400,000 qualified high-school kids that will not go to 
college this year because of financial burdens, and another 220,000 
kids won't go to college because they simply cannot afford it. You have 
well over a half-million qualified kids who will not be going to 
college who should be in college. We know college tuition has risen 28 
percent, after inflation, in the last 4 years. We have not considered 
the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. We extended it, but 
that should have been reauthorized several years ago. It is set to 
expire. The President's budget would eliminate the Perkins student loan 
program, Upward Bound, and a series of other programs that I think are 
very important. Pell grants have largely been stagnant in terms of 
their level, while tuition has gone way out of sight.
  We don't look energy right in the eye, although I must say there is 
hope here. I met with Senators Domenici and Bingaman. I am a senior 
member on the Energy Committee, and I hope we can bring a bill to the 
floor of the Senate. That is a bipartisan bill.
  Go to the gas pump these days, and then read in the paper after you 
paid for that gas, that Exxon reported the highest profit ever reported 
for one quarter by any corporation. Think of that. We have a revenue-
sharing system by which the American taxpayer, the American consumer 
shares their money with the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Iraqis, the 
Venezuelans, and others who have the oil, and then the oil companies 
that are the conduit for that oil are making record profits as well.
  If anything demands an investigation, it is that, in my judgment. We 
need an energy policy that does not hold this country hostage to oil, 
60 percent of which comes from off our shores.
  These are a few of the issues we ought to stare straight in the eye, 
and those of us who are not part of the political extreme--and there 
are too many these days who are perverting the political process in 
this country, I think a shameful perversion of the political process in 
many ways--but I hope those of us who are part of the strong political 
center in America will finally convince this administration and this 
Congress to take a hard look at the real challenges our country faces 
and then begin the long, challenging work to try to address them.
  This is a great place. We are lucky to be here, lucky to be alive 
now. There is no place like it on Earth. It is our job as caretakers of 
this wonderful democracy to fix problems as we see them, to address 
problems, not to go off on these political searches to figure out who 
is the worst. The question is not who is the worst in the political 
system of ours, the question is whose ideas are the best that can move 
this country forward and give our country and our children the prospect 
for a better and brighter future.
  I have much more to say, but because of time constraints today, I 
will leave it at that and say I hope as these weeks unfold we will 
begin to address the substance of the real challenges facing our 
country--Federal budget deficits, trade deficits, health care, 
education, energy, and other issues--all of which have a significant 
impact on the way we live

[[Page 7584]]

in the country and all of which will have a significant impact on 
America's future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to make a couple comments in 
response to my good friend from North Dakota.
  First, I encourage Members to come down to the Chamber. The current 
order of business is the motion to proceed to the highway bill. It is 
very important. It is critical. There is nothing we are dealing with 
right now that is more important. There is so much at stake, as I 
already outlined. We need to have more Members come down. Certainly, if 
I am talking, I will defer to them if they do come to the floor.


                   Partnership for Fish and Wildlife

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to share with you an experience 
from last Friday. We had a field hearing in Oklahoma on the Partnership 
for Fish and Wildlife. This is a program not many people know about. It 
is one that has not ever been authorized, but it is one that has gone 
year to year with an appropriation, whereby a landowner who is trying 
to do something for the environment, trying to do something for 
conservation, trying to do something for habitat will put up $3 for 
every $1 the Fish and Wildlife Service puts up to join a partnership 
with them. They have come up with some incredible results, and it shows 
that those areas of Government where you work with Government and not 
have Government dictating mandates to individuals or to communities 
works so much better. This is a model for other programs. Consequently, 
I thought Earth Day was a good day for me, as chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, to introduce the bill, which I 
have introduced, to authorize this Partnership for Fish and Wildlife 
Program.
  Also, there is a vacancy that has occurred with the Director of the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We have a Southwest regional director 
by the name of H. Dale Hall. He came up for our hearing on Friday in 
Oklahoma. He is one of the incredible, dedicated Federal workers. It 
seems to me he would be an excellent Director for the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service. I would like to nominate this man for that purpose.
  He is a wildlife biologist. Mr. Hall meets the qualifications for the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director as established by 16 United 
States Code 742B, being knowledgeable in the principles of fisheries 
and wildlife management by reason of education and experience. Mr. Hall 
received a bachelor of science degree in biology and chemistry from 
Cumberland College in Williamsburg, KY, and a master's degree in 
fisheries science from Louisiana State University.
  He had military experience prior to joining the Service in 1978. Mr. 
Hall served 4 years in the U.S. Air Force beginning in 1968 with 
overseas assignments in Italy and the Philippines.
  He has private sector experience. After returning to civilian life in 
1972, Mr. Hall managed catfish farms in the Mississippi Delta region 
for Eden Fisheries and Farm, Inc.
  He has experienced all kinds of awards. He joined the Service in 1978 
and has worked in the Mississippi Valley, Houston field office, the 
Washington, DC, office, the Pacific regional office, the Southwest 
regional office, and now serves as regional director for the Southwest 
region. That is Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico.
  He was honored as one of the Service's 10 most outstanding merit pay 
employees for 1986. In February of 1996, he was presented with the 
Department of Interior's Meritorious Service Award by then-Secretary 
Bruce Babbitt.
  I nominate this man for this position. I think he would make an 
excellent Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  I again reiterate that the order of business now is on a motion to 
proceed to the highway bill. Cloture has already been filed. We will be 
voting on cloture tomorrow morning. I cannot think of one thing we are 
doing now that is more important than getting a highway bill. We have 
been operating on extensions for a long period of time. When we do 
extensions, we do not get any of the benefits of streamlining, we do 
not get any of the safety benefits, we do not get any of the school-to-
work programs, or any of the other programs. These are things that need 
to be done.
  All an extension does is extend what is currently out there. 
Therefore, the States and communities do not know what to expect. They 
do not know how to anticipate how much money is going to be there or 
whether any of these programs to protect the environment are going to 
be there, or any streamlining programs.
  I cannot tell you how important it is we not operate on extensions 
but instead that we do pass this highway bill. We should have done it 
last year. Last year, we had the bill that came up. The President of 
the United States felt it should be a smaller number. We felt if the 
bill is paid for--and at that time the Finance Committee, under the 
chairmanship of Chuck Grassley and the ranking member, Max Baucus, came 
up with money that could be raised for that purpose so it would not add 
to the deficit. Consequently, we passed a bill out of the Senate that 
was $318 billion for a 6-year reauthorization. That would have been 
fine. It went to conference and got hung up in conference. One or two 
people stopped us from having this bill. Now all of America is 
suffering for it.
  This is our second run at it. We are almost out of time. The current 
extension expires on May 31. If we do not have a bill by May 31, then 
we are going to have to operate on an extension. This is something that 
would certainly be to the detriment of all States.
  Obviously, we are all prejudiced for our own States. My State is 
Oklahoma. Oklahoma has very severe problems with bridges. We need to 
correct those problems. Border States have problems with NAFTA traffic 
coming up, south to north, and back down. That adds a lot.
  We are trying to do something with the Borders and Corridors Program. 
If we do not have a bill, we will not have that program. We have a lot 
of things that are very significant and need to be addressed.
  I encourage my fellow Members to come to the floor and talk about the 
motion to proceed to the highway bill, talk about the highway 
conditions in their States, and help us to get this bill passed.
  I will say this, the bill we had last year, even though it was $318 
billion over a 6-year period, we enjoyed a 76-to-21 majority in this 
body. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer was not here at the 
time, but I had an opportunity to talk to all the Members who were not 
here to vote last time about how they would vote, and virtually all of 
them are supporting this highway bill.
  It is essentially the same bill. We have been working on it, my 
friend from Vermont, the ranking Democrat of the committee I chair, we 
have been working on this now for 2\1/2\, almost 3 years. We can never 
make up what happened. We understand that. When you get into a 
complicated formula and consider all the things I outlined a few 
minutes ago, there are going to be some people who do not want to have 
a bill. There are procedural steps that can be taken to stop us from 
having a bill. All we want is to have a vote.
  Speaking of a vote, I do not have a better friend than the Senator 
from North Dakota. We disagree on issues politically. He made some 
comments to which I would like to respond. First on judges.
  I do not think my State of Oklahoma is that different from other 
States. I do not think it is different from North Carolina. I do not 
think it is different from North Dakota or most States. When I walk 
around and visit people in my State of Oklahoma--for 19 years I have 
gone back on a weekly basis, so I

[[Page 7585]]

am there talking to normal people, because there are not that many here 
in Washington--I find out what concerns them. They are concerned about 
a lot of the issues with which we deal.
  Certainly, they are concerned about the war in Iraq. They are 
concerned about the fact that we are finally winning the war against 
terrorism. We are doing a good job over there. I was there a few days 
ago and made a point, since I am on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, to spend some time in the Sunni Triangle where they are 
supposed to dislike us the most. I have never seen anything like it. In 
Fallujah, there is a guy who was the brigade commander for Saddam 
Hussein who hated Americans before. Then he got the title of brigade 
commander for the Iraqi security forces, and he started working with 
our Marines over there. He started loving them so much, he said when 
they rotated out--and this includes embedded training where his troops 
were training with our Marines; our Marines were helping to train these 
individuals--when our Marines rotated and left, he said they actually 
cried. He has renamed the Fallujah Iraqi security forces. They are now 
called the Fallujah Marines, named after our marines. That is what is 
happening in the Sunni Triangle.
  I went to Tikrit, the hometown of Saddam Hussein. During the training 
process in Tikrit, outside one of the stations they were training in 
was a car bomb that killed 10 Iraqis and severely injured 30 more. In 
Tikrit, the 40 families who either lost through death or severe 
injuries people who are being trained to fight for the Iraqi security 
forces substituted other members of their families. It is incredible 
because they have this great love.
  We got in a Blackhawk helicopter and flew all over the Sunni Triangle 
at less than 100 feet. It is the safest way to fly. There are 
terrorists out there who can hit the helicopter.
  As we went across, we saw little kids come up on villages waving 
American flags. There are many people, I am sure, right now who send 
care packages to our troops over there. What these troops are doing 
with the care packages is taking the candy and cookies and repackaging 
them. Then we go 100 feet over the Sunni Triangle, when the kids are 
waving, and they throw the candy out to the kids. There is a love that 
is indescribable. We never hear that from the media back here. The 
media is very biased. The networks are biased, and we do not hear the 
success stories. Good things are happening.
  I was there a few weeks before that after the January 30 election. 
Everyone was saying the election was not going to go off. People risked 
their life to vote, and they told me they could not see the ballot 
because of the tears in their eyes. Another one told me it occurred to 
her when she voted that it was not only ending a 35-year bloody regime 
of Saddam Hussein, but it was the first time in 7,000 years she and the 
Iraqi people were having a right, an opportunity for self-
determination. It is a huge thing happening over there.
  We all know about the weapons of mass destruction and trying to 
discredit the President. We knew there were terrorist training camps. 
We have gotten rid of them. We are seeing a new democracy emerge and 
totally change the Middle East. It has been successful.
  I only say that because there are a lot of important things going on, 
and one is, of course, dealing with the current deficit. We are going 
to have deficits. My good friend from North Dakota was critical of the 
deficit that is taking place right now. I think it has been pretty well 
established--in fact, even the Democrats have agreed--that this 
recession actually started in March of 2000, which was under the 
Clinton administration. When you go into recession, for every 1-percent 
decrease in economic activity, that translates to $46 billion in 
revenues.
  We had the revenue going down at the same time we had 9/11. We are in 
a war and we cannot come out of a deficit while we are in a war. We had 
a reduction in the military. I do not criticize the Clinton 
administration for what happened to the military after the first gulf 
war, but when the military is downsized, some of our modernization 
programs are stopped and it is expensive.
  Right now I do not know how many American people realize that we are 
actually sending our kids out to battle with equipment that is not as 
good as our potential adversaries. Our best artillery piece, for 
example, is the Paladin. The Paladin is World War II technology. After 
each shot, you have to get out and swab the breach, like you used to 
have to do during World War II. Yet there are five countries right now, 
including South Africa, that are making a better non-line-of-sight 
cannon than our Paladin. Our kids do not have as good equipment, and 
that is because our modernization program came to somewhat of a 
screeching halt.
  I was very proud of GEN John Jumper back in I think it was 1998 when 
out of his frustration he was trying to say we have to do something 
about our modernization programs; that our best strike vehicle is 
currently the F-15 and the F-16 and the Russians are making the SU-30s 
and 31s, as they were at the time, and selling them to potential 
adversaries, and they are better than our F-15s and F-16s. When we have 
our F-22s online, and our Joint Strike Fighter, we will change that, 
but we have to progressively do this, and it is expensive. That is why 
we will continue to have deficits for a while until we get this thing 
done.
  In all fairness, we have to realize that, No. 1, the administration 
inherited a deficit; No. 2, we are at war; and, No. 3, we are 
rebuilding a military operation.
  Getting back to the judges, as I said, I do not think Oklahoma is a 
lot different from other States. When I go down the street and I talk 
to people, they are much more concerned about what is happening with 
the judicial decisions and liberal judges trying to make law from the 
benches. They are concerned about school prayer, gay marriage, and the 
Pledge of Allegiance with ``one Nation under God'' coming out. These 
things bother people back in Oklahoma. Maybe they do not bother people 
in other States but they do in Oklahoma. All we want are circuit judges 
to be nominated and then given a simple majority vote on the floor, so 
that we can determine whether that nomination by the President can be 
confirmed.
  I do appreciate what the Senator from North Dakota was saying. 
However, I have to say to my knowledge never in the history--sometimes 
people say, well, how about Judge Bork back several years ago? That was 
a different situation altogether. Never in history has there been a 
filibuster of circuit judge nominees. It should not be 60 people to 
confirm a judge; it should be 51 people. All we want is a vote. We do 
not care how it comes out. That is going to be the will of the Senate, 
but the Constitution specifically says ``Advice and Consent of the 
Senate.'' That is a majority, and that is all we really want.
  I know there are liberals who have a liberal agenda who do not want 
to have conservatives or constructionists confirmed on the various 
circuit courts and Federal benches, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme 
Court. But I can assure my colleagues that the vast majority of people 
in Oklahoma do.
  Lastly, I do agree with the Senator from North Dakota when he talked 
about the need for an energy policy. I became aware of this and 
concerned with this way back in the early 1980s when Ronald Reagan was 
President of the United States. I believed that he should have had an 
energy policy for America. Quite frankly, even though he was my 
favorite guy in contemporary history, he did not do it. There were so 
many other things facing his two terms that he was not able to come up 
with an energy policy.
  I can remember when Secretary Hodel and I would go around the 
country, we would make speeches about how our dependence on foreign 
countries for our ability to fight a war for our energy supply was not 
an energy issue, it was a national security issue. We tried to convince 
people of that, and we were not successful.
  Then, of course, along came other administrations and they did not do 
it, either. I thought certainly the first Bush administration, since he 
had an

[[Page 7586]]

oil background, would be more concerned about it. But this President 
does. He says we should have a comprehensive energy policy for America, 
and one of the cornerstones should be a limit as to how much we should 
be dependent upon foreign countries for our energy supply--or I will 
put it a different way, for our ability to fight a war.
  So here we have a situation where back when I started making speeches 
about our dependency on foreign countries for our oil was when we were 
dependent for about 34 percent. Now it is up to 65 percent. We are 
dependent upon foreign countries for our ability to fight a war twice 
as much as we were back in the 1980s. So it is going in the wrong 
direction.
  What we need is an energy bill. I was very glad to see the vote on 
ANWR. It is kind of interesting, the Arctic National Wildlife, that 
tiny little part of the wildlife reservation that people are concerned 
about, all of the Natives in Alaska want it, all the Alaskans want it, 
the House wants it up in Alaska, the Senate wants it, everybody else 
wants it, but we refused to give it to them to allow them to explore 
and produce on ANWR. Now they can do that.
  A comprehensive energy bill should have an oil and a gas component to 
it. It should have fossil fuels, coal, nuclear energy, and renewable 
energy. If we can have that, we can have an energy bill. I think we are 
going to have one. I am particularly concerned about it because I chair 
the Environment and Public Works Committee and about one-third of the 
Energy bill is in the jurisdiction of my committee. We are going to do 
what we can to work with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. 
Domenici, to try to make that happen.
  I encourage Members to come to the floor, and in the event they do I 
would certainly relinquish the floor to anyone who wants to talk about 
the highway bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed to the highway bill.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to 
speak as in morning business for a period not to exceed 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Dependency on Foreign Oil

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this morning, Americans braced themselves 
for another week of devastating news about the gas pump. This morning, 
Americans learned again of the record increases in the price of oil in 
America. When they turn on the news tonight, they are not going to 
learn of anything that has been done by this Congress or the 
administration in the past months or even past years. They are not 
going to see Washington taking the necessary steps to end our 
dependency on foreign oil. Instead, people will see President Bush 
meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, a stark reminder of our 
dangerous dependence on foreign oil and how much that dependence 
threatens our economy as well as our national security.
  The President offers strong words against nations that sponsor 
terror, but for those in control of 65 percent of the world's oil 
supply, those words are compromised from the get-go. That is wrong, but 
it is fundamentally what happens when the administration is committed 
to an energy future that is dependent on oil, oil, and more oil, at all 
costs, even if that cost is our national security.
  The fact is, we are more dependent on foreign oil today than ever 
before. Despite the sharp rhetoric of the 1970s and the initial effort 
to try to be less dependent on oil, it has consistently increased. This 
dependence slows our economy, harms our environment, dilutes our 
national security, and it burdens Americans with the high gas prices 
they face today. Sadly, the President's energy bill, which we are going 
to soon debate in the Senate, fundamentally ignores these problems, and 
it does nothing to lower gas prices.
  In the last days, the administration has conceded ``changes to 
production, consumption, imports and prices are negligible under the 
plan submitted to the Congress.'' Frankly, Washington has danced around 
this statement for a year now. But last week, President Bush himself 
acknowledged the truth. He said:

       [The] energy bill wouldn't change the price at the pump 
     today. I know that and you know that.

  So if we all know that, why pass this Energy bill along in its 
current form when real solutions are staring us in the face? Americans 
are paying an average of $2.28 a gallon at the pump. That is up 6 cents 
in the last week, over 50 percent in the last year, and up a staggering 
56 percent since 2001. The President's so-called energy plan does 
nothing to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. The President's own 
economists found oil imports will actually increase 85 percent by 2025 
under a proposal such as the one we see in the Congress. Less than 5 
percent of the incentives in this bill are devoted to developing 
alternative sources of energy. That is 5 percent for the future, 95 
percent for the status quo.
  In 2002, when the Senate passed an energy bill with a bipartisan vote 
of 88 to 11, the bill provided for a balanced tax package: 50 percent 
of the benefits to oil and gas and 50 percent to renewables. By 
abandoning that balanced, forward-looking approach, this bill sells out 
our Nation's dream of an energy independent future.
  Why are we taking the time in the Senate and the House to discuss an 
energy bill that does not take the steps available to begin to free us 
from our dependency? The failure to aggressively address the dependency 
will condemn a generation of Americans to higher gas prices, and the 
problem will only get worse. The era when the United States, Japan, and 
Europe comprised the bulk of the world's demand for oil is long over. 
Oil consumption from developing Asian nations is going to more than 
double in the next 25 years, from 15 million to 32 million barrels a 
day. Chinese consumption will grow from 5 million to nearly 13 million 
per day. India's consumption will rise from 2 to more than 5 million 
barrels per day.
  The escalating demand for foreign oil is simply unsustainable. Every 
American who has taken an economics class, who owns a small business, 
or who balances the family checkbook understands that when demand for 
the product goes up and supply of that product is limited, prices are 
going to go through the roof. If you do not own your own product, that 
is great, but if you do, you are in trouble. Obviously, we do not. The 
fact is that the United States only has 3 percent of the world's oil 
reserves. So no matter what happens, we are going to remain dependent 
if fossil fuel and oil are going to remain the staple of our 
transportation, heating, and other product sources in the United 
States.
  In reality, international demand for oil is going up, and prices are 
going up as that demand goes up. There is little we can do to stop it 
unless we change the fundamentals on which we are currently producing 
and providing for the various oil needs of our Nation. We cannot drill 
our way out of this problem under any scenario whatever. Whether we 
drill in Alaska or even the oil in the deep water of the gulf, we 
cannot drill our way out of it.
  America needs to move forward in the technology race. We need to 
invent our way out of it. The spectacle of an American President 
literally reduced to asking--some would describe it as begging--another 
country to open the spigots and try to provide some momentary relief is 
really its own statement about where we find ourselves today. The fact 
is, what we ought to be doing is accelerating research and development 
in our country.
  Today's meeting with the Saudis really underscores what is wrong with 
the energy policy of our country. The danger of maintaining our 
dependence

[[Page 7587]]

on foreign oil is so obvious that Americans cannot help but question 
the actions of this administration. The actions do not meet their 
words. The President has said the right things. Last week, he said:

       With oil at more than $50 a barrel . . . energy companies 
     do not need taxpayer funded incentives.

  So he said the right thing. But the facts tell a different story. The 
Energy bill provides 95 percent of the tax benefits to oil and gas 
companies, with over $8 billion directly going to the oil and gas 
companies of the country. Only 5 percent--less than even in the bill we 
passed 2 years ago in the Senate, or 3 years ago--is going to go to 
those things that would actually provide Americans with relief. At a 
time when oil and gas prices are at historic highs, our energy policy 
ought to be aimed at investing in new and renewable sources of energy, 
not lining the pockets of the special interests.
  On energy, the administration has not been leveling with the American 
people. I think the President and Congress continue to miss an 
extraordinary opportunity. Most public policy forces us to make 
difficult tradeoffs: foreign versus domestic, urban versus rural, 
consumer versus business. But energy policy does not require us to do 
that. Other than the big oil companies, everyone benefits from reducing 
our dependence on foreign oil. Energy policy provides us with a unique 
opportunity to address a huge group of challenges all at the same time.
  If we lead the world in investing in new energy technologies, we 
create thousands of high-paying jobs right here in America. If we learn 
to tap clean energy sources, we preserve a clean environment for our 
families and future generations. We reduce mercury and acid rain. If we 
remove the burden of high gas prices, American consumers will have more 
cash in their pockets to spend on consumption products or on savings or 
on college or other things. That will all give our economy the boost it 
needs. Most importantly, if we end our dependence on foreign oil, we 
strengthen our national security.
  The Energy bill before the Congress accomplishes none of these goals. 
In fact, it weakens all of them. Let me focus on one of those things 
that it weakens, our national security. Increased American energy 
dependence further entangles our Nation in unstable regions of the 
world and forces us even to compromise our values. In exchange for oil, 
we transfer wealth to people who have done us harm and would do us harm 
in the future.
  This is, obviously, as bad for our troops and for those serving 
abroad as it is for people who experience the high gas prices here. We 
risk being drawn into dangerous conflicts because of our dependency in 
a particular region. We also see an already overburdened military that 
has to bear the consequence of that.
  In recent years, U.S. forces have had to help protect the Cano Limon 
pipeline in Colombia. Our military had to train indigenous forces to 
protect the pipeline in Georgia. We plan to spend $100 million on a 
special network of police officers and special forces units to guard 
oil facilities around the Caspian Sea and to continue to search for 
bases in Africa so we can protect all of the facilities there. Our Navy 
patrolled tanker routes in the Indian Ocean, South China Sea, and the 
Western Pacific.
  The reality is, we have to protect oil because that is what protects 
our way of life today. This is a serious issue, with real consequences, 
because of the unstable nature of conflict-ridden, oil-producing areas 
which challenge our security.
  In the spring of 2004, insurgents attacked an Iraqi oil platform. 
There was violence against oil workers in Nigeria. The result was to 
press global oil output and record-high gasoline prices. We were 
helpless to stop it. I do not think any American wants to be helpless 
where national security is concerned.
  Our dependence on foreign oil creates just the sort of alliances that 
George Washington warned against in 1796. These alliances with foreign 
suppliers leave us more vulnerable, and they can crumble the 
foundations of our economic and national security.
  The most dangerous aspect of this is that we are not alone in this 
dependency. I mentioned it earlier: International demand for oil is 
rising at an alarming rate. Another word for ``demand'' is 
``competition.'' Another word for ``competition'' is ``race.'' At this 
rate, the great powers of the world may resume the race to secure the 
remaining energy reserves. That is an alarming scenario, but it is 
exactly the course we find ourselves on. With strong leadership, we can 
avoid it. But we cannot do it without a balanced energy plan that ends 
our dependence on foreign oil.
  If anyone needs an example of how energy dependence can shortchange 
national security, look no further than the war on terror itself. If we 
assume oil miraculously drops back to $30 a barrel--no one assumes 
that, but if you did--over the next 25 years, the United States will 
send over 3 trillion American dollars out of the country, much of it to 
regimes that do not share our values, and even, in many cases, our 
goals.
  It is bad enough to think that those $3 trillion are not going to go 
directly into the American economy, that they are going to go to other 
countries. It is worse to consider the impact on our volatile 
relationship with regimes such as the House of Saud, fragile as it 
finds itself increasingly today.
  Our dependence on Saudi oil is a bad bargain for the war on terror. 
In the past, Hamas received almost half of its funding from Saudi 
Arabia. We know al-Qaida has relied on prominent Saudi Arabians for 
financing, and Saudi Arabia sponsors clerics who still, after all the 
rhetoric, promote the ideology of terror.
  We all know what is going to happen today. The President is going to 
ask Prince Abdullah to raise production. But we have to be honest with 
the American people and acknowledge it is a short-term fix at best, and 
it is one that carries its risks.
  In the year 2000, Governor Bush said he would ``jawbone OPEC'' to 
``open the spigots.'' But 5 years later, either he has not jawboned 
enough or it is not important. It is time the administration learned 
the only long-term solution to America's energy crisis and to our 
security itself is to end our dependence on foreign oil.
  National security is the most inexcusable casualty of our energy 
policy. But again, it is not the only one. Federal Reserve Chairman 
Alan Greenspan has said:

       Markets for oil and natural gas have been subject to a 
     degree of strain over the past year not experienced for a 
     generation.

  I might say, respectfully, it may not have been experienced for a 
generation, but it was entirely predictable that this would come around 
again, particularly when you look at the development rates of China, 
India, and other Asian and South Asian countries.
  As the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers said:

       High energy prices are now a drag on our economy.

  That is the Republican administration speaking for itself.
  This administration's energy policy works for Saudi Arabia, it works 
for the countries that get those trillions of dollars, it works for big 
oil and gas companies--all of which have record profits. I think one of 
the top companies had a 213-percent increase in profits, others 146 
percent, others in the double digits. Show me the American family whose 
income went up commensurately. Show me most American businesses that 
are struggling with health care costs and now have increased costs of 
transportation. The American trucking industry has billions of dollars, 
perhaps $20 billion paid out because of the rise in the cost of fuel.
  So everyone is losing: consumers, small businesses, the environment, 
our troops, our security--everyone but the oil and gas companies.
  We need an energy policy that works for America and works for the 
21st century. We have successfully moved from different sources of fuel 
in our history. We went from wood to coal. We went from coal to oil.
  We went from oil to a mix of oil and gas and coal and nuclear and 
hydroelectric, and now we are talking about

[[Page 7588]]

wind power and other sources. We have the capacity to have various 
kinds of additives and even biodiesel and other forms, but we are not 
moving rapidly to secure the marketplace for those alternatives.
  It is time now for America to make its next transition in fuel, to 
move to a mix of solar and wind and biomass and fuel cells and clean 
coal and other wonders of American ingenuity. We have huge reserves of 
coal. But despite all the rhetoric, the administration hasn't even 
adequately funded the clean coal technology program. We need to tap 
America's strength. The new president of MIT wrote a couple of articles 
the other day pointing out how America is slipping backwards in 
technology. All you have to do is pick up any of the analyses on 
competitiveness in technology in America today. America is producing 
fewer engineers, fewer scientists. Fewer kids in college are going into 
science and the physical sciences. Less money is being put into the R&D 
to move us into that competitive edge.
  That competitive edge is what built the economy of the 1990s. It is 
what helped us to be able to create the high value-added jobs so we 
moved to an unemployment rate that was the lowest in the modern history 
of our Nation, and we paid down debt. We invested in the long-term 
future of our country. We have seen a complete reversal of that in the 
last 4\1/2\ years.
  I hope this Congress will do what it ought to do, not start pitting 
people against each other according to definitions of faith, but come 
here with faith in America and American ingenuity and understand that 
we need to tap America's strength. We need to tap our markets, our 
capacity for invention, innovation, and our values. That is the way we 
will control our own destiny. We need to embrace and foster a 
revolution toward an energy world that benefits our environment, our 
economy and, most importantly, our security.
  The President's energy plan will bring us more of the same--the 
status quo, a more dangerous future of energy dependence and high 
prices. It is time we came together with a real energy policy that 
works for the American people and puts Americans back in charge of 
their future and liberates our children from the stranglehold of fossil 
fuel.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the regular order is the cloture motion on 
the motion to proceed to the highway bill. This is one we are very much 
concerned about. I have said several times I am hoping Members will 
come to the floor and speak on the highway bill. I know the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois wants to be heard right now. Let me 
only make one comment.
  Earlier on I talked a little bit about the Energy bill. The 
distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts started off with a 
quote by the President that was not quite complete. What the President 
said was the Energy bill would have no immediate impact on gas prices 
but long-term gas prices will be affected by an energy bill. I made 
that very clear a few minutes ago when I talked about the fact we have 
been trying to get an energy bill since the 1980s.
  I don't say this in a partisan way because we tried to get an energy 
bill during the Reagan administration and the Carter administration 
before that, the first Bush administration, and the Clinton 
administration. We were unable to do it. It was not until this 
President came along and offered an energy bill or an energy policy for 
America. It is long in waiting. Obviously, supply and demand tells us 
that portion of energy that is generated by oil and gas is going to be 
cheaper if we are able to do it locally and do it in this country 
without depending upon foreign sources of oil.
  We know what happened in OPEC days back in the 1970s. We know we can 
be held hostage again. It is a very serious problem. But an energy bill 
should include all forms of energy. I agree with the Senator from 
Massachusetts, we should be concentrating also on technology, on 
renewables. Certainly I disagree with the Senator from Massachusetts 
when he says he wants clean coal technology and he wants to be able to 
utilize coal. It was the Democrats in the committee I chair who killed 
the Clear Skies--didn't kill it, but delayed it--Initiative of the 
President which would have the most dramatic reduction on pollutants, 
on NOx, SOx, and mercury pollution than any 
President has ever advocated in the history of America, a 70-percent 
reduction. To do this we had to continue to have clean coal technology. 
That is part of the bill, as are oil and gas and nuclear and 
renewables.
  We made an effort to do that and were unable to do it on a partisan 
line. If the Senator from Massachusetts is interested in having a 
bipartisan approach to the use of clean coal technology and to expand 
the use of coal, we need to look at all of the above, all of the forms 
of energy. I will join him in that program.
  The Senator from Illinois wants to be recognized as in morning 
business. Since I do want to get back to the highway bill, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois be recognized for 30 
minutes as in morning business and then immediately following his 30 
minutes, I be recognized for 30 minutes as in morning business, and 
then we would go back to the regular order. I encourage Members who are 
interested in the motion to proceed to the highway bill to come to the 
floor, to be heard, and so we can recognize them for that purpose.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I overheard the request, the Senator from Oklahoma 
suggested 30 minutes in morning business.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, for the Senator from Illinois, unless he desires 
more.
  Mr. DURBIN. That should be adequate. I thank the Senator.


                           Judicial Nominees

  Mr. President, I come to the floor with some feelings of 
disappointment. I had hoped that on reflection, Majority Leader Frist 
would change his mind about taking part in a rally yesterday in 
Kentucky with groups that claim anyone who opposes President Bush's 
judicial nominees is opposed to ``people of faith.'' The organizers of 
that rally, the Family Research Council, called their rally ``Justice 
Sunday.'' I agree with Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National 
Council of Churches. A better name would have been ``Just Us Sunday.''
  This Republican religious group is trying to redefine faith to fit 
its own narrow definition. What is their test? Does their definition of 
faith turn to the Bible? You know the biblical test, how do you treat 
the least of your brethren. No, the litmus test of faith for this group 
is as follows: Do you agree that a President--namely President Bush--
ought to be able to ignore the Constitution, the rules of the Senate, 
and 200 years of Senate tradition to appoint people to the Federal 
bench for lifetime appointments even if those nominees hold extreme 
political views outside the mainstream of America?
  That is their test of faith. If you say yes, then you are a person of 
faith. If you say no, they would brand you as anti-God and antifamily.
  The depth we have reached in this political debate that the majority 
leader of the Senate would add his name and his words to a rally which 
is so divisive, which tries to make a constitutional issue a religious 
issue. I had hoped Senator Frist would decide not to take part in it. I 
hoped he would have used his leadership position to discourage those 
who are using this religious McCarthyism that seems to be gripping our 
political system now that the Republicans are in control of the House 
and the Senate. Unfortunately, he did not.
  He sent a taped message which contained within it, I will concede, 
some conciliatory words warning those involved not to go too far, as 
Senator Lindsey Graham did yesterday on a television show which I 
shared. But unfortunately, I am sure those who were involved with the 
Family Research Council were heartened by the appearance of Senator 
Frist.

[[Page 7589]]

  Now we are learning that placing your own candidates in lifetime 
Federal judgeships is not enough for this group.
  They are also plotting to rid the bench of Federal judges they don't 
like. The Los Angeles Times ran a story last Friday about a private 
conference of evangelical leaders in Washington, attended by Senator 
Frist and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose name appears 
constantly in this national debate. They had an audiotape of the 
conference. The story quotes two of the organizers of yesterday's rally 
in Kentucky, talking about working with congressional Republicans on 
plans to get rid of the Federal courts they don't like. This is a quote 
from Tony Perkins, one of the lead spokesmen yesterday for the Family 
Research Council. He said this at this Washington, DC, conference with 
Tom DeLay and Bill Frist:

       There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more 
     than one way to take a black robe off the bench.

  According to the Times article:

       Mr. Perkins said he had attended a meeting with 
     congressional leaders a week earlier where the strategy of 
     stripping funding from certain courts was ``prominently'' 
     discussed. ``What they're thinking of is not only the fact of 
     just making these courts go away and recreating them the next 
     day, but also defunding them,'' Mr. Perkins said.

  The story reports Mr. Dobson, a reverend also involved with this 
effort, as saying:

       Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply 
     disenfranchise a court. They don't have to fire anybody or 
     impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to say 
     is the Ninth Circuit doesn't exist anymore, and it is gone.

  Mr. Perkins said these plans to remake America's courts are ``on the 
radar screen, especially of conservatives here in Congress.''
  We have valued, since the creation of this great Nation, our 
independent and balanced judiciary. I am certain that members of the 
judiciary are angered at times with positions taken and things said by 
those in the executive and legislative branches. It works both ways. 
Yet we understand the nature of our checks and balances, the nature of 
three separate branches of government is unique to America and has 
given us the strength to survive in this democracy for over 200 years.
  The strategy of Tom DeLay, Senator Frist, and groups like the Family 
Research Council challenge this premise of our constitutional 
democracy. I would like to address the questions raised about what 
might happen if the Republicans go forward with the so-called nuclear 
option. First, let me tell you that the phrase ``nuclear option'' was 
not conceived by a group of Democrats in a back room. As I understand 
it, Senator Trent Lott, a leading Republican, called this approach a 
nuclear option, understanding, as he did, that it is an assault on some 
of the most fundamental principles of the Constitution and the Senate. 
It was, in fact, nuclear war and the use of a nuclear weapon from a 
procedural point of view. It assaulted one of the most basic principles 
of America, the principle of checks and balances.
  Look at the political landscape in America today. Republicans control 
the White House, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. Not in 
60 years has so much power been vested in one party. But from the point 
of view of many of their special interest groups, it is not enough; 
they want more. They don't just want to govern in America; they want to 
rule. That means they need and want powers beyond those given to a 
political party under our Constitution.
  Think about why we have a Senate. It was part of the Great 
Compromise. Thirteen colonies came together, deciding whether they 
could work together as one government, and the smaller colonies said we 
don't have a chance. If you count numbers, the more populous colonies 
will always win the debate. So the Great Compromise said the House of 
Representatives will have more people, with more representatives in the 
more populous States, so they will have more votes. But the Senate is 
different. Every State gets two Senators. The rules of the Senate were 
written so, even within the Senate, when one Senator objected to a 
major change in law, the Senate rules respected that minority Senator. 
In fact, it wasn't until right after World War I that there was a way 
to even stop what was known as a filibuster. If you saw ``Mr. Smith 
Goes to Washington,'' you saw Jimmy Stewart, that new idealistic 
Senator, take to the floor arguing for something he believed in until 
he ran out of breath and collapsed. Well, that is the filibuster. The 
way you can stop it is with a certain number of votes. Beginning in the 
20th century, that number of votes is 60. It recognizes that this 
unique Chamber in America's Government will always recognize the rights 
of the minority.
  We have built on that principle, and that is why the filibuster was 
created. Sadly, the Republican majority today wants to break the rules 
of the Senate and change the filibuster rule. They want to end the 
checks and balances that have been part of this institution since the 
Constitution was written. For what? So President Bush can have every 
judicial nominee he proposes to Congress, without debate, without 
dissention, and it would not be subject to a filibuster.
  I think the filibuster is one of the most basic tenets of our checks-
and-balances system. It prevents a tyranny of the majority and 
encourages compromise and moderation. Think about it; if it takes 60 
votes, you need to compromise. If it takes 60 votes, neither side has 
that, so you need bipartisanship. It works every single day on 
legislation and on nominees.
  What about the President's track record when it comes to judges? 
Consider this: Since President Bush came to office, he sent 215 names 
of judicial nominees to the floor of the Senate; 205 have been 
approved. Only 10 have not been approved. More than 95 percent of the 
President's nominees have been approved by the Senate but, sadly, the 
point of view of the White House is that it is not enough. They want 
them all. They are willing to assault the Constitution and change the 
Senate rules. With an approval rate of 95 percent, this is not a 
crisis; it is a manufactured political crisis.
  Republicans claim it is unconstitutional to filibuster. They are 
wrong. The Constitution makes it clear that the rules of the Senate are 
the decision of the Senate. Here is what article I, section 5 of the 
Constitution specifically states:

       Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. . . 
     .

  That means the House and the Senate may determine the rules of its 
proceedings. From the beginning, the Senate has allowed filibusters. In 
1789, the first Senate filibustered a bill about moving the capitol 
from New York City to Washington. But these Republicans, under 
President Bush and Vice President Cheney, want to change that time-
honored rule. They claim the use of the filibuster to block judicial 
nominees has never happened, that it is unprecedented. That is what you 
hear from them. They are wrong.
  Before George W. Bush became President, 11 judicial nominations 
needed 60 or more votes--cloture--to end a filibuster.
  On two other judicial nominations--one in 1986 and one in 1994--
cloture was filed in order to end filibusters, but it was later 
withdrawn. Of those 11 nominations on which cloture was needed to end a 
filibuster, 4 occurred during the Clinton administration.
  Let me just point to one. March 8, 2000, the nomination of Richard 
Paez to be a judge of the Ninth Circuit. Fourteen Republican Senators 
voted on the Senate floor to filibuster Judge Paez's nomination. Look 
at the list of the 14 Senators, and do you know what name you will 
find? Senator Bill Frist. He is now the majority leader, and he claims 
this never happened in the history of the Senate. He, in fact, voted on 
the floor of the Senate for a filibuster against Richard Paez, a 
Clinton nominee to the Ninth Circuit. For the record, it was vote No. 
37, 106th Congress, second session, March 8, 2000.
  In addition to the 4 Clinton judicial nominees who were filibustered, 
60 additional Clinton nominees never received a hearing. It was a 
pocket filibuster. What is unprecedented is what Republicans are 
threatening now, to

[[Page 7590]]

fundamentally change the rules and traditions of the Senate and the 
constitutional principle of checks and balances. To argue that no 
judicial nominee will ever need more than 51 votes--7 times since 1949, 
the Senate has faced this question: Can a simple majority change the 
cloture rule? Every single time, the answer has been no, whether it was 
Democrats in the majority or Republicans in the majority.
  In 1953, Minority Leader Lyndon Johnson, the ``master of the 
Senate,'' as he was dubbed, a man who knew something about finding and 
using power wherever he could legitimately find it, worked with 
Majority Leader Taft to protect the Senate from the nuclear option of 
his day, when a single Democratic Senator threatened to use it.
  Time and again, there have been threats to change this filibuster, 
and it has never happened. There has been ample opportunity to do that.
  One Senator who was involved in that was Senator Fritz Mondale of 
Minnesota. He led a 1975 effort to change the cloture rule. Twenty-
seven years later, in September 2002, an older and wiser Fritz Mondale 
came back to the Senate to talk about his years as part of the Leader's 
Lecture Series.
  He admitted he made a mistake to try to push through a nuclear 
option. I want to read part of what he said. This is what Fritz Mondale 
said on reflection:

       When I came to the Senate, I thought a simple majority 
     should be enough to end debate. I had seen the cloture rule 
     abused in the past, especially on civil rights. The old rules 
     permitted virtually endless talk. In recent years, many 
     Senators had developed a postcloture strategy where, even 
     after a successful cloture vote, they could still carry on 
     forever, reading and amending the Journal, reading and 
     amending the Chaplain's prayer--as we did for several days--
     filing hundreds of amendments with no end in sight.

  Listen to what Fritz Mondale said:

       It had to be changed, and it was, to what is now called the 
     Byrd rule. But to end a filibuster still requires 60 votes, 
     and I believe that is about right.
       It is a balancing act. You need to be able to close off 
     debate, but you also need to give an individual Senator the 
     power to stop everything in the country and to rip open an 
     issue in a way that no other institution in America can. It 
     can't happen in the House. Their rules of debate are very 
     different. It can't happen in news conferences. It can't 
     happen on talk shows. That is entertainment, not debate. Only 
     the Senate can stop the Nation in its tracks, and it is the 
     only body in the world that allows it.

  To claim, as nuclear option supporters do, that the 1975 effort 
proves the constitutionality of their plan is simply wrong. It is a 
misrepresentation of the facts. They argue we are simply talking about 
judicial nominees. Yet we know from a Congressional Research Service 
analysis of this issue that if they went forward with the nuclear 
option on judicial nominees, nominees who are being appointed to the 
bench for a lifetime, more could follow from that.
  I still hope we can avoid this constitutional confrontation, this 
crisis. I hope the destruction that will be brought to the Senate can 
be avoided. I hope we can have a positive view toward the Senate's 
future. But let me say this: If the Republican majority in the Senate 
exercises the nuclear option, breaks the rules of the Senate for the 
first time to change the rules, to eliminate the filibuster on judicial 
nominees, to attack the principle of checks and balances, the 
constitutional principle of our Government, then I think the response 
from the Democratic side can easily be described as this: If the 
Republicans are going to break the rules, the Democrats are going to 
play by the rules. Let me tell you what I mean.
  We believe we must defend the Senate and the Constitution. We will 
not allow one party to eliminate an essential part of checks and 
balances. The Senate operates according to customs. The minority party 
defers to the majority party regarding what bills come to the floor, 
and other questions. It is a system that requires trust and cooperation 
every day.
  If Republicans choose to use the nuclear option, they are choosing to 
assault that trust and cooperation. We can no longer routinely give our 
unanimous consent to whatever procedural request the majority leader 
makes. Instead, we will use the existing rules and precedents to have 
the Senate focus on the real crises facing America's families and 
businesses. Instead of granting deference to the Republican majority to 
set the agenda on the Senate floor, Democrats will use the existing 
rules and the precedents of the Senate to focus on issues such as 
health care, energy, education, minimum wage, making certain we take 
care of our veterans and soldiers.
  We have already placed a number of important bills on the Senate 
calendar, any of which can be brought up at once if the Republicans 
trigger the nuclear option. These bills address real priorities and 
challenges we face: funding our schools, bringing down the price of 
gasoline at the pump, finding a way to provide health insurance and 
health care for Americans, veterans benefits, and imposing fiscal 
discipline with Government spending.
  Let me make it clear. We are not going to set out to close down the 
Senate or to close down the Government. Senator Reid, our Democratic 
leader, and all the Members of the Senate feel as I do, that shutting 
down the Government was the hapless tactic of the Gingrich revolution. 
It was a terrible idea. Rush Limbaugh was the only American applauding 
it every day, but the American people knew better. They want our 
Government to continue. They want Government services that are 
essential not to be in danger. So we are prepared to use the Senate 
rules to make certain that the defense of our Nation and the defense of 
our Armed Forces will be paramount, that passing key appropriations 
bills will occur, the Government will go about its business.
  But when it comes to the rest of the debate in the Senate, when it 
comes to the agenda of legislative issues, we believe we can and will 
use the rules, if the nuclear option is exercised, to make certain that 
this debate is broadened--broadened beyond the special interest debates 
of K Street, the lobbyists who sit around the corridors out here 
begging for their bills to be called. We will expand this to include a 
debate over issues American families are begging us to consider, such 
as the cost of health insurance, help in putting children through 
college, finding a way for us to deal with the energy crisis in a 
responsible way that will conserve energy and bring about more fuel 
efficiency, in addition to environmentally responsible exploration for 
new energy sources.
  Let's talk about gasoline for a minute. Americans are paying nearly 
50 cents a gallon more for gas today than they were a year ago. Gas 
prices have surged an average of 19 cents per gallon in the last 3 
weeks. What is the Republican solution? Many times it is more of the 
same. Keep increasing America's dependence on increasingly expensive 
oil from increasingly volatile parts of the world.
  If Republicans are insisting on changing the rules of the Senate, 
Democrats will use the opportunity to press for an end to price gouging 
at the pumps today. We will also push for real long-term solutions, 
including conservation and new sources of alternative energy that will 
make America more secure in the future.
  Think of it, 45 million Americans in our country, 1 in 7 have no 
health insurance. Tens of thousands more are underinsured. Rising 
health costs are eating up every penny of the profits at many 
companies. Did you read the report in the paper in the business section 
last week? General Motors lost $1 billion in the last quarter. When 
they were asked why they were losing money if they were still selling 
cars, they said: With every car we sell is $1,500 in health insurance 
costs and $500 in pension costs. So before we can compete with the 
foreign manufacturers, we have to pay for the health insurance and the 
pension costs.
  What we are saying is this ought to be part of a national debate. 
There has not been a single suggestion on the floor of the Senate from 
the Republican leadership that they are ready to even discuss health 
care, nor from the White House.
  If we move beyond the nuclear option, we on the Democratic side feel

[[Page 7591]]

this debate has to take place, and we will move proactively to put this 
on the calendar for debate during this session of the Senate.
  In recent months, we found the new prescription drug benefit under 
Medicare will cost hundreds of billions of dollars more than first 
estimated. Now this week a new report warns the drug benefit will not 
provide adequate coverage for seniors with cancer and other chronic 
illnesses, and leave them with huge personal prescription drug bills. 
If the Republicans in the Senate use the nuclear option to try to 
change the rules of the Senate, Democrats will use whatever rules we 
can, whatever leverage we can find to fix the Medicare prescription 
drug bill.
  Millions of young people across America are going to graduate from 
high school next month. Many are off applying to colleges, fingers 
crossed they will get into that great school. But there is a fear in 
every family--at least in most families--that some of the sons and 
daughters who are accepted at the best schools will not be able to go 
because the families cannot afford it. If the Republicans insist on 
using the nuclear option, the Democrats will push to bring to the floor 
Senate measures to make college more affordable for families across 
America.
  We will look for ways to bring to the floor a bill to fund properly 
VA health facilities and end the deficits that are forcing Americans 
all across America to wait months to see a doctor.
  We do not have to manufacture crises. There are real, urgent problems 
with which this Senate ought to be dealing. If the Republicans are 
interested in governing, they will join the Democrats in addressing 
these issues. If they are more concerned about political gains, they 
will object. Democrats will not break the rules and we will not stand 
by idly if others try to destroy the rules of the Senate for temporary 
political advantage. We will use the rules, we will live by the rules, 
we will follow the rules at every opportunity to protect the 
Constitution and do the people's business.
  Senators can expect if the nuclear option is called and passes we 
will spend more time at our desks, more time in session, more time on 
the floor, more time in Washington. The old complaint about 1,000-page 
bills coming to the Senate never having been read, they will be read. 
The complaint that amendments come to the floor Senators have not had a 
chance to read, they will be read. The complaint about speaking to an 
empty Chamber with few Senators around, that may change. There will be 
Senators on the floor, part of a debate over amendments that are 
important to this country.
  I sincerely hope the Republican majority will think twice. Senator 
McCain said, and I think rightly, you never know what the next election 
might bring. You might find yourself in a minority status, and it is 
important for us to understand that as Senators have come and gone, 
almost 1,900 now in the history of the United States, as issues have 
come and gone, as Congresses have come and gone, the traditions and 
rules of the Senate have endured. The Constitution which guides this 
Chamber, which brings us to the floor today and every day, the 
Constitution we have all sworn to uphold and defend is worth fighting 
for.
  When a White House with any President of either party tries to extend 
their power at the expense of the Constitution, historically the Senate 
has said no.
  This time, unfortunately, this President is demanding more power than 
any President in the history of the United States when it comes to 
judicial nominees. This President is demanding powers that have never 
been exercised under this Constitution. Sadly, his party, the proud 
Republican Party, is not willing to say no. They should. In the past, 
Franklin Roosevelt's Democratic Party said no to him when he 
overextended. Thomas Jefferson's party said no to him when he tried to 
extend his Presidential power. They understood that the Constitution is 
more important than the power of any President.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, right now, the regular order is the motion 
to proceed to the highway bill. It is one of the most significant bills 
we will be addressing this year. It is one that we are very hopeful 
will pass. Last year, the highway bill passed with a vote of 76 to 21. 
Having received that very strong majority, we believe that this bill is 
so much like it that we should be able to do the same thing.
  I understand that tomorrow morning at 11:45 there will be a vote. 
Again, as I have said since 2 this afternoon, I encourage Members to 
come to the floor to be heard on the motion to proceed to the highway 
bill, and I am hoping that will happen. I will only make a couple of 
comments.
  I do not want to sound redundant, but I will respond to the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois. A couple of hours ago I commented 
that the people from Oklahoma maybe are different from the rest of the 
country. When I go down the street, people are concerned about the 
decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. They are concerned about liberal 
judges legislating from the bench, and this President has been 
concerned about that. I am talking about things like school prayer, gay 
marriages, and ``one nation under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. 
These things are very important. These things are probably important to 
people all over the country.
  It can be talked about hour after hour. Threats can be made about 
what one would do, but it is not a nuclear option, it is a 
constitutional option. This has been true for 214 years now, where 
there has not been a filibustering of circuit court judges. This is 
something that should not require a supermajority of 60 votes. If there 
is one thing my people in Oklahoma want changed, it is to be able to 
select judges who will interpret the Constitution and not use the bench 
for legislation purposes.
  As far as the Energy bill is concerned, I do agree with the Senator 
from Illinois that we need to do something about our dependence on 
foreign oils for our energy supply. It is going to be absolutely 
necessary to have this Energy bill, and I believe we will have it. We 
need to address drilling. We need to do something about fossil fuels. 
We need to do something about nuclear and renewables. Just one example: 
In the House bill that was passed, there is a tax provision that will 
encourage people to go after marginal production. My State of Oklahoma 
happens to be a very large marginal producer. For those who are not 
familiar with this, a marginal well produces 15 barrels or fewer a day. 
We have the largest number of marginal wells in our State of Oklahoma. 
If we had every marginal well producing today that has been shut down 
or plugged up in the last 10 years, it would be more than we are 
currently importing from Saudi Arabia. These are little things that can 
be in an energy bill.
  The President was misquoted on the Senate floor a few minutes ago, 
but certainly everyone realizes it is just a supply and demand issue. 
If we are able to produce more here, it is going to be cheaper. That is 
what we need to do. Those individuals who are somehow living in this 
mythical world that we can run the greatest machine in the history of 
the world on windmills are wrong. By the way, speaking of windmills, I 
find even some of the environmentalist extremists now do not want 
windmills because they are killing the birds. We have to realize we 
have the most powerful, largest machine ever in the history of the 
world, and we need to have an energy bill to run that machine.


                  china's threat to national security

  Mr. President, over the past 3 weeks I have given three speeches 
calling our attention to the rising threat that China is becoming to 
our national security. Today I will highlight the areas that most 
directly affect our national

[[Page 7592]]

security: weapons proliferation and military modernization. These two 
aspects are interrelated and add an alarming dynamic to our complex 
relationship with China.
  It is a difficult situation, one in which information is our best 
resource. Five years ago, Congress created the bipartisan U.S.-China 
Commission to study the significance of recent events and the impact 
these events have on our national security. The Commission has held 
hearings and enlisted the services of experts across the world to gain 
clarity about what is happening with China. The conclusions are 
compiled in the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission's 
2004 report to Congress, a document that reveals an alarming picture of 
where we are heading.
  China has made commitments to stop proliferating illegal technology 
over and over since 1992. However, its actual practice has been 
markedly different. Just this past January, the Bush administration 
sanctioned eight Chinese companies for aiding Iran's missile 
development. Two of these companies, China Great Wall Industry 
Corporation and China North Industry Corporation, have been repeatedly 
sanctioned for over a decade. Another penalized company, China Aero-
Technology Import and Export Corporation, is suspected of transferring 
technology from McDonnell-Douglas to China's military. The fact is that 
China has been unable to control its own companies. According to State 
Department testimony, China has a ``serial proliferation problem,'' and 
while the official line is to crack down on the weapons trade, 
``reality has been quite different.''
  Over recent years, these transfers have become even more problematic, 
as the Commission details in its report:

     . . . Chinese transfers have evolved from sales of complete 
     missile systems, to exports of largely dual-use nuclear, 
     chemical, and missile components and technologies . . . 
     Recent activities ``have aggravated trends that result in 
     ambiguous technical aid, more indigenous capabilities, longer 
     range missiles, and secondary proliferation.'' Continuing 
     intelligence reports indicate that Chinese cooperation with 
     Pakistan and Iran remains an integral element of China's 
     foreign policy . . . Beijing's failure to control such 
     transfers gives the appearance that these are allowed in 
     accordance with an unstated national policy. China has 
     generally tried to avoid making fundamental changes in its 
     transfer policies by offering the United States carefully 
     worded commitments or exploiting differences between 
     agreements.

  In mid-2003, the CIA reported to Congress that ``firms in China 
provided dual-use missile-related items, raw materials, and/or 
assistance to . . . countries of proliferation concern such as Iran, 
Libya, and North Korea.'' With these recently sanctioned companies, we 
see that China is fully willing to proliferate regardless of the 
consequences. Why? Well, perhaps we need to consider that something 
else is going on here besides profits.
  China seems to proliferate with countries that have been terrorist 
sponsors, countries such as Iran, Iraq and Libya. These countries in 
turn offer China something they desperately need: oil. In my last 
speech I discussed China's search for oil sources and the implications 
this has on economic and national security. But the connection here is 
beyond energy. The Commission report describes what it looks like:

       This need for energy security may help explain Beijing's 
     history of assistance to terrorist-sponsoring states, with 
     various forms of WMD-related items and technical assistance, 
     even in the face of U.S. sanctions . . . But, this pursuit of 
     oil diplomacy may support objectives beyond just energy 
     supply. Beijing's bilateral arrangements with oil-rich Middle 
     Eastern states also helped create diplomatic and strategic 
     alliances with countries that were hostile to the United 
     States. For example, with U.S. interests precluded from 
     entering Iran, China may hope to achieve a long-term 
     competitive advantage relative to the United States. Over 
     time, Beijing's relationship-building may counter U.S. power 
     and enhance Beijing's ability to influence political and 
     military outcomes. One of Beijing's stated goals is to reduce 
     what it considers U.S. superpower dominance in favor of a 
     multipolar global power structure in which China attains 
     superpower status on par with the United States.

  I cannot say it stronger than that. China is exploiting our timidity. 
The Commission recommends that we pressure the administration to 
develop and publish a coordinated, comprehensive strategy. I think that 
is very sound advice and I will be introducing a resolution shortly to 
that effect.
  Another major area of concern is China's military modernization. The 
weapons China is investing in include cruise missiles, amphibious 
assault ships, submarines, long-range target acquisition systems, and 
advanced SU-30 and SU-31 fighter aircraft it has been purchasing from 
Russia.
  I have always been very proud of GEN John Jumper, who had the courage 
back in 1998 to stand up publicly to say right now we have other 
countries that are producing better equipment than we have, such as our 
strike vehicles. The very best we have is the F-15 and F-16. The SU-
30s, according to General Jumper, are in many ways superior to ones we 
make in this country. We have to correct that situation and we are 
going to with the advent of the FA-22 and joint strike fighters that 
will be coming on line, but in the meantime China is buying these 
vehicles. We have always known they have a nuclear capability, but what 
is more concerning now is they have developed a conventional capability 
that is equal to or greater than ours in many respects.
  The commission believes that this force is being shaped to fit a 
Taiwan conflict scenario:

       [China's] military advancements have resulted in a dramatic 
     shift in the cross-Strait balance toward China, with serious 
     implications for Taiwan, for the United States, and for 
     cross-Strait relations.

  The commission states that there are two ways we can prevent a 
military escalation over Taiwan. The first is to pressure the EU to 
maintain its arms embargo on China. This is a group of bipartisan 
experts saying this. Second, we should have harsher punishments for 
contractors who sell sensitive technology to China. We need a 
comprehensive annual report on who is selling what to China because, 
quite frankly, right now we simply don't know exactly how deep this 
problem goes.
  Opting to ignore the situation with China is not a choice that we as 
representatives of the American people can afford to make. I urge this 
body to listen closely to the commission's conclusion:

       We need to use our substantial leverage to develop an 
     architecture that will help avoid conflict, attempt to build 
     cooperative practices and institutions, and advance both 
     countries' long-term interests. The United States has the 
     leverage now and perhaps for the next decade, but this may 
     not always be the case . . . If we falter in the use of our 
     economic and political influence now to effect positive 
     change in China, we will have squandered an historic 
     opportunity . . . China will likely not initiate the decisive 
     measures toward more meaningful economic and political reform 
     without substantial, sustained, and increased pressure from 
     the United States.

  In the resolution I introduce, I will be asking you to stand behind 
the US-China Commission's recommendations. These recommendations are 
listed in the Commission's 2004 Report to Congress. I have highlighted 
a few of these in my recent speeches, but there are many more. We need 
to send a message of urgency to the administration to adopt what our 
own commission recommends. This is not a partisan move. This is a real 
and legitimate need to respond to the facts before us. We have a clear 
picture of where the trends are heading--economically, militarily and 
in ideology--and the security of the United States demands our 
response.
  In my last speech that will accompany the resolution I will be 
introducing, I will summarize all the recommendations from the 
commission. I hope it will be the first--but not final--step in the 
development of a more proactive and comprehensive policy toward China. 
It needs to be a policy that adequately addresses our national 
security, especially the proliferation of military technology. It also 
needs to address free trade, human rights and, of course, Taiwan. I 
fear the track we are on does not adequately address any of these.
  This is very distressing. In some of the previous talks we quoted 
some of the Chinese colonels when they said we can do this to America, 
we can compete not only militarily but economically. This is something 
we have to be

[[Page 7593]]

concerned about. I cannot think of anything that would be more 
important to address from a national security objective than that.
  However, there is something that is most important to address right 
now and that is the subject we are on, which is the reauthorization of 
the highway bill.
  I will make a couple of comments about that. I know there are some 
other people who want to come down. I will yield to them at that time. 
But when you look at the way the Senate has historically approached the 
reauthorization of the highway bill, it is different than has been done 
on the other side. It is the more difficult way because there are so 
many things that are in a formula. Formulas address problems in low-
income States, in low-population States, in low-population density 
States, in States with high fatality rates, with guaranteed minimum 
growth and guaranteed minimum rate of return from donor States. We have 
donee States. All of these things are part of a very complex formula.
  We will tomorrow be talking about this for an hour, from 10:45 to 
11:45. There will be 1 hour equally divided between both sides. I will 
be controlling the time on this side. I hope at that time we have 
Members come down who are concerned about this bill, who have problems 
with this bill, so we can respond to those problems but, most 
importantly, so we can have cloture on a motion to proceed and have a 
vote. That vote will take place at 11:45 tomorrow morning. I look 
forward to coming down and debating the merits of the highway bill.
  The bill passed last year--and this is substantially the same as last 
year's bill--passed this body by a margin of 76 to 21. I anticipate the 
same thing will happen, but it will not happen until we get to the 
bill. We will not get on the bill until the cloture on the motion to 
proceed is voted on, which will be at 11:45 tomorrow morning.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________