talking about. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i'm going to take a unanimous consent request dealing with the same subject, but before i do that, i'm kind of astounded that it took 100 days for the majority to decide the bill that they wanted to send to the house would be blue slipped because they kept saying so long well, it really wasn't summing to blue slip. obviously the constitution gives the house of representatives the power to make that decision and they made the decision that the fee that's in this bill would keep it from being seangtd by the -- being accepted by the house of representatives. now, they obviously overcome that problem but they haven't overcome some other problems that are with the legislation and my reason for objecting tore people on my side that -- for people on my side that voted against this bill because of some unconstitutional provisions that are in it and -- and issues

that don't have to be brought up to guarantee that there's adequate legislation for violence -- fighting violence against women. and, by the way, an act that's on been the books for about -- for about -- you know, more than a decade, a decade and a half, i believe, is going to be carried on. so i.t. not -- there's not going to be a situation where whether we go through this process or not that -- there's not going to be legislation protecting women on the books. i.t. just a question of -- it's just a question of will it be expanded in a way that was intended to make this bill controversial, so presumably it could be made a political issue in an election. but what bothers me about this whole process, besides the fact that it's taken 100 days now to get to the point of offering for conference, it i think fits into a pattern of doing things at the last minute. now, we're two days away from a

recess, and this is brought up at this particular time. i have to ask why? why not sometime during the last 100 days? and i would also see a pattern of this maneuver fitting into the maneuvers that have been going on ever since i believe the easter -- the spring break that we had in the united states senate. ever since then -- and this kind of follows an article that was in the newspaper we know as "politico" that was about a couple months ago, the strategy between the white house reelection effort and things that go on in the united states senate. we seem to have a crisis every week. we came back from the spring break, we had the buffett tax rule. that carried on for a week. nobody knew -- everybody knew that wasn't going to pass, but we waste add whole week on the buffett tax rule. then this issue was brought up before and passed about that

time, and at that particular time, the strategy of people having war on women came up as an issue, and that ended this this legislation being passed through the senate, but in a way where everybody knew it wasn't going to get through the house of representatives, but it was a very convenient political issue. and then later on, we had the equal wages for women legislation that came up for about a we, and everybody knew that that -- for about a week, and everybody knew that wasn't going to pass. taking up issues that ought to be used for the economy and creating jobs and we spent a week on that. and then we spent a week on taxing the rich and everybody knew that wasn't going to go any place. and we spent a week on interest on student loans and everybody knew there was a bipartisan solution to it but nobody wanted

to go there until the president a whole month going to university campuses to blame republicans for not passing a bill that would keep interest on student loans free. and then we spent last week on the disclose act, and nobody knew -- and everybody knew that that wasn't going to go anyplace. so we've had a whole spring and summer in this body of accomplishing nothing because there's a strategy between the white house and the leadership of the senate to help this president get reelected and keep the issues off -- keep the issues off of what the people of this country are concerned about, and that is the economy and creating jobs. and the fact that this white house and this senate isn't going to do anything to work through those issues. so in the senate, it's an issue of politics and not an issue of product. and i think the american people know what the games are being

played and are sick and tired of it. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 406, h.r. 4970, the house-passed violence against women reauthorization act, provided further that all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of the senate-passed violence against women bill, s. 1925, with modifications that strikes section 805 and 810, that the bill be read three times and passed, and the senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the house, and the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the senate, with a ratio agreed to by both leaders. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i object, mr. president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i

have listeninged carefully to the passion from the senator from ohio -- iowa on behalf of the republican majority and sparke speaker boehner, and frankly i have to say that it is offensive to say that the issue of violence against women is about politics. this is about women who are abused, women who are powerless to fight back, women being able to get the protections that they need in this country that has provided protection for a very long time to make sure that women who are immigrants, women who live on a -- in a tribe, women who are gay and lesbian, women who are on college campuses get the protections they support. this is not about politics. this is about violence, and this country stand -- to stand up and say we're going to protect them. make no mistake about it, what they are saying is that they want to move this bill to conference so that they can strip those provisions out.

well, they've crossed a line, a line that in the history of this nonpolitical, bipartisan bill has been so deeply important to so many of us. they made this bill about politics just now. i find that offensive. they want to take the senate's bipartisan -- passed by republicans and democrats here -- and take it to conference and pick it apart. they want to take it to conference so they can have a discussion about which women in this country deserve protection and which don't. they want to pick one group of women against another. that's not a game. it's not politics. and it's not what i'm going to placement the new protections in this bill that have been supported by republicans and democrats and groups across this country and millions and millions of americans are not bar terring chips and it is not about politics. the objection of the senator on behalf of the republicans raises issues that really are nothing more than a smoke screen and

they don't want to be out in front saying that they're willing to discriminate against certain women. but they'd rather hide behind these procedural objections. bud i would remind all of our -- but i would remind all of our colleagues, these procedural objections, they've been routine here in the 123456789 just as i said a few minutes ago, the transportation bill we passed a few months arc the blue-slip objection overcome. funding our nations airports overcome. food safety issue overcome. all of them were overcome. leadership and the will to do the right thing. so let me make it abundantly clear. mr. president, this is not about politics. it is about protecting women in this country. it's about making sure that we do the right thing in this country for so many women who are looking here to the congress

of the united states to have us bring -- put in place the protections they deserve. well, the ball it is in the court now of the speaker. he is going to have to talk to women across the country about why they are their protections are at risk because of politics. but i want everyone to be clear. we are not going to compromise on the issues that are so important to so many women and them to under the bus. -- and throw them under the bus. that's not what we have fought for year after year when we've passed the violence against women act before. it is inclusive. it is bipartisan. it is above ideology and partisan games. it is a bill that makes sure that no platte who you are or -- that no matter who you are or where you live or who you love, you are protected under the great country that we live in. politics has no place in this. i would agree with the senator from iowa. who's playing politics? we'll leave it up to those who

are watching. what i've asked here today is to simply ask the senate to do what we have done many times on many bills: to move this bill to the house on a bipartisan way and pass it and then politics won't matter; women are covered. i hope that our senate colleagues who have objected and the speaker will reconsider. they can easily pass this bill today or next month, put it into place, and women in this country can say that the leaders of this country are fighting for them. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to the following members of my staff: kareem yakub and jasmine raoul, mr. president. thank you, mr. president. mr. franken: mr. president, i ask to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: i just want to do one thing in terms of responding

to senator grassley, who is a friend and we enjoy very -- a very good relationship on the judiciary and are just friends. but the idea that these provisions -- these new provisions in the vawa bill are just political, it just couldn't be further from the truth. you know, there's one provision -- i'll just talk about one provision. it's about women on indian reservations. who get abused by a partner, boyfriend, husband who isn't native -- and this happens all the time -- and this gave

jurisdiction to the tribes to prosecute this. and i -- i'm on indian affairs. i talk to tribal leaders all the tirementgy to reservations all the time. you just have no idea how grateful tribal leaders were and how important this was. you know, one out of every three women in indian country -- one out of three indian women in this country are raped at some time in their life. and, by far, the largest majority of that is not by male indians. it's by -- it's by non-indians. i can't think of anything less

political. i can't -- i just can't. and i just ask my colleagues to think, to give a second of thought before they say stuff like that. it really is -- as senator murray said, it was offensive to her. you know, i just find -- i actually found it more sad. i mean, my -- i find it sad. i came to the floor to talk about diabetes, mr. president. as you know so well -- the

presiding officer, senator whitehouse, has been such a champion in talking about the money that can be saved in our health care system by preventi prevention, and we can prevent chronic disease. the burden of chronic disease in our country is staggering. chronic disease affects half of all american adults and seven out of ten deaths each year are due to chronic disease. if current trends continue, by the year 2020, 52% of american adults will either have type 2 diabetes or elevated glucose levels that's known as prediabetes. and diabetes can often lead to other chronic diseases such as heart disease.

but, as grim as these statistics are for our country, we also have some of the best health care researchers in the world. a few years ago the center for disease control and prevention -- c.d.c. -- conducted a pilot program called the diabetes prevention program in two cities, st. paul, minnesota, and i understand naply, indiana. this program which was administered by the ymca is a 16-session program focusing on nutritional training, eating healthy, 16 weeks of physical activity at a y. and it costs about $300 per participant. the results of this pilot were

extraordinary. among adults with prediabetes, who are at the highest risk of developing type 2 diabetes, the program reduced chances that a participant would be diagnosed with diabetes by 58%. and for adults over the age of 60, it reduced the likelihood of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes by 71%. that's why senator lugar and i introduced legislation in 2009 to authorize the national diabetes prevention program as a grant program through the c.d.c. this bill was passed as part of the health care law, and is helping community-based organizations like the y, like the ymca, administer the program across the country. no one can participate in this program if it's not available,

which is why we needed the c.d.c. to help expand the program, to scale it up. thanks to their work and to our provision in the affordable care act, the ymca is now offering the diabetes prevention program in more than 300 cites in 30 states. we often need health insurers to pay for the program in order to make sure that everyone who needs it can get it. we know that when eligible adults participate in the program, it saves everyone money in fact, the c.e.o. of united health care told me that they'll cover this. and why? because they save $4 for every dollar they invest in the program.

because their beneficiaries are healthier. and the urban institute estimated that implementing community programs like the diabetes prevention program could save $191 billion nationally -- $191 billion, 75% of the savings, more than $142 billion, going to medicare and medicaid programs. that's why the federal government should also invest in this cost-saving program for seniors. nearly one-third of medicare beneficiaries had diabetes in 2010, and the diabetes prevention program costs, again, about $300 per participant as compared to more than $6,000 a year in add add health care costs for someone with -- in add add health care costs for someone with type 2 diabetes.

there is no question that by preventing diabetes we can all save money while keeping our seniors healthier. that's why i introduced legislation yesterday with my friend, senator lugar, senator rockefeller, collins and shaheen to allow medicare to cover the national diabetes prevention program. we're doing this to help our seniors enjoy their golden years while staying as healthy as possible. we're also doing it because it's the fiscally responsible thing to do. that's why the american diabetes association, the american heart association, the american public health association, and the american council on aging have all endorsed this legislation. the national association of chronic disease directors, the national association of state long-term care ombudsman

programs, and the ymca of the u.s.a. have also endorsed the bill as have 79 states and local organizations. we know a really good way to prevent type 2 diabetes, and we know how to do it while saving the federal government billions of dollars. in fact, we know doing it will save the federal government billions of dollars. so, mr. president, let's all here work together to prevent chronic disease in our country. i urge you, mr. president, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in guaranteeing that every senior has access to the diabetes prevention program when they need it. mr. president, i'd also like to just take a moment to recognize

that today is the fifth anniversary of a tragedy in my home state, the collapse of the interstate 35w bridge in minneapolis. the collapse killed 13 people and injured 145 others. the collapse was a shock to minnesotans and i think to the country. how could a bridge in our -- on our interstate highway system collapse in our country? it underscores the importance, quorum calls, of investing in our infrastructure. we did move quickly to replace the bridge. we have a beautiful bridge. thanks to the leadership of senator klobuchar and others. i just want to say just a couple things about this. the response by the people, the first responders in minneapolis

and in the metropolitan area, it was amazing. all the first responders had interoperable radio signals. people ran to do -- to the bridge. people in minneapolis ran to the bridge to help. people did heroic things. i'm very proud of minnesota. i'm proud of mayor ryeback and the response and the response of other first responders in the metropolitan area. i'm so proud to represent minnesota. and also my heart goes out to the families of those who perished that day, and also to

their loved ones, their friends, but also to the survivors who are still recovering in so many different ways. so, i urge my colleagues not to forget that day, to remember that we need to invest in our infrastructure, and hope this doesn't happen -- make sure that it doesn't happen again. so thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. and i thank the senator from minnesota for his great remarks and his -- he really does care about minnesota. he comes across every day he's here. it's a nice state.

anyway, in a few hours, mr. president, the iran sanctions bill is likely to pass both the house and the senate, and that is very, very good news because, mr. president, when it comes to iran, times a wasting. we need to ratchet up the pressure. and this is a powerful package that will paralyze the iranian economy. it tightens the screws tighter, tighter, tighter so that the iranians will have no choice but to see their economy basically in desperate shape if they continue to pursue obtaining a nuclear weapon. i'd like to thank my colleagues: chairman johnson of the banking committee, who's put so much time and effort into the iran sanctions bill and done such a

great job. i want to thank ranking member shelby. we go to the gym in the senate at about the same time early in the morning, and we've talked about this bill repeatedly, and i know how much he cares about it. i want to thank my colleague from new jersey who i've worked with on this issue long and hard, and he's taken a great leadership role: senator menendez, he's been relentless in pushing this bill. and those who wish not to see a nuclear iran, as so many of us wish to not see that, owe senator menendez a great deal of thanks. i want to thank my friend senator kirk who even though he is not here in the chamber physically present, has made this his highest priority. we've worked together on this issue a long time, and we continue to wish him a speedy recovery. well, mr. president, i believe when it comes to iran, of course we should never take the military option off the table.

but, i believe, almost everyone in this chamber believes, our president believes and prime minister netanyahu believes, most israelis believe that the economic sanctions are the preferred way to choke iran's nuclear ambitions. if we can achieve sanctions and iran truly backs off -- not with a faint but in reality, by meeting the three standards that both president obama and prime minister netanyahu have set, turning over any 20-% enriched uranium, stop producing any uranium enrichment and destroying the new facility at kuu, we will have achieved a great victory. so we have to move forward. earlier this year a group of bipartisan senators, i was proud to be amongst them, led by senator lieberman, called on the

european union to exert more pressure on iran by imposing an oil embargo on this rogue regime. our european partners have done just that, and their oil bicyclist is working. that too -- and their royal boycott is working. that is -- last year it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that iran is developing a nuclear weapon. and according to published reports, they could have at least one workable weapon in less than a year and another six months after that. so we don't have much time. and ratcheting up the economic pressure is imperative. we cannot dawdle. we cannot sit around and say let's wait six months and see if the existing sanctions are working. we have to ratchet up that pressure so that iran sees that it is not in its interest

economically, politically to pursue the path they have chosen. the report details a program dedicated to acquiring the skills necessary to test a nuclear bomb and earlier this year d.n.i. director clapper told the senate intelligence committee that iran's leaders even seem prepared to attack u.s. interests overseas. and so we know that iran is on the path to continued evil. just last week a suspected suicide bomber killed six people and wounded 30 aboard an israeli tourist bus in a coastal town in bulgaria. and israel believes, and i tend to agree with them, that hezbollah and iran are to blame. many questions remain about the bombing, but many western counterterrorist officials share the suspicions that israel and

i, frankly, both have. so by giving our government the capability to impose even more crippling sanctions on iran should they continue with their nuclear weapons program, the house and senate are putting forth a tough, smart plan to, again, ratchet it up and prevent, hopefully, god willing, the very real threat iran possesses to the u.s. and our allies, particularly israel. i'm just going to add my -- my statement will be added to the record, and so i'm not going to go over what the bill does. that's been talked about. but i want to mention one other part of the bill before i sit down. i am really happy and grateful to chairman johnson that the measure before us will also include language adopted from the syrian human rights accountability act. that's legislation i cointroduced this year with my friend and colleague from new

york, senator gillibrand. the legislation would require the administration to identify violators of human rights in syria, would call for reform and protection of the pro-democracy demonstrators, and would also block any financial aid and property transactions in the u.s. involving syrian leaders involved in the crackdown on protesters. if the syrian government which in many respects operates as a client state of the rogue iranian regime, will continue to violate human rights of those seeking to exercise their voices, then we have to do everything that we can to send the strongest message possible to that nation's leadership that this behavior is beyond the pale and not without consequences. and, mr. president, in conclusion, i believe my colleagues, chairman johnson, ranking member shelby, senator menendez, senator kirk have done an excellent job crafting a

comprehensive plan to arm the administration with the tools they need to put a stop to iran's nuclear program and urge my colleagues to unanimously support the iran threat and syria -- the iran threat reduction and syria human rights act of 2012. and with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i rise today because service members who risk their lives protecting our nation should not have to ever worry about predatory banking practices. they shouldn't have to worry about whether they can vote absentee while serving abroad, while they are fighting our nation's foes, they shouldn't have to worry about impending -- about fighting a foreclosure. and when they are serving our country, they shouldn't have to worry if their civilian job, if they are guard or reserve, they

shouldn't have to worry if their civilian job will be available when they return. unfortunately, too many do worry about that. last week, i joined the attorney general of the united states at wright-patterson air force base near dayton, ohio, and spoke with men and women who serve our country, airmen, airwoman. i also around that time spoke to some guard and reserve -- members of the guard and reserve who serve our country about some of these fraudulent practices, that when they are overseas, some of them don't know if they return if they're going to still have their job. they don't know what happens to them when they go back to school, if they are enrolled in a university private or public or two-year or four-year. they don't know what happens sometimes with their families in foreclosure and financial fraud. we know that employment is critical for service members and military families, so is housing, so is protecting their ability to cast a ballot. that's why i am sponsoring

legislation, the service members protection act which is so vital to those family in uniform. it would make critical changes to the service members civil relief act that can improve the quality of life for members of the armed forces. my bill first would strengthen housing and lending rights for service members. right now, a bank cannot foreclose upon a service member while they are serving overseas until it gets a court order, yet the bank has no real obligation to actually investigate whether a homeowner is on active duty overseas. my bill would require lenders who want to foreclose on a home to conduct a meaningful investigation into a bar or a military status. it would increase civil penalties for violating a service member's rights as a homeowner. the bill also would strengthen enforcement for the uniformed and overseas citizens absentee voting act to make sure service members' votes are counted t would create a nationwide standard for getting absentee ballots to overseas service members in a timely fashion.

and finally, mr. president, it would make sure service members can return to their jobs after they have completed their military services with the seniority and pay rate that they would have earned if they remain continuously employed by the civilian employer. we know the guard and reserve that are called up leave their civilian jobs, too often come home to the uncertainty of what happens when i arrive home. members of the guard should not have to worry about whether they will return home to the same job and the correct pay rate. as citizens of a grateful nation, we have a responsibility to do something, more than something to protect service members' rights as they sacrifice to keep our country safe. that's why i urge my colleagues to stand up for our service members. it's time we serve those who served us. thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i ask proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the following interns from my office be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session. that would be jenessa albertson, courtney lewis, tavis logan,

marissa torgeson, parker hanis. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. i'm delighted to have a fine group of young alaskans with me today. not only here on the floor but i thank them for their help to me, my office here in washington, and really all of alaska. they've been back here for a month, have done a great job, and it's always a true delight to have good, high energy from back home and to help me in the work that we do here. i'm pleased that they are with me. mr. president, i rise today to discuss an issue that people back home are talking about a lot. we're discussing the federal government's need to plan for the increasing levels of marine debris that's hitting the pacific coastline, whether it's

out in hawaii or all the way up north to alaska. this debris that is coming from the earthquake and the tsunami that struck japan last march. this, again, is something that folks are out fishing, people are out walking our beaches, it is a subject of great discussion and debate. we all know that that tragic event claimed nearly 16,000 lives, destroyed community infrastructure, homes, livelihoods, our prayers continue for the ones who we have lost and those hoff have lost their -- who have lost their loved ones. as horrifying as these natural disasters were, we remember that earthquake, the ground shook from anywhere from three to five minutes, the tsunami rushed to the shore, and then receded. but the devastation to property

that we saw move out from the shores there in japan, the devastation to property on other coastlines continues over a year and a half later as we begin to see the debris pile up on our shores over here. the japanese government has estimated about five million tons of debris were carried out into the ocean. we are assuming or have assumed that the majority of that either sank or will sink. but there's really no firm estimate, no concrete idea of how much is still floating or when it will reach our beaches, but in alaska, we know that it has been arriving. we saw the first evidence of it last winter, and it arrived ahead of the projected timelines. it's probably understandable

that we were not able to anticipate exactly when the tsunami debris would start arriving but now that we're starting to see it along the shoreline, i think it's no doubt that we need to respond. last january, trying to get ahead of the curve if you will i held a roundtable in anchorage to find out what our state and federal agencies were doing to prepare for the debris that we knew would be coming to our shores, how the interagency work would be coordinated, how individuals could report sighting and navigational issues. i think i've mentioned on this floor, i have two sons out on a fishing vessel in the gulf of alaska. as they crossed the gulf, would they encounter debris from tsunami? we saw at one point in time a japanese vessel that was -- was literally a ghost ship, a relic from that tsunami, the coast

guard -- the coast guard took that vessel and got it out of the navigation channels, but as alaskans and people that live on the coast were very aware that when there is stuff out in the water that is uncharted that we don't know about, we want to know and understand a little bit more. this past june i joined the u.s. coast guard to see for myself what was washing up on some of alaska's remote shoreline, our beaches. we flew out of core dovea, alaska -- cordova, alaska, went to kayak island. kayak sticks out from the coastline at an angle that allows it to collect an incredible amount of marine debris on just an average year. so the reason to go to kayak was to see what else might be

unusual other than the typical marine debris, the nets, the ropes, the buoys. we saw -- we saw real evidence of what was coming our way from the tsunami. we saw colored buoys, large styrofoam blocks. there was a large container that had washed up very recently. we've got a picture here from noaa that shows some of what we saw washed up there on kayak. these are all the plastic buoys here, the black ones we were told are what you see more of coming out of japan. now, have we been clearly able to identify that these came from japan or this was -- this was the usual marine debris? noaa is working to sort all of that out. but that gives you somewhat of

an idea of some of what we saw out there on kayak island. now, many saw pictures of -- of this huge dock that recently arrived on the coastline in oregon. just looking at the size here, recognizing that this concrete dock that had flotation on either end traveled all the way across the pacific literally in one huge slab of a piece, washing up onto the oregon beach, i think folks looked at that picture and the word was "wow." and again if you're a navigator, if you're a fisherman out there and you run across this in the water, real evidence of why we need to be concerned. this next photo is -- is one

from the pacific ocean, somewhere out in the pacific. this shows the objects that are creating, again, a hazard to navigation. these same materials, they're going to end up somewhere, on some shoreline, whether it's on our beaches, in our ports, think about the impact that they may have on sensitive habitats, making them unusable, certainly deadly for some marine animals, shore birds, other seizures that may rely -- species that may rely on them. what's important to recognize from these pictures i've just shown you is what we're seeing now is the debris that is floating on top or at least partly out of the water. and we're seeing it coming to u.s. shorelines earlier than might have been anticipated because in addition to the currents from the ocean, it's being moved along by the wind. and so what we're seeing in

alaska primarily are those buoys that sit clear up out of the water. but you can see fishing boats, building materials, roofs. again, this is what we can see because it's above the water. one of the real questions that we need to ask is so what's below the water? what's just below the surface that we can't see at this point in time? a couple weeks ago i met with some representatives from the yakatak-tlinkit tribe. it's in northern southeast alaska, the northern part of the tongass national forest on the eastern side of the gulf of alaska. it's a very remote community, only accessible by air or by boat. the closest community is hundreds of miles away and, again, it's surrounded by the federal park service and forest service lands. so what this community is doing

that the tribe, the city, the borough, they're meeting weekly to assess the debris coming up on their beaches and they're trying to put together a response. they've done some cleanup along 15 miles of area beaches. there's a beautiful, beautiful beach called cannon beach, has black sand, it's absolutely gorgeous, i visited it in march. and now what we are seeing is, again, the styrofoam, the housing foam, the buoys that are coming up on the beaches there outside of yakitat. they estimate that they've got about 600 pounds of marine debris per mile. the borough has 1,700 miles of coastline. so as a small village community, they're looking at the possibility of, say, 3,000 tons of debris.

this next picture here is actually from yakitat and this details another problem that our coastal communities are facing. and this is what do you do with this marine debris? because our landfills, particularly in southeastern alaska, our landfills are maxed out or close to being maxed out. the landfill space is filling up and could very, very quickly be overwhelmed by student loan debris. -- tsunami debris. not only are they tasked with cleaning up beaches that are very rugged, very remote, most you simply cannot access. there is no road to access. you can't land a vessel or a boat on the shoreline because in far too many areas it's too

dangerous. how do we access this? that's one challenge. it's costly to do, is a second, but also the challenges that we face with now that we've collected it, what do we do with it? so they're exploring some pretty creative solutions, some alternative disposal solutions. this is a community, i've reported on before, extremely extremely -- yakutat is one of those communities that has extremely high energy costs. i believe, if my memory serves me, i believe that they pay in excess of 50 cents a kilowatt hour for their energy. so when they're dealing with challenges and problems, much of it comes back to their high cost of energy. so what they're looking at is

whether or not there is a potential for any waste to energy technologies that could deal with two problems -- clean it up and support long-term efforts to deal with the high cost of energy. so it's kind of a twofer. you figure out how you can turn this into an energy source and you can also support long-term community and marine debris cleanup efforts. so you've got this small remote community, really on their own, facing a beachful, truckfuls, truckfuls of debris. the state of alaska has engaged in tsunami debris coordination, i'm told the alaska regional representatives of the federal agencies are as well, but headquarters of agencies across the federal government really need to be part of the plan and to engage creatively as we address this accumulating debris.

now, we're a state -- i don't have my typical alaskan map up here i usually do when i speak, but as a state with incredible coastline, more coastline than the rest of the country put together, we depend on our marine resources for u.s.s. nance, lively -- sustenance, recreation, we value a healthy coastline. our fisheries, our tourism, our coastal communities, they're so dependent on a strong and sustainable region. and when you -- think about it from the tourism perspective. when somebody is paying thousands of dollars to come up to alaska to visit remote wild areas they're certainly going to be disappointed if they are greeted by a beach full of styrofoam or pass by these mini debris fields. communities up and down the coastline really need some

assurance that headquarters of various agencies are going to be part of the cleanup plan. think about what happened after hurricane katrina. fema compiled a document denoting the debris removal authorities of federal agencies and that document outlines the departments of agriculture, commerce, defense, homeland security and transportation. they all had a role to play in debris removal. so for this reason and using this as an example i've asked the white house to establish and to lead an interagency task force to plan for tsunami debris. so you take the relevant states, tribes, local governments, and the international partners, and invite them to participate in this task force. we all need to be working it together. you just cannot leave a little community like yakutat and say clean up your section section of the coastline there. i know private and japanese government representatives have expressed interest in helping

with the debris problem. the ability for japan to offer experience and technology with waste-to-energy devices i think could provide a great opportunity for u.s.-japan and public partnership coordination to come together and address the impact from the debris. now, there are -- there are many reasons that we need to be acting now. i -- it's probably a difficult time of year for us back in washington, d.c., here to think about winter storms. we're enjoying some pretty warm weather back here but what we need to recognize, what we need to think about is what winter weather in alaska will mean for accumulating debris. we've got a lot of areas that are already impacted by tsunami debris that have huge tide swings. so you add to that winter storm and wave action and in areas with beaches, some of the debris

that we see will -- will be buried deep by the sand only to be uncovered while snow conditions and -- and spring break up make accessing the coastline really very challenging. we've got extreme tides and of course the weather will also move the debris up into the tree line, making access and removal even more difficult. this last picture down here i think will give you some indication -- some indication of what i'm talking about when you think about the alaska coastline. this is in a part of the state called mont giew island off of kodiak, but what you'll see is with -- with guy high tides and just the -- with good high tides and just with the weather that we get, trees that have come down and are part of the ocean accumulation come up to the shore. but you can see tucked in, kind of sprinkled like confetti some

of the styrofoam that has -- that has washed up. again, this marine debris that we're seeing. but think about how difficult it is to get in and access some of this after these winter storms that -- that we see. when debris lands on rough and rocky shorelines, wave action is -- is expected to break that up. we know that that happens. but i am -- i'm already concerned about our marine life and birds and animals, marine animals consuming these smaller plastic particles that have been broken down by the wave action. allowing a chunk of styrofoam that's easy to pick up today -- you know, when you've got reasonably good sized pieces, you can go ahead and pick that up. but it's going to be much more difficult to do that when it's been broken down by -- by wave action.

so, again, all of this argues for -- for prompt action. now, maybe the best that we can do for now is just pick up the debris and -- and store it somewhere. but as you saw looking at the yakutat picture, storing it in some of these communities is probably not going to be feasible. bailing technology could be available to alaska communities for about $10,000 for a bailing machine that would at least support the voluntary cleanup efforts, provide a means to store the debris rather than forcing strained landfills for absorb the incoming debris. i -- i -- i throw this out here because i think it's important that we -- that we get creative about this. we need to be exploring all available technologies to support the most efficient means to handle this tsunami debris and other marine debris for the long run.

every year i attend an annual renewable -- alternative energy fair. it's held in the interior part of the state. it's at chino hot springs. you always learn something good and new at this energy fair. last year when i was there i saw an -- a device that's actually in production, it's on-the-shelf technology, it may help turn much of the debris that's hitting our coastline into fuel. the device, i called it a gizmo -- i know there's a much more technical term for it -- but it processes plastics into fuel with a capacity to produce as much as 2,400 gallons per day with fueday. with fuel at over $6 a gallon in yakutat, the people there are looking at, wow, we can actually take some of the waste, the garbage, the debris, the

plasticplastics, turn that intoo i don't have to pay 6 bucks a gallon to fuel up my -- my four-wheeler or my truck, my -- my boat. now, given the tight budgets that are all around the country, again, i think we need to be creative here. we need to identify and deploy all available resources and share information. we need to leverage local knowledge and our coastal residents' proximity to and vested interest in the cleanup efforts. now, our federal agencies have regional coastal staff and they've got facility resources. many run programs that are consistent with the objectives of tsunami debris response and mitigation. for those who would suggest that, well, if it's come up on your shore, it's your responsibility, there's no federal role here, it's up to the states to -- to figure it out. i would remind them that in my state, much of our coastline

is -- is owned by the federal government. this picture here on montegue island -- montegue island is entirely within the chugaspgatch national forest. the first picture i showed you on can jack island is on the tongass national forest. in fact, over 60% of my state is owned by the federal government. clearly the federal government has a role to play in cleaning up the debris. now, we also can't forget about private interests in cleanup. many industries and private citizens are dependent on our navigable waterways and healthy marine ecosystems. we need good communication, leadership and a plan to guide an interagency and public-private approach to solve this challenge during what we would all acknowledge are difficult fiscal times. i commend the noaa debris -- marine debris program for their coordination in response to this work, but the fact of the matter

is, mr. president, they are a small and an overtasked program. they need help of their federal partners to address this as -- as a national priority. so i would encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing that marine debris is a national problem as well as a priority and a comprehensive response to the tsunami debris that we are seeing on our shoreline in alaska and other pacific northwest states are seeing, in addition to hawaii, comprehensive response is past due. with that, mr. chairman, i -- mr. president, i -- i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: over the last few days, we've been lectured

numerous times that we must protect cyber critical infrastructure, otherwise our country's in jeopardy. now, everybody agrees with that statement. enhancing cybersecurity is important to our national security. i support efforts to strengthen our nation's -- our nation against critical cyber attacks. however, i take issue with those who have come to the floor and those same people arguing that those who don't support this bill are against strengthening our nation's cybersecurity. disagreements over how to address policy matters shouldn't evolve into accusations about a member's willingness to tackle tough issues. the debate over cybersecurity legislation has turned from a

substantive analysis of the merits into a political blame game as to which side supports defending our nation more. if we want to tackle big issues like cybersecurity, we need to rise above disagreements and work in a constructive manner. disagreement over policy should be openly and freely debated. unfortunately, this isn't how the debate on cybersecurity proceeded. instead, before a real debate began, the majority leader cut that debate off. as the discussion of cybersecurity began on the floor this week, senators stated that a failure to grant broad, new powers to the federal government will lead to a cyber 9/11. i agree that if we fail to take

action on cybersecurity, there could be a national security consequence. however, i don't believe giving the federal government more regulatory authority over business and industry, as sarpts of thi -- assupporters of this , is the answer to strengthening cybersecurity. chief among my concerns with the pending bill is the role played by the department of homeland security. these concerns stem from oversight that i've conducted on the implementation of -- of a law called the chemical facility antiterrorism standards program. that acronym would be cfaps. ts. cfats was the first regulatory major for ray o forray by the d.

the department of homeland security spent nearly a half a million dollars on that program. now, five years later, they've just begun to achieve site security plans for the more than 4,000 facilities designated under the rule. i've continued to conduct oversight on this matter despite assurances from the department of homeland security that they fixed all the problems with that program cfats, i keep discovering more problems. so now i'm baffled why we would take an agency that has proven problems with overseeing a critical infrastructure and give them chief responsibility for our country's cybersecurity. additionally, i'm concerned with provisions that restrict the way information is shared. the restrictions imposed under title 7 of the bill are a step backward from other information-sharing proposals. this includes the bill i've

cosponsored, the secure i.t. bill. the bill before us places the department of homeland security in the role of gatekeeper of cyber threat information. the bill calls for the department of homeland security to share the information in -- quote -- "as close to realtime as possible with other agencie agencies." however, this surely will create a bottleneck for information coming into the government. further, title 7 includes restrictions on what types of information can be shared, limiting the use of it for criminal prosecution except those that cause imminent harm. this is exactly the type of restriction on information sharing that the 9/11 commission warned us about. in fact, the 9/11 commission

said -- quote -- "the wall resulted in far less information sharing and coordination." the 9/11 commission further added -- quote -- "the removal of the wall that existed before 9/11 between intelligence and law enforcement has opened up new opportunities for cooperative action." why would we even consider legislation that could rebuild these walls that threaten our national security? how much of a real debate have we had on those issues that i've raised? the lack of a real process in the senate on this very bill amplifies my substantive concerns. in fact, this is eerily reminiscent of the debates surrounding the health care reform bill. during that time, then-speaker of the house pelosi declared --

quote -- "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." well, we all know how well that worked out. years of litigation later, the public is still learning what surprises the majority and the -- and president obama had in store for the nation's hm system. now, here we are once again, in the last week before our august summer break, tackling a serious problem that hasn't been given full process. i don't want cybersecurity legislation to become another health care reform bill. if we're serious about our nation's security, then shouldn't we treat it as serious as it really is? we all agree how serious it is. we're told that the senate has been working on cybersecurity

for three to five years. however, we haven't been working on this bill before us for that long. the bill before us was introduced 13 days ago and it was only pending on the floor for four days before the motion for cloture was filed. it didn't go through the normal committee process. it wasn't debated or amended. instead it was brought straight to the floor, and we're being forced to consider it under a very rushed schedule. talking about the danger of cyber attacks for years isn't the same as discussing the impact of the actual text of the bill which could become law. the words on the 212 pages of the bill are what must be analyzed and analyzed in detail. in fact, no one except a handful of senators actually knows what the bill says or might say. and, of course, that's a process

that debate in the united states senate accomplishes, or at least tries to accomplish. we need full process, and unfortunately that has not happened, and and it doesn't look like it will happen. and why won't it happen? because the majority leader has limited debate. this week we were told that a group of senators and their staff were working on a compromise. again, that's something that all of us as a body don't know much about. we need an open debate in order to process this as opposed to huddled back room meetings. i don't think this was the way we're supposed to legislate. the people who elected us expect more. they expect transparency because they know when you get transparency, you have accountability. how many senators are prepared to vote on something this important without knowing its

impact because we haven't followed regular order? are we to once again pass a bill so that the american public can then at that time find out what's in it a la speaker pelosi statement on health care reform? these are questions that owl senators should consider, and our citizens should know in advance what we're actually considering. now yesterday we heard claims that the amendments offered by republicans were part of some obstructionist tactic. why isn't the same statement made about the 77 or so amendments filed by democrats? somehow are they acceptable and not obstructionist? i had three amendments that address specific provisions in the bill, and i wanted to have a debate on them. for example, i have an amendment

to strike the provisions in the bill that create a cause of action against the federal government. now what does that cause of action do? that provision waives sovereign immunity, provides for automatic damages and provides for an award of attorneys' fees. this provision is obviously a gift to the trial lawyers lobby which american taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for, and i don't think class action lawsuits against the government will help us prevent cybersecurity. another amendment of mine would have removed industry-specific carveouts from the bill. this is another example of how backroom deal making takes place so as to get the support and build support for a bill. we saw this happen with the health care reform bill.

you know the famous cornhusker kickback that was agreed to in order to pass obamacare. and this process reminds me of that. here to get support from companies in the information technology industry, the bill clearly states those companies can't be identified as critical cyber infrastructure. so, to build support for this bill but without people knowing what's in the bill, the authors carved out these companies from having to comply with the bill. for example, under this carveout, say an information technology company builds a routeer that has a flaw that's exploited by hackers. that router is purchased by

every sector of the critical infrastructure including power, water and probably a lot of others that i ought to be able to name. if that router is exploited and if that is attacked, the companies that bought the router are held responsible. however, the company that made the faulty router isn't. now, it's obvious how absurd this is. it's obvious how much of a major giveaway to a key industry just to give the appearance of private-sector support. this is not how we should handle cybersecurity, and i have an amendment to strike this provision. we should openly debate this issue and discuss whether this is the right course of action to give a carveout to a specific segment of industry. again, the carveout was a deal cut with one purpose: to limit

opposition to the bill. well, that wasn't good policy in 2009 on the cornhusker kickback in the health care reform debate, and we should learn from that lesson that it's obviously not good policy in 2012. i also know that senator ron johnson of wisconsin had an amendment that the congressional b. office issued a score on the cost of the bill before it could take effect. why were the supporters of the bill opposed to doing that? do they believe that they have a right to spend millions or billions of taxpayers' dollars at will without making the amount public? of the supporters of the bill really prepared to vote for this bill without revealing how much it will cost? but i won't get a chance to debate my amendments or senator johnson's amendment before the cloture vote because that's how the majority leader runs the

united states senate. there are serious questions about this bill. it needs to be amended. we need to discuss changes. unfortunately, it doesn't look like that's going to happen. i know some will again say that this has been a long process. the only thing true about that statement is that the issue and problem has been discussed for a long time, but not discussed for a long time on this bill. if we're serious about addressing this problem, then let's deal with it appropriately. rushing something through that will impact the country in such a massive way isn't the way that the most deliberative body in the world, the united states senate, should do its business. it's not good for the country and it's obviously not good for

the reputation of the united states senate. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey is recognized. mr. menendez: mr. president, i understand that my distinguished colleague from oklahoma has asked consent for 6:30. i will take about 10 or 15 minutes which will put us about five minutes past that. i'd like to ask consent to speak for about 15 minutes. mr. inhofe: that's perfectly all right. i'd like to ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of my friend from new jersey that i be recognized for 30 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? so ordered. the senator from new jersey is recognized. mr. menendez: thank you. i thank my colleague for his courtesy. mr. president, while we are focused on issues here at home, and certainly we should be, there are incidents taking place around the world. and those of us who care about freedom and democracy and human rights, those of us like myself

who sit on the senate foreign relations committee also have our focus on what is happening in other places in the world. and i come to the floor to talk about the violence and repression that continues in the country of cuba. this time in a dramatic and brazen attempt to exercise power through fear and intimidation over those who want nothing more than to see the day when the people of cuba are free and against members of the international community. once again i'm forced to come to the floor to put a spotlight on what is happening inside of cuba, and all those who put their lives on the line for freedom and human rights around the world. the information we are receiving from both public reports and other information from cuba concerning the circumstances surrounding the death of as

oswaldo paya, human rights advocate is disturbing. it underscores the brutality and repression of the castro regime and it demands a response from the international community as well as from ourselves as part of that community. the facts are, as we know them, that 50 pro-democracy activists were arrested and detained at the funeral -- at the funeral -- of oswaldo paya. at a funeral. they were not demonstrating. they were not marching or carrying signs, not engaged in acts of civil disobedience of any kind. they were not violating any laws. they were attending a funeral. hundreds gathered peacefully: family, friends and those who want nothing more than a free and democratic cuba were at a funeral mourning the death of their hero, oswaldo paya.

but, mr. president, the arrest and detention of 50 dissidents who were mourning the loss of a friend and loved one is not the whole story of how far this regime will go. the circumstances surrounding oswaldo's paya's death leave any reasonable person to wonder what may have really happened on that road in cuba that ended in a tragic automobile accident that took the life of oswaldo paya's. paya's daughter rosa challenged the regime's version of events stating that the family had received information from the survivors that their car was repeatedly rammed, rammed by another vehicle. so she said, "we think this is not an accident. they wanted to do harm, and they ended up killing my father." the family also said that

oswaldo paya was targeted in a similar incident two weeks earlier in havana. same thing. an effort as they were driving to ram them off the road. in retrospect, the family now sees that incident as a warning from the regime. what we know is that the car driven by a politician from spain, caremerro, a citizen of spain and aaron modick, an activist in sweden, as involved in the fatal automobile accident that killed paya and his colleague harold sopayo. we know caremerro and modick survived the accident. and we obviously know what happened that day. now, these were two individuals,

one spanish citizen, another one a swedish citizen, who were involved in promoting, helping paya promote from an international perspective the views of his movement, civil society movement towards peaceful change in democracy and human rights. but instead of getting the two survivors' real story, in a demonstration of the twisted nature of the castro regime, the cuban ministry of interior detained without consular access the two foreigners that survived the crash, and then they paraded modig, the swede, before a ministry of interior press conference where he was clearly forced to apologize for working with paya and, quote unquote, illegally aiding the cuban opposition. the driver of the car, caremerro, the spanish citizen,

was less lucky than his swedish colleague. it appears he will not be allowed to speak freely for years to come courtesy of the castro regime. they have formally charged him with vehicular manslaughter in the crash and caremerro, like modig was forced to offer a mea culpa made available in a video presentation posted by castro's nefarious ministry of the interior. the regime's logic has to boggle the mind of any reasonable person who cares about the rule of law. it's also my understanding that according to reports from cuba that in a move typical of the castro regime spanish diplomats were prohibited from seeing or meeting with caremerro until yesterday. meanwhile the grieving widow of oswaldo paya has expressed outrage and rejected the castro regime's official report

regarding the death of her husband and the circumstances surrounding the accident which is now blamed the accident on the actions of cepero who was driving the car. and i quote "until i'm able to speak until the last two people who saw my husband alive, have access to the expert reports and people independent of the cuban government, i can have no idea of what really happened that day." mr. president, i can't be certain that the regime killed oswaldo paya, but the circumstances of his death are highly suspicious, and there is no question that the regime had motive to kill oswaldo paya. paya was one of the most prominent opponents of the castro dictatorship, a catholic activist who founded the christian liberation movement in

1988. he is best known for the parella project, a petition drive he launched in 2002 that called for free elections and other rights. that drive led the cuban government to adopt a constitutional amendment making the communist system in cuba irrevocable. it followed that with the 2003 black spring, which arrested 75 of the most prominent cuban activists in that year. paya had become the most known, most visible face of cuba's peaceful opposition movement. the european parliament awarded him its sacarov prize for freedom of thought in 2002, and that year he was also nominated for the nobel peace prize by hundreds of parliamentarians in a campaign led by his friend vaclav havel, the czech republic

president. paya was determined that cuba and cubans should enjoy the benefits of freedom and democracy, and he committed his life to that cause, and he may very well have lost his life to that cause. mr. president, we cannot continue to turn our backs on those inside of cuba struggling in peaceful ways to promote democracy and human rights. we cannot allow the violence and the repression, the brutal detentions to continue without consequence. we cannot allow innocent members of the international community to be brutalized and victimized by the castro brothers so they can hide the truth without the international community standing together and holding them accountable for their repressive and illegal actions. will the castro regime stop at nothing, nothing to repress the rights of its people? and we turn our backs on the rule of law, on the cuban

people, the facts of this case, mr. carromero, or can we once again have that wink and nod and say oh, well, it's been over 50 years, things are changing for better in cuba and we should let bygones be bygones, as people languish in jail, as people die at the hands of the regime, as we see the hunger strikers who give up their life because of the brutality that they are facing, to try to rivet the world's attention in this regard. we should permit -- some say we should permit castro's hooligans to parade across our nation which we seem to give visas to, spewing lives while an american, alan gross, sits in a prison simply because he brought some communications equipment for the jewish community in havana to be able to collaborate and to inform each other. that was his crime.

he has now been in prison, a united states citizen, for two years, languishing in castro's jails. not to mention thousands of cuban political prisoners who suffer in cuban prisons. as i have said on this floor over and over again, to me, the silence is so deafening from so many of our colleagues. they may have a different view than i do about how do we promote democracy, but i don't hear them speak out about these human rights abuses, about the deaths in castro's prisons, about those who can get knocked off the side of a road and killed, and the silence in that respect is deafening. so there are some of us who are committed to making sure that silence is broken. today i'm asking my colleagues to join me in sending a letter to ban ki moon, the secretary-general of the united

nations, demanding that the united nations and the human rights council immediately undertake a full and thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding oswaldo paya's tragic death and the detention of angel carromero. we must demand the truth about these tragic events that took the life of cuba's most devoted human rights advocate. i hope our colleagues will join us in that respect. we have supported democracy movements around the world. they have often made a big difference from vaclav havel, lech walesa, and so many others. when we side on behalf of those struggling against the repressive regimes for democracy and human rights, it makes a difference. it can make a difference in this regard as well. and i am hoping that our colleagues will join us in helping break the silence. on behalf of the memory of

oswaldo paya and on behalf of all of those who lose their lives every day or their liberty simply because they peacefully choose to ultimately try to change the nature of the country in which they live. it is something that america should be a beacon of light for, something that i hope we can shine very brightly, and in doing so create a protective element to those who are peacefully trying to create change inside of cuba. we should do no less. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president? mr. president, when we came back to session this week, i was pleased to see a very good

friend of mine on the floor of a completely different philosophy from mine and a different background in a different state talking about being somewhat critical of my position on global warming, which everybody knows i have been involved in for some 12 years, since the kyoto treaty which was never before us. nonetheless, i appreciated the fact that we had a chance to resurrect that issue because to my knowledge, nobody has uttered the term global warming since 2009. it's been completely refuted by -- in most areas, but i'm pleased -- i was pleased to hear my good friend from vermont talking about it because he and i have a very honest relationship with each other, a total disagreement. and we're able to go over those things. and then again today, two things happened. first of all, we had the senior senator from massachusetts came down to the floor and was quite

critical of me and anyone who is a skeptic. i think it's important to realize that to understand, so you understand when we're talking what we are referring to, those people who really believe that the world is coming to an end because of global warming and that's all due to man-made anthropogenic gases. we all those people alarmists. those people like myself who have looked at it very carefully and have come to the conclusion that that isn't happening and the fact that -- or the assertion that global warming is occurring today and it's occurring because of the release of co2 and anthropogenic gases, methane and such as that, that's not a -- and that those people are -- it's really a hoax, which i said way back in 2003, this became quite a charge to a lot of people, a hoax that is -- the fact that all this is

happening is due to man-made gases i believe is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the american people, and as a result of that, a lot of people are trying to do things to this country that are detrimental. so i want to cover a couple -- and by the way, we also had this morning, it was really enjoyable. this is the first time since 2009 that the environment and public works committee has had a hearing on global warming on the science or the lack of science behind global warming. so i was delighted to see all these things resurrected, and i know it's not proper to talk about your own books on the floor, and i don't do it except i have to do it because it was mentioned by some of my adversaries, my book that was called "the greatest hoax" and things were taken out of this book, and so hi to defend them. so let me just mention, if i can, in this fairly short period of time that i have -- i think it's only 30 minutes -- some of the things that were stated,

first of all, on the floor by the senior senator from massachusetts, then make some comments about the hearing this morning. i think it's very -- in fact, i'm glad it's coming to the surface again. first of all, the -- i was referred to as a skeptic, and i mentioned just now the skeptics are those that don't believe in what i refer to as the hoax. he referred to it as flat earthers. i have learned a long time ago that when -- if you don't have logic on your side, you don't have the science on your side, that they respond in -- in name calling, and i -- and i have been called a lot of names. let me just name a few. this comes right out of the book and some of the things that were said this morning. the noisiest climate skeptic. the senate's resident deaner bunny. dumb, science abuser.

holocaust deaner. warmonkering, neanderthal. it goes on and on. i will submit this for the record. quite often, when you hear these things, it's only because there is not logic or science on their side, so you do name calling, which is fine. to me, that gets attention to the -- and it needs to have the attention. the second thing -- one of the other things that came out this morning, the statement was made by the senior senator from -- from massachusetts, and i'm quoting now, i believe. there are 6,000 pier-reviewed studies that say that no one pier-reviewed study that proves it is not happening. not one, not one pier-reviewed study is a study that is published and then the peers review it. i think that is a process that is necessary. consequently, that statement was made, that statement just flat isn't right. in fact, the -- let me just go

ahead and talk about some of these studies. if you look at the harvard-smithsonian study, that was a study that examined the results of more than 240 peer-reviewed papers published by thousands of research over the past four decades. the study covers a multitude of geophysical and biological climate indicators. they came to the conclusion -- this is the harvard-smithsonian peer-reviewed study. they came to the conclusion that climate change is not real, that the science is not accurate. dr. fred seitz is a former president of the national academy of sciences. he said -- quote -- "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate."

i would like to pause at this moment because i see the majority leader on the floor of the senate and inquire if they care to have some leadership time, i would be very glad to yield to them at this time. apparently, that is not the case. well, thirdly, i talk about -- and this is something that happened fairly recently. one of the universities, george mason university, surveyed 430 weathercasters and found that only 19% of the weathercasters felt that global warming is cat strosk global warming is taking place and it's a result of human activity. now, that's quite a change from what it used to be. that means 81% of those -- the weathercasters that we all see every night are saying that that just isn't true. the dr. robert laughlin, a nobel prize-winning stanford university physicist, he said, and quote -- this is actually a quote. he said please remain calm.

the earth will heal itself. climate is beyond our power to control. the earth doesn't care about governments and legislation. climate change is a matter of geologic time, something the earth does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself. so i think that that statement is certainly not an accurate statement that was made this morning in the -- and by the way, there is -- in terms of the climate change, i would like to suggest that there is a web site called climate depot by mark marano, climate depot. in this, you can find multitudes of peer-reviewed studies, and there is not time to go over them all but you certainly can find them on that particular web site. the other statement that -- another statement is made by the

senior senator from massachusetts wherein they are talking about a former climate skeptic, richard muller, that he changes his mind through extensive research, implying that he at one time is a skeptic and he is now a -- a -- an alarmist. well, let me tell you about richard muller. richard muller is -- in 2008 said the bottom line is that there is a consensus, the intergovernmental panel on climate change which we're going to talk about in just a minute, and the president needs to know what the i.p.c. says. second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. you need to know that this is from carbon dioxide and that you -- that you need to know the understanding of the technologies. let me pause at this moment. i'm going to be going on quite a while i say to my good friend the leader and if you'd like to go ahead and do your thing, it would be perfectly all right.

is he here? okay. let me pause. i ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the leaders and their colloquy that's taking place that i be recognized to complete my remarks and be recognized for up to 30 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, we're about to do something really important in the u.s. senate. it would increase exports to south american countries, it would create jobs in african countries and extend sanctions to burma which my friend the republican leader will speak more about. this bill would maintain about 2,000 jobs in north and south carolina alone. this is a very good bill. it's fully paid for. it's an important piece of legislation. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that time to be

determined by the majority leader after consultation with the republican leader the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 459, s. 3326, that the only amendment in order would be a coburn amendment, the text of which is at the desk. there be 30 minutes for debate, equally divided and controlled by in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of that time the senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment that if the amendment is not agreed to, the bill will be read a third time, passed without further action or debate and when the senate receives h.r. 5986 and if its text is ieptd cal -- identical, the senate proceed to consideration of h.r. 5986, the bill read a third time and passed, with no amendments in order prior to passage. further that if the coburn amendment is agreed to, the finance committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 9 and the senate proceed to its knead immediate consideration, that after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of s. 3326 as amended be inserted, the bill read a

third time, passed without further debate and that when the senate receives h.r. 5986 the senate proceed to it forthwith. and all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of section 2 and 3 of s. 2236 as reported be inserted in through thereof. the bill be read a third time, passed with no further debate as amended and s. 236 be returned to the clemed business. finally, no motions be in order except motions to waive or to table, there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: reserving the right to object, i will not be objecting. let me just echo the remarks of the majority leader, this is an important piece of legislation. the part i had the most interest in renews burma sanctions, something we've done on an annual basis for ten years. we are renewing the sanctions in spite of the fact that much

progress has been made in burma in the last year and a half. secretary clinton will of course recommend to the president that these sanctions be waived in recognition of the significant progress that's been made in the last year and a half in that country which is trying to move from a rather thuggish military dictatorship to a genuine democracy. there's still a long way to go. this is an important step in the right direction. america speaks with one voice with regard to burma. my views are the same as the views of the obama administration expressed by secretary clinton. i also want to thank the chairman of the finance committee for helping us work through this process, and particularly to senator coburn, who had some reservations about the non-burma parts of this bill. but i think we've worked those out and are working forward and i think it's an important step in the right direction. the presiding officer: without

objection, then, it is so ordered. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the record reflect my remarks without the interruption. the presiding officer: that will be done without objection. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent i be recognized, again, to continue my remarks for up to 30 minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is so recognized. mr. inhofe: okay, mr. president, prior to this very significant announcement that was made by both the majority and the minority leaders, i was talking about responding to the speech that was made on the floor this morning by the senior senator

from massachusetts and i think the main thing i'd gotten across at that time was the assertion that was made that there are 6,000 peer-reviewed studies that say not one peer-reviewed study that proves that global warming is not happening and that the -- the anthropogenic gases would be the cause of it. i know it was not the intention of the senior senator from massachusetts to say something that was not factually wrong, but i did read several peer reviewed and referred to a web site, climatedepot.com for more if anyone is interested in that. the second thing i was ready to talk about is the fact that tearm massachusetts and again in the hearing this morning, richard mueller was referred to several times as being a former skeptic that converted over to an alarmist. and i suggested and i read

something to show that in my opinion he never was a skeptic. but i'd like to go ahead and make some comments about richard mueller because he's the only one -- if you go to my web site you'll find about a thousand scientists that have come around and said no, this assertion that we're having catastrophic groamg and it's due to anthropogenic manmade gases is not correct. richard muler is not among that list. he is not one i had listed. however when they say that -- that he is the one and make such a big issue out of him, i'd like to quote a couple people about their expressing -- their expressing -- they're expressing themselves on the credibility of mueller. judith crueler from the georgia institute of technology stated way oversimmsimplistic and not t all convincing in my opinion. talking about the comments by mueller.

quote, "i don't see their paper adds anything to our understanding of the causes of recent warming." that was the paper that was submitted by richard mueller. roger pelke jr. said the bigger issue is how "the new york times" let itself be conned into running mueller's op-ed piece. michael mann -- remember, he's the guy that started this whole thing after the united nations started putting it together he had the hockey stick thing that's been totally disrailroad credited but -- discredited, but even michael mann said sadly, this is really about richard mueller's self-aggrandizement. so much for the statements made to give credibility to their side by richard mueller. i think another thing that was stated this morning was we have evidence of climate change all around, wildfires, drought, and -- and vegetation and all that type.

then they talked about glaciers. let me just share the facts about that. i think are very significant, as far as the droughts and all that are concerned and again, this is a statement made by the senior senator from massachusetts this morning talking about all these things happening as a result of global warming. hurricanes. according to noaa, hurricanes have been on the decline in the united states since the beginning of records in the 19th century. the worst decade for major category three, four, and five hurricanes was in the 1940's. the geophysical research letters since 2006, global tropical cyclone energy has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970's. global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached an historic low, just the opposite. tornadoes, noaa, scientists reject global warming linked to

tornadoes. quote, no scientific consensus between global warming or tornadic activities. droughts. he talked about droughts this morning. scientists disagree with the obama on cause of texas drought. this is not a climate change drought, dr. orling, a research scientist said. they also said severe droughts in 1834 covered 85% of the country compared to only 82% many 2011. the statements that were made about the arctic and approxima approximate -- and about greenland this morning. if you look at the november 2007 peer-reviewed, i stress, peer-reviewed study conducted by a team of nasa and university experts found cyclical changes in ocean currents impacting the arctic. the excerpt is -- quote, and i'm quoting now, this is a peer-reviewed study by nasa,

said -- "our study confirms that many changes seen in upper arctic ocean circulation in the 1990's were decadal in nature rather than trends caused by global warming." in 2011 -- 2011, this is nasa again, sees 9,000 manhattans of arctic ice recovery since the low point in -- let me explain what that means. when you talk about the -- a -- the manhattan arctic recovery, they take manhattan because that's something people can identify with and see and then they relate that to the recovery of ice. in this case, this is, again, from nasa. in 2007, there are 9,000 manhattans of arctic ice recovery since the low point in 2007. now, this study was 2011. so that means that low point was actually below that and it's been decreasing since that time. that's the arctic.

the antarctic, there's a 2008 peer-reviewed paper in the "american geophysical union." it found -- and i'm quoting now from that peer-reviewed paper -- "a doubling in snow accumulation in the western antarctic peninsula since 1850." a paper published in the october journal of "climate" examines the trend of sea ice extent along the east antarctic coast from 2000-2008 and finds a significant increase of 1.43% per year. and greenland, let's talk about green -- i always remember, i had occasion -- one of the things that i've been interested in is aviation. i've been an active pilot for i guess 60 years now. and the occupier of the chair is fully aware of this because he and i together were able to pass through the pilots' bill of rights. the first time that an accused pilot has access to the judicial system.

but as the occupier of the chair is fully aware, i had occasion to fly an airplane around the world one time, emulating the flight of wiley post when he we want around the world. it was an exciting things. it was one of those things you're glad you did because you'd never want to do it again. it was kind of miserable at times. anyway, i remember coming across greenland. following wiley post, i started in the united states, went up to canada then agros to greenland, to ice land and back to western europe and across the siberia. but in greenland, they're still talking about up there what it used to be like in greenland when they -- they had the -- they gone through this melting period and everyone was up there, they're growing things, it was -- they're ecstatic up there talking about the great old times. then, of course, the cold spell came along and it got much colder and -- and it was much worse. now, the ipcc in 2001 covers this. they said, "to melt greenland ice sheet would require temperatures to rise by 5 1/2

degrees celsius and remain for a thousand years. the out ice sheet is growing two inches a year." that's greenland. they're just talking about it this morning in greenland, all these -- in fact, they talked about it during this hearing, too. let me mention this ipcc and remind everyone of something that people tend to forget. the ipcc is an intergovernmental panel on climate change. it was put together by the -- the -- the united nations a long time ago. it all started in 1992, went down to rio de janeiro, they had their big gathering down there to try to encourage everyone to pass the kyoto treaty. well, the kyoto treaty was never even submitted by the clinton-gore administration, although gore went down to thi this -- this big meeting in rio de janeiro. they had a wonderful time down there. at that time they're saying the world's coming to an end so we've got to pass the kyoto treaty to stop all that. well, it's the ipcc that i'll be very critical of because that is

the science on which all of these things are based that we're dealing with today. so, so much for these things that were stated in terms of the disasters and the droughts and all this -- these -- these problems. the next thing that he talked about was -- and i've already talked about greenland. and he talk about the necessary -- it's going to be necessary to have carbon caps. i think we talked about that this morning. right now, even though there are those people who are advocating cap and trade, a complex, difficult thing to explain, it's essentially requiring a cap on carbon emissions and then trade these emissions back and forth. well, that's something that they don't talk about anymore because that's been completely discredited. now they're talking about a carbon tax and i think that was mentioned this morning. the avoidance of responsibility has to stop.

we have been waiting for 20 years -- quoting again the senior senator this morning from massachusetts -- "we've been waiting for 20 years to now while other countries" -- in other words, china -- "are stealing our opportunities." put that chart up, will ya? let's talk a little bit about china. you know, china, they're the great beneficiaries of anything we do here to put caps on carbon because they're the ones that are doing it. so they say that -- that china is making great strides in reducing their carbon emissions. look at this. the green line there is china. this is in emissions, billions of tons of emissions. and it starts down with 2, just a little built over 2. that was 1990. and it's fairly level until 2002. but look what's happened. it has doubled the tons of emissions in china, the emissions in china have actually doubled in that period of time from 2002-2012. that's a ten-year per.

at the same time we'v -- that's. at the same time, we've actually reduced our emissions in both the united states and in the european. but to suggest that china's sitting back there waiting for to us provide the leadership for them to destroy their economy is just -- is -- is pretty outrageous. and by the way, the other statement that has been made in the past by not just the senator to whom i've referred but several others is that we are not going to be able to solve the problem. and to do something about our reliance on the middle east by just developing our own resources here. that is wrong. you know, there's a guy named harold hand who's now the authority. he has actual had more successful production in tight formations. he appears to be from my state of oklahoma. i called imhim up -- i called him up before a speech i was making -- or a debate i was involved in. this was probably six months ago. i said to harold ham, i said, you know, if we were to open up the united states -- now, granted, there has been a surge in the production in this

country and the recovery. it's all in private lands, none in public lands, because we've had a reduction in public lands. but if we're to open up those public lands when they say they're trying to say in the obama administration -- they're trying to say and the obama administration has said over and over again -- if you say something's wrong the most times, people will believe it, at least that's the idea -- they said even if we'd open up all these public lands, it would take ten years before that would arrive at the pumps. do you know how long it would take? i suggest to you, i asked harold ham, and i said you're going to have to give me something you could document. if you were to set up -- in new mexico, for example, where you are precluded on public lands of drilling, put up your operation, how long would it take you to bring up the oil and actually go through the whole refining process and get to the pumps to get the supply there so that we can bring down the price of -- of oil -- of gas at the pumps? he said 70 days. he didn't his taivment i said 70 days, they say it's ten years. no, it's 70 days.

break it down for me. well, he said, it would take 30 days to go town and lift it up. it would take 60 days before you hit the surface and had, in preparation to send it to a refinery. then in ten days, you can get it through the refinery and to the pumps. well, i'm just saying, this whole idea that we have to rely on some kind of green energy, that there's not even been developed yet in terms of technology, and ration what we have in this country, i mean, this administration, the obama administration has a war on fossil fuels since before he was elected president of the united states. he was going to kill fossil fuels. we all know that. i'm not going to quote all the people in his administration that says we're going to have to raise the price of gas at the pumps to be comparable to central europe before people will be weaned off of -- of -- of fossil fuel, because i think people know that now. this morning, it was kind of interesting, we had a -- we had

a -- the hearing this morning and one of the witnesses was a dr. field. it was -- well, i don't get his first name. he was a witness this morning at the. christopher field. it was -- he was one of the witnesses for the other side. and he made a lot of statements and it was kind of interesting because there is an article that was sent out written by roger pilke jr., who is a university of colorado, boulder -- he is actually on the ipcc at one time but he's one of the authorities who disagrees with me. but he talked about how wrong dr. field was. he said -- and i'm quoting now -- this is not me talking, this is professor roger pilke jr. he said, "as the u.s. copes with the aftermath of last year's record-breaking series of $14 billion climate-related disasters and this year's

massive wildfires and storms, it is critical to understand that the link between climate change and the kinds of extreme that lead to disasters is clear." well, what did he say this morning? he said fields' assertion that the link between climate change and disaster is clear, which he supported with reference to u. u.s. -- to u.s. billion-dollar economic losses, is in reality scientifically unsupported by the ipcc, period. that was the response to the assertion that was made this morning. another one that was made this morning, it was a report -- fields said a report identified some areas where droughts have been becoming longer and more intense, including southern europe and west africa. but others where droughts have become less frequency, less intent and shorter. this is what he said in response to that. again, this is dr. roger pilke jr. just today. this is today's paper that he published. "field conveniently neglected in

his testimony to mention that one place where the droughts have gotten less frequent, less intense or shorter is the united states. why did he fail to mention this region, surely of interest to the senators" -- united states senators, myself included, that were on the panel. the third thing he mentioned, he said on noaa's billion-dollar disasters, fields said, "the u.s. experienced $14 billion disasters in 2011, a record that far surpasses the previous maximum of $9 billion." what he said about that is -- he said -- fields said nothing about the serious issues of noaa's taboo laition. the billion-dollar disaster memo is a p.r. train wreck, not peer-reviewed and is counter to the actual science summarized in the ipcc. so why i mention it? again, this is dr. pilke jr., who disagrees with me on this but he's just tired of people

saying things that aren't true. now, i'm going to ask you at this point in the record that his entire statement be made because he goes over point after point after point and discredits everything that was said by this witness, whose name is christopher field, this morning. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: now, today in the hearing that we had, i think it's important to talk about the ipcc because if you stop and think about it, everything that's been happening comes from the science that was investigated and formulated by the ipcc, intergovernmental panel on climate change -- that's the united nations -- and, of course, in my book i talk a little bit about that but i can't mention that at this time. i don't think it would be appropriate. but at today's hearing, we were -- we talked about the ipcc. and you've got to keep in mind that when the -- when cap-and-trade failed, when they were unable to through

about five or six different bills to have cap-and-trade -- weep in mind cap-and-trade through the legislation would cost the american people between $300 billion and $400 billion a year, but when that failed, then we had something happen in december of 2009. 2009 in copenhagen was the big united nations party. you've got to understand the united nations has this big party every year. they invite all the countries around the world to come up there and testify that global warming is happening and they're going to do something about it. i remember one time -- and this is back in milan, italy, and i saw one of my friends from -- well, actually he is from benin in west africa. i said what in the world are you doing here? you know better than this in terms of global warming. he said yeah, this is the biggest party of the year. besides that, we in west africa, if we are -- agree to go along with this, we're going to get billions of dollars from the united nations from those countries that are in the developed nations. so that's what was happening.

anyway, another big party was coming up in copenhagen in 2009, and i observed that at that time -- let's see, i think senator kerry had gone over, hillary clinton had gone over, barack obama, i don't believe he had been there, nancy pelosi was there and several others were there and they were telling all these countries don't you worry about it because we in the united states of america are going to pass cap-and-trade legislation this year. so i went over and i said i'm going to go over as a one-man truth squad to let them know the truth, and i did. i went over there and told them, the 191 other countries there that we're not going to pass cap-and-trade, it's dead, gone, doesn't have a chance, they can't get a third of the senate to support it. anyway, right before i left, we had one of my favorite liberals, lisa jackson, i really like her. she is obama's appointee and nominee and is now the director of the environmental protection agency.

she was witness -- she was a witness, and i said right before i went to copenhagen and happened to be coincidentally when we had a hearing, i said madam administrator, i have a feeling that once i leave and go to copenhagen, you're going to come out with an endangerment finding that will give you justification to start doing what they couldn't do by legislation through regulations. and i could see a smile on her face. i said when you do this, it's got to be based on science. what science are you going to base this on? she said well, the intergovernmental panel on climate change would be the major thing that will do it. and so sure enough, that's exactly what happened. the interesting thing -- i mean, you talk about poetic justice, mr. president. this could not have happened if i had planned it, but i remember going over it and as she made this declaration that we now are going to be able to do through regulation which they are trying to do right now what we couldn't do through regulation because the people of america have

spoken through their elected representatives in the house and the senate and have denied us the opportunity to do cap-and-trade so they do it through an endangerment finding that was based on the ipcc. well, what happened after that was what i call the poetic justice, and that is climategate occurred. i had nothing to do with it. when it happened, i got to thinking all the speeches i have made in the previous ten years on the floor of this senate were speeches saying exactly the same thing, that they were cooking the science and it was not real what they were saying. and so let me just mention a couple of things that we mentioned this morning. i read the -- several of the editorials that came out after climategate. after climategate, "the new york times" editorial -- keep in mind, "the new york times" has always been on the other side of this issue. they said given the stakes, the ipcc cannot allow more missteps, and at the very least must tighten procedures and make it it -- its deliberations more

transparent. the panel's chairman is under fire for taking consulting fees from business interests, talking about the ipcc now. "the washington post," which has also been on the other side of this issue. -- quote -- ," this is in " the washington post ," recent revelations about flaws in the seminal ipcc report changing from typos to key dates to sloppy resourcing or undermining the confidence that not only in the panels work but also in the projections about climate change. "newsweek," some of the ipcc's most quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspapers and articles, and i several times have talked about climate gate. i remember christopher booker of the u.k. telegraph said climategate is the worst scientific scandal of our generation. clive crook of the financial times said the stink of intellectual corruption is

overpowering. the prominent physicist from the ipcc said the climategate was a fraud on the scale i have never seen. another u.n. scientist bales -- and this is an article by u.n. ipcc coordinating author, dr. phillip lloyd. he calls out ipcc fraud, the result is not scientific. "newsweek," once celebrated climate researchers feeling like used car salesmen, some of ipcc's most quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures. clism ve cook of atlantic magazine, he said speaking of the ipcc response, i had hoped, not very confidently, that the various climategate inquiries would be severe. this would have happened a first step toward restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. so everyone is in agreement that this is what climategate was all

about. and why i am spending so much time on this is because this is the science on which all of these things that started since the -- since kyoto was not put together. by the way, i think the senator this morning on the floor commented about the kyoto treaty. let's keep in mind the kyoto treaty was back during the clinton-gore administration. they were strongly in support of it. they went down to -- vice president gore went down to the summit that they were having in rio de janeiro and signed the treaty, but they never submitted it to the united states senate. to become a part of a treaty, it has to be ratified by the united states senate. it never was. and so they never did send it here. that is one of the things that people need to understand, that there is a reason that it never was -- it never was submitted. well, i would only suggest a couple of other things that are in the remainder of the time

that i have that i think are significant and worthy of bringing up. one would be the one weather event. the thing that we're hearing more about right now than anything else is that it's been a very hot summer. i remember on monday, my wife called me up and said in tulsa, it's 109 degrees today, and so i was joking around with my good friend from vermont who -- and whom we disagree with each other, but he is a good friend. sure, it is hot. but on one weather events, that is the one thing -- and this is so important that people understand this. the one thing that scientists all agree on is that one weather incident or the difference between weather and climate, weather is not climate. roger pelke jr., i have quoted him a few minutes ago, a professor of the environmental studies at the university of colorado. he said over the long term, there is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change.

judith curie, chair of the georgia institute of technology school of earth and atmospheric sciences, said i have been completely unconvinced by any of the arguments that attribute a single extreme weather event, a cluster of extreme weather events -- that's what we're having now -- or statistics of extreme weather events to anthropogenic forcing is just not true. miles allen, head of the climate dynamics group, university of oxford atmospheric, oceanic and planetary physics department. quote -- "when al gore said that scientists now have clear proof that climate change is directly responsible for the extreme and devastating floods, storms and droughts, my heart sank." and even i would say rachel maddow who is on msnbc, is considered to be one of the really outstanding liberals -- she is in my group of four favorite liberals, i have to say, because i have been on her program and i have enjoyed it. she has a guy called bill nye,

the science guy. he agrees that some of these weather events have nothing to do with global warming. the other thing that i made a little note of here that came up this morning was that they said there is no evidence on cooling. well, i think it's important to talk about that a little bit because a prominent russian scientist that will be made a part of the record said we should care of deep temperature drop, not catastrophic global warming, warming had a natural origin. u.n. fears more global cooling cometh. this is an ipcc scientist, warns the united nations we may be about to enter one or even two decades during which cooling takes place. and for the record, i ask that all of these be placed in the record showing that a single weather event has nothing to do with climate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: but i do think it's important to bring this up because this is happening right

now, and all of a sudden after three years, not one mention of global warming. ah, all of a sudden it's global warming. i talked this morning and i showed a picture of the -- of the igloo that my kids -- i ask unanimous consent that i extend my time by five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i showed a picture of the igloo. you know, we have -- i have 20 kids and grandkids. my daughter molly and her husband have four children. one of those is adopted. she is from africa, a little girl that was in africa. she was brought over here when she was a little baby. she now is 12 years old, reading at college level. her name is zagism ta marie. she is an outstanding little girl. in fact, i sponsor the african dinner every february. she for the last three years has been kind of a keynote speaker at this thing. everyone loves her. anyway, she was up here -- they were up here two years ago and they couldn't get away because all the airports were closed because of an ice storm. of course, what do you do with a family of six when they are

stuck someplace? they built an igloo. that was fun. i mean a real igloo. it would sleep four people. and in this thing, that became quite an issue. we had articles from france and great britain, all that criticizing my family. in fact, my cute little family -- i wish i had brought that down here. i didn't bring it with me. they were declared by keith olbermann of msnbc to be the worst family in america because of this. anyway, the point they're trying to make is no one ever asserted that because it was the coldest winter in several decades up here, that that -- that somehow that refuted global warming. i said no, that isn't true. now those same people are saying that it is. so anyway, i will wind up this with the american people. you know, you can fool them part of the time and you can talk about all the hysteria and all the things that are taking place, but when you stop and realize the people of america have caught on.

in march of 2010, the gallop poll, -- gallup poll, americans ranked global warming eight out of eight in environmental issues. this was dead last. they had a poll. in march, the rasmussen poll, 72% of american voters don't believe global warming is of serious problem. the warmest -- this is a global warming alarmist, robert sakalo admits we are losing the argument with the american public big time. i think the alarmists, myself included, have lost the american middle. so that's it, mr. president. as much money as they have spent and the effort they have made and the moveon.org and the george soras and the michael morris and the al gore and the elitists out in california, in hollywood, they have lost this battle. now, they're trying to resurrect it. they would love nothing more than to pass this $300 billion

tax increase. it's not going to happen. but i am glad that we're talking about it again, and i applaud my friend -- of all the people i mentioned. i think senator sanders from vermont who is a real sincere activist on the other side. we don't agree on hardly anything, except infrastructure, i would have to say. and yet, we respect each other. that's what this body's all about. we should have people who are on both sides of all these controversial issues talking about it. there has been deathly silence for three years. now we're talking about it again. so welcome back to the discussion of global warming, and i look forward to future discussions about this. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask consent the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask the chair to lay before the senate a message from the house with respect to h.r. 1905. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: resolved that the house agree to the amendment of the senate to the bill h.r. 1905, entitled, an act to sanction iran sanctions laws and so forth and for other purposes, with an amendment. mr. reid: mr. president, i move to concur in the house amendment. i believe the senate is ready to

act on this motion. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to this bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed now to a period of morning business, senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each during that period of time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the homeland security and governmental affairs committee be discharged from the following postal naming bills en bloc and the senate proceed to their consideration, h.r. 1369, h.r. 3276, h.r. 3412, h.r. 3501, and h.r. 3772. the presiding officer: without objection. the committees are discharged ane