mr. inhofe: mr. president, first of all, let me thank the senator from nebraska for allowing me to come in immediately following his remarks. mr. president, an amendment was just offered by the majority leader -- minority leader. let me explain what this is. as the former chairman of the environment and public works committee and then now the ranking member, we have been very much concerned for a long period of time over what they're trying to do with cap-and-trade. all the way back to the kyoto treaty, we recognized and then all the way through about five different bills debated on the senate floor, we recognized the cost, incredible cost of what it would be to the american people if we were to pass cap-and-trade legislation. the interesting thing about this is the most votes that were in the united states senate at any one time in order to pass cap-and-trade were about 30 votes. obviously it takes a lot more than that. and so what this administration did was say all right, if you're not going to pa

mr. inhofe: madam chairman. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: we are currently, is my understanding, on my amendment 183 to s. 493. is that correct? the presiding officer: that is not the pending amendment at this time. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside for the purpose of considering amendment number 183. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: thank you, madam president. and i say to the controller of the bill, i notice that we didn't have any speakers down, so i thought i'd come down. we do have this bill in consideration right now, in process for a vote. it's my understanding there will be a vote on amendment number 183 in the next perhaps hour or so, maybe just a few minutes. let me just give you a little background on what happened on this and where we are today. back in the early 1990's we had the kyoto treaty up for consideration. that was during the cl

mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the bill. the clerk: the clerk: make being further congress tinge ens -- mr. inhofe: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? appears to be so. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators who wish to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the ayes are 87, the nays are 13. the joint resolution is passed. the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. under the previous order, there will be -- the clerk: no nomination, the judiciary, army burman jackson of the district of columbia to be united states district judge. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: we yield back all time on this matter. mr. mcconnell: and ask for the yeas and nays. mr. leahy: withhold ju

mr. inhofe: mr. president, i appreciate that. i was hoping to have a little bit more time this morning, so i'll cover this a little faster than i normally would. but it's so critical. i just got back from the middle east and i know the problems that are over there and a lot of people are saying that the -- the gas prices that going up are a result partially of what's happening over there. that isn't the real problem. the real problem is a political problem. let me first of all talk about the commitment that this administration has to cap-and-trade. some people who have been around for a while and remember way back in the kyoto treaty, i led the opposition to grat -- they tried to pass cap-and-trade legislation and since i chaired the committee at that time of jurisdiction, we looked at it, we thought this isn't going to work even by the admission of the environmental protection agency if we were to pass something like this in the united states, it wouldn't have any effect on reduce greenhouse gas. so i would just say this, some o

mr. inhofe: mr. president, let me, first of all, say to my good friend from virginia that i agreed with everything he said up until the last three minutes. you know, we have something that is -- that needs to be talked about. i would only make reference to the letter that has been entered into the record that, yes, they did make that statement. if the choice is to do nothing at all or to have the rockefeller amendment, it's better to delay something bad for two years. but that's not the choice. the choice is -- and he's referred to it as the mcconnell amendment, the bill i introduced and now introduced as an amendment to the small business act, is one that will actually resolve the problem. i think it's necessary to set the record straight as to what the two alternatives really are. i call them cover. this is kind of a term that's used inside these halls. when someone's wanting to vote for something, vote against something the people at home want, they give them something else to vote for so they can

inhofe amendment. america america my -- mr. merkley: my colleague from texas was addressing this amendment and noting her support for it. i would like to address several reasons that y this amendment is bad policy for america. first and foremost, this amendment increases our addiction to foreign oil. it increases oil consumption by 455 million barrels. right now we import about 9.7 million barrels of oil per day. so this amendment is equivalent to six weeks' worth of oil imports. recognize that gas prices are about $3.50 a gallon. the mcconnell-inhofe amendment amounts to a $68 billion price tag for working families to buy gas, to buy gas from oil imported from overseas. and this isn't a tax that in any way supports our economy. in fact, this is a tax that goes out of our economy to purchase energy from overseas. so, from the middle east, from nigeria, from venezuala. that is very profitable to the companies that supply that oil. it's very profitable to the governments far outside of the united states of america. but it certain

mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator inhofe. nator reed is next and after his round, we will then have a break of perhaps five minutes after senator reed is finished. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. madam secretary, general petraeus, thank you very much. not only for your appearance today, but your extraordinary service to the nation. thank you very much. general petraeus, we are counterplaying a serious issue in terms of the budget, the department of defense budget. many have suggested that we have to move forward regardless of other aspects. but integrated within your plan is a strong state department presence in afghanistan. and the state department request for ocho funding $2.2 billion, civilian personnel, economic activities, aid work, et cetera, how central and critical is this funding to your overall strategy and your assessment of ultimate success in afghanistan? >> well, thanks, senator, because it is critical. it is absolutely central to what we do. this is a comprehensive civil military counterinsurgency campaign

mr. chairm. >> thank you, senator inhofe. nator reed is next and after his round, we will then have a break of perhaps five minutes after senator reed is finished. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. madam secretary, general petraeus, thank you very much. not only for your appearance today, but your extraordinary service to the nation. thank you very much. general petraeus, we are countelaying a serious issue inerms of the budget, the department of defense budget. many have suggested that we have to move forward regardless of other aspects. but integrated within your plan is a strong state department presence in afghantan. and the state department request for ocho funding $2.2 billion, civilian personnel, economic activities, aid work, et cetera, how central and critical is this funding to yo overall strategy and your assessment of ultimate success in afghanistan? >> well, thanks, senator, because it is critical. it is absolutely central to what we do. this is a comprehensive civil military counterinsurgency campaign. it is

inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and again, we would all echo the remarks about your service, admiral olson, it will sorely be missed. we were talking about a lot of discussion about the withdrawal of troops, troops in afghanistan. i will say this, that occasionally when the president talks about that, he talks about conditions on the ground. so i'm not sure just what's going to happen when these timetables are. but i will say that i've had the opportunity going all the way back to the fall of 2003 when i happened to be in oklahoma. i was over in afghanistan helping the a in age trend of and they're doing a great job. job. e.g. when the go back and see. we see this improvement in train. and i think this has to be recognized because because the last time is when senator hagan there now, she and i were there, it's been new year's eve in afghanistan. and had a chance to go down to the kabul military training center. and it's almost like looking at a training center here in the united states. i'm talking about the separa

inhofe amendment not only because it goes too far, not only because it eviscerates e.p.a. from some fundamental responsibilities that it has, for example, cafe standards, but it has, mr. president, absolutely no chance whatsoever of becoming law. none. mine does. theirs doesn't. we think we're going to pass, the president's going to sign something that eliminates e.p.a. forever? they'll say, well, we can always change that in a couple of years. no, it isn't that. it's a theological decision to pick out a campaign issue for 2012. and that's fine because that's the way things go. but to destroy the e.p.a. permanently is an act that i have not seen since i came here. there will be people in many states, including my own, that think that's a wonderful idea. but i would require them, ask them to think more deeply. the mcconnell-inhofe amendment makes a point but it doesn't solve a problem. i'm here to solve problems. so is the presiding officer. the amendment would take away e.p.a.'s ability to address greenhouse gas emissions emissions/forever. it doesn't make any difference what happens five years, ten years from now in greenhouse emissions. nuances that have to be made