Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be recognized for as much time as I shall consume.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say something about this. I would ask if Senator Boxer would like to be heard before I make some remarks on this or if we can have a colloquy, in which case I would ask a question. We have done some good things in our committee, and we have two different people who don't think alike on a lot of issues. However, we both agree that infrastructure is important. We got through a highway bill that many people said couldn't be done. It hadn't been done since 1998, and we were able to do that significantly. We got through the chemical bill, about which a lot of people said ``No, that is not going to be done,'' and yet we did. I look at this, and we have many things right now that should go into a WRDA bill. Initially, the Water Resources Development Act was going to be coming up every 2 years. We went through a period of time when that wasn't the case. Both the minority and the majority of our committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, have agreed that we should get back to that 2-year cycle. That is what we are doing today. I would ask Senator Boxer: Do you agree that we have done a pretty good job on some of these and we need to keep going?

Mr. INHOFE. A lot of things have not transpired yet.

Mr. INHOFE. Let me thank the Senator from California. Let's continue this productivity. We have a chance to do it now on this very significant bill. We had a conversation with the leadership, and I think she and I and the leadership agree that we can have some limitations on amendments. I have been over here asking for our Members to bring amendments several times now. Actually, we started this about 3 weeks ago. I don't have them in my hands yet. I would suggest since we have this tentative agreement that all amendments would go through the managers--that is, through Senator Boxer and me--that we go ahead and say they have to be germane, and if they are not in by noon on Friday, no more amendments could come in. It seems as though we always have to have deadlines around here to get things done. I will be proposing that after I make a few remarks, and I think our Members can depend on that being a condition. Does that sound reasonable to the Senator?

Mr. INHOFE. That's good. Let's talk a little bit about this because yesterday I talked about what is going to happen if we don't pass a WRDA bill. Keep in mind that we have gone sometimes as long as 7 or 8 years without passing one. We are supposed to do it every 2 years, and I think this could be the time that it will become a reality. I will repeat what I said yesterday: What will happen if we don't have a bill? I think every Member, Democrat and Republican, will be affected by this and will be concerned if we don't get this legislation passed. First of all, there are 29 navigation flood control and environmental restoration projects that will not happen unless we pass this bill. There will be no new Corps reforms that will let local sponsors improve infrastructure at their own expense. I will talk a little bit about that because it is not very often that we have a bill where we have to encourage people to let other people pay for what the government would normally be paying for. We have come to an agreement in this bill, which is a good thing, and it is a good provision. If we don't pass the bill, there is not going to be any FEMA assistance to the States that need to rehabilitate the unsafe dams. If we don't pass the bill, there will be no reforms to help communities address clean and safe drinking water infrastructures. I come from a State where we have a lot of small rural communities, which don't have an abundance of resources. Back when I was mayor of Tulsa, the biggest enemy I had was unfunded mandates. The Federal Government would come along and say ``You have to do this,'' and yet we had to figure out a way to pay for it. That is what we are trying to get away from, and this bill helps us do that. If we don't pass the bill, there will not be new assistance for innovative approaches to clean water and drinking water needs, and there will be no protection for the coal utilities from runaway coal- ash lawsuits. We have specifically addressed that. I have to admit that there are a lot of things we worked out in this bill that Democrats like and the Republicans don't like and Republicans don't like and Democrats like, but that is how we got things done. Sooner or later there is an outcry out there for us to get things done, and this is certainly a good way to encourage these people to understand that there is hope in what we are doing. I have some charts, and the first one I want to show is the map of the inland waterway system. There are 40 States that are directly served by ports and waterways maintained by the Corps of Engineers. This system handles over 2.3 billion tons of freight each year, and this commerce is critical to the United States. I invite everyone to look at this chart. This is Tulsa, OK. Everyone knows where Oklahoma is. It is kind of in the middle of the United States. How many people in America know that we are navigable in Tulsa, OK? We have a navigation way that goes all the way up. We are fighting to keep the navigation way strong, and that is what this bill is all about. If you look at all of the things that are being serviced here-- that is what this bill is all about. That is how far-reaching it is. We have to keep our water transportation system operational. For example, the senior vice president of Marathon Petroleum Corporation told the Environmental Protection Committee, my committee, that they have a number of situations up and down the Ohio River where lock gates have failed to function and Marathon's barges were stopped for 50 or 60 days at the cost of millions and millions of dollars. He told us there was one lock where the gate literally fell off and took months to repair. The second chart we have is the Ohio lock repairs. This could be anywhere, but this is what it looks like when you get down there. When we have lock problems in my State of Oklahoma, I go out there and get down there with them and look to see what we can do. But that is fairly recent in Oklahoma. Look at the Ohio River. I can't tell you how old it is, but you can see the repairs that need to take place. This problem is not exclusive to the Ohio River. It exists in most major locks throughout the inland waterway. These projects are experiencing a slow creep of Federal inaction. Under the current law, a local sponsor, such as a port, has to wait for the Corps to get Federal appropriations and issue Federal contracts before locks, dams, and ports can be maintained. Even when a lock gate is literally falling off, under current law, they are not allowed to use their own money to help out. The Corps maintenance budget is stretched thin so WRDA 2016 comes up with a solution, and this is a logical solution. In WRDA, the bill that we are going to consider and will hopefully pass, we let local sponsors, such as ports, either give money to the Corps to carry out maintenance or do their own maintenance using their own dollars. This is an opportunity. These are not taxpayer dollars, but the need is so critical that there are people out there willing to do this, and we will be able to do that with the passage of this bill. We also have to modernize our ports. We have to invest in our Nation's ports now so that American ports can handle larger post- Panamax vessels. The new vessels that are coming through the Panama Canal now are vessels that require a greater depth. Here is a comparison. The top is the post-Panamax, and the bottom is what we are using today. You can get an idea of the number of containers that they can transport. This picture shows the current Panamax vessel on the bottom and the new post-Panamax vessel on top. As you can see, the post-Panamax vessel can handle double the cargo of their predecessor. This increase in cargo volume means cheaper shipping costs, which translates into cheaper costs for consumers, but in order to achieve this, we have to deepen our Nation's strategic ports to accommodate it. WRDA 2016, the bill we are talking about now, has a number of provisions that will ensure that we grow the economy, increase our competitiveness in the global marketplace, and promote long-term prosperity. These provisions include important harbor deepening projects for Charleston, SC, Port Everglades, FL, Brownsville, TX, and throughout America. This chart shows the Charleston Harbor. It is authorized to be deepened under this bill. Right now it is 45 feet deep. In order to use the Panamax to come into that particular port, it has to be closer to 51 feet instead of 45 feet. What happens if that doesn't happen? If it doesn't happen, they have to go to someplace in the Caribbean where they offload the large vessel and divide it up into small vessels, which dramatically increases the costs. Anyone who is concerned about low costs has to keep in mind that this is a major opportunity not just for Charleston Harbor, but for harbors throughout the United States. Let's talk about flood control. Let's start with the levees. The Corps built 14,700 miles of levees that protect billions of dollars of infrastructure and homes. We have some of these levees in my hometown of Tulsa, OK. The Corps projects prevent nearly $50 billion a year in damages. Many of these levees were built a long time ago, and some have recently failed. This chart shows the Iowa River levee breach. This is a levee in Iowa that was overtopped and eventually breached by disastrous floodwaters. In many cases levees like this were constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers decades ago and no longer meet the Corps post-Katrina engineering design guidelines. Also, FEMA has decided that many of these levees don't meet FEMA flood insurance standards. Even though they own the levees, a levee district needs permission from the Corps to upgrade a levee to meet FEMA standards. Several Members of this body have told me that their local levee districts are caught up in a bureaucratic nightmare when they try to get that permission from the Corps. Well, you shouldn't have to do that. Everyone benefits from this. We are streamlining the process to allow levee districts to improve their own levees by using their own money to do it in WRDA 2016. This is nontaxpayer money, and I don't know who could oppose this effort. There is also an issue with how the Corps rebuilds levees that have been damaged by flood. Right now the Corps will rebuild only to the preexisting level protection, which may be inadequate and may not meet FEMA standards. Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to have different results. To stop this insanity of wasting Federal dollars by rebuilding the same inadequate levee over and over again, WRDA 2016 allows local levee districts to increase the level of flood protection at their expense when the Corps is rebuilding a levee after a flood. No one can argue with that one. Let's talk about dams. According to the Corps National Inventory of Dams, there are 14,726 high hazard potential dams in the United States. A high hazard potential dam is defined as a dam that will result in the loss of lives. If you look at this, this is a dam that broke. When that happens downstream, you know people are going to die. This is an area where we can't imagine that anyone would object to it. This is a picture of a dam in Iowa that failed in June of 2010 after the area received 10 inches of rain. We can avoid disasters like this by making the necessary investments in our water resources infrastructure. By not passing WRDA, we leave communities like this one, and many others throughout the country, vulnerable to catastrophic events. WRDA 2016 helps avoid disasters like this by providing two new dam safety programs. Keep in mind, we are talking about 14,000 high hazard potential dams--life-threatening dams--right now. One is operated by FEMA to support State dam programs, and one is operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to support tribes. Those are the two efforts that we are making. Let's talk about the EPA clean water and drinking water mandates. Communities around the country are trying to keep up with more and more of the Federal mandates coming from the EPA. I had to deal with this when I was the mayor of Tulsa. It was the unfunded mandates that were the greatest problems that we had, and one of the goals I had in coming to Congress was to stop the mandates. We thought we had done that at one time. This is going to be a great help. Even though our water is much cleaner and our drinking water is much safer than it was 30 or 40 years ago, back when I was mayor of Tulsa, the EPA keeps adding more and more regulations, and these new mandates drive up our water and sewer bills to the point that they become unaffordable to many families. Under the threat of EPA penalties, communities can be forced to choose between meeting new, unfunded Federal mandates or keeping up with basic maintenance repair and replacement activities that keep our drinking water and wastewater operational. Our seventh chart here is the Philadelphia main break that took place. If we don't maintain our infrastructure, it will fail just as this water main did in Philadelphia. If we don't replace our infrastructure, aging sewer pipes will leak and result in sewer overflows. Atlanta, Omaha, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Houston, and communities all around the country are facing these problems. This chart shows the tunnel-boring machine for DC's $2.6 billion sewer. You can see what is involved in this project. These sewer projects are huge and very costly. For example, there is a picture of a tunnel that is being built here in DC as part of a $2.6 billion project to address sewer overflows. The WRDA bill, S. 2848, addresses these issues in two ways. It targets Federal assistance and tools that empower local governments. As far as Federal assistance, our 2016 WRDA bill provides $70 million to capitalize WIFIA. You heard the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, talk about how we used TIFIA in our highway bill. We are using WIFIA in the same way. The $70 million of Federal funds can provide up to $4.2 billion in secured loans. It is something that worked in the highway bill, and it will work in this one. Those loans have gotten a match by another $4.4 billion, so there is $70 million in Federal investment that will result in some $8.6 billion in infrastructure. That is in this bill. This funding is fully offset by reductions in DOE's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Program. I might add that the Senator from Michigan has assured me that they are very supportive of this, in spite of the fact that that is where a lot of the manufacturing of our vehicles takes place. While the Federal assistance in this bill is targeted, all communities need tools to fight back when EPA enforcement officials try to take control of their water and sewer system. The WRDA bill also requires the EPA to update its affordability guidance, so when EPA imposes costly sewer upgrades on a community, EPA will have to consider the real impacts on real households, including low-income households. Finally, we talk about coal ash. That has been very controversial for a long time. WRDA includes compromise legislation that we negotiated and considered with Senator Boxer and others on the EPW Committee to authorize State permit programs to manage fly ash from coal-fired powerplants. Coal ash is a critical ingredient in making concrete for roads and bridges. It is more durable, it is less expensive than the alternatives, and many States actually require coal ash to be used in their highway projects. When EPA's coal ash rule went into effect last October, it created huge uncertainty for both the disposal and the beneficial use of coal ash because, unlike other environmental regulations, the EPA rule is enforced through citizen lawsuits. This is something we have to stop. This bill fixes that by giving States the authority to issue State coal ash permits that will provide protection from citizen suits. There is a tremendous amount in this bill that is important to every State in our country. I can't imagine that we are not going to be able to get this passed. Our goal--and this is a goal of Democrats and Republicans, the majority and the minority--is to get this done and get it done in this work period, and I think we can get it done by next week. We are to the point now where I want to repeat that we have the opportunity to do what we are supposed to be doing in managing our infrastructure. This is something we have an opportunity to do now and do well. Again, one of the requirements is--and the leadership has agreed to this, as have the managers, Senator Boxer and myself--that we are going to have to get all of the amendments in from anybody who wants them by noon on Friday. Nothing will be considered after that, nor will anything be considered that is not germane. We are going to be passing judgment on these amendments as they come in, but bring them in because after noon on Friday, it will be too late. Anyway, we have this opportunity on the floor to get this done, and I think this will be one of the last really great accomplishments we will be able to do in this legislation session. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a very personal interest in a vote that is coming up on Zika, and I wish to share my thoughts on that. Today we have the opportunity to provide the funding to help combat the mosquito-borne Zika virus that has hit Florida and some other southern States. As of this week, there have been 49 travel-related cases of the Zika virus in Florida and 576 travel-related cases altogether. Within those cases, 80 are pregnant women who have been infected with the virus. This is extremely concerning since the Zika virus has been linked to severe birth defects in children born from mothers who contracted the Zika virus. Zika has created a public health emergency that can't be ignored. This isn't the first time we have taken up this vote. In June, Senate Democrats blocked the passage of the conference report, claiming that funds did not need to be offset. The $1.1 billion provided in funding in the conference report will be used to fight the Zika virus and prevent it from spreading. This is the same amount as the Senate-passed bill in which every Democrat voted in favor. All the Democrats voted for it. Republicans have put together a responsible funding package that includes $750 million in offsets, with strong oversight and control to ensure that funds are being used properly. There has been a lot of discussion and a lot of things we are saying here on the floor and to the public that the public doesn't understand. They can't be expected to understand; they are too busy out trying to make a living. But when they hear things like this, they shake their heads and they say: What is wrong with that system up there? I say this because there is a little girl who happens to be my sister's granddaughter. Her name is Callie Hamilton. Callie Hamilton has lived for some time in Florida, and she is pregnant. She has called me several times. She said: I don't understand it. You have Democrats who are saying ``We don't want to do something to save the lives of these pregnant mothers in Florida and elsewhere unless you also fund Planned Parenthood and some of the other programs.'' Everything gets all mixed up, and because of the sense of urgency, it is now a vehicle for everybody else to hitchhike on. Let me tell my colleagues, when I was asked the question by my own great-niece, who is pregnant and living in Florida, saying, Why is it that people aren't too concerned about the political politics of a vote when this is different from any other virus vote we have taken? We have had many, and normally there is some question as to what caused it, some question as to whether the solution is a viable solution when, in fact, in this case, it is. There is no question about it. There are two things that are factual about this that we have not seen before. First of all, the virus is contracted through mosquitoes. We all know that. Nobody refutes that. The second thing is, you can kill mosquitoes, and everybody knows that. Now, whether the amount is $750 million or whatever the amount is--it doesn't really matter; even if you are out there with a very small amount and you just kill several million mosquitoes, that could save lives, and it could be my grand- niece, Callie Hamilton. So this is different. I hope--and I am going to encourage my Republican and Democratic friends alike, when this vote comes up to consider, that this isn't something to put something else on. This is something that--we can immediately get in there and eradicate a bunch of mosquitoes and save lives and very likely prevent this from happening. I hope they will make an exception on this. It doesn't make any difference about offsets. It doesn't make any difference about the cost when we know we can save lives. This isn't something that is up in the air and debatable; these are facts we are aware of. I wasn't going to talk about that, but I do think it is necessary for us to concentrate on what we are really doing since we are now back here. We have been gone for several weeks. I think the country has probably benefited from that--I don't know--but we are back now and we have an opportunity to do some things.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I congratulate Ray Harry on his recent retirement after 40 years at Southern Company. Ray started with Southern Company back in 1976 as an environmental licensing specialist at Gulf Power in his home State of Florida. Since then, he has held numerous senior positions dealing with environmental policy both at Gulf Power and at Southern Company itself. Most recently, he served as senior director of governmental affairs in the company's Washington, DC, office, responsible for the direction and management of all Federal environmental issues. He represented Southern with great distinction before Federal policymakers in both Congress and the executive branch, with international policymaking bodies such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and as part of various coalitions and trade associations in Washington, DC. During his many years of service, I had the privilege of getting to know Ray and of working with him on a number of important environmental issues facing our country. He was always honest, straightforward, and eager to share his deep experience and policy expertise. More than that, his soft-spoken manner and quick, wry sense of humor made him a pleasure to be around. I congratulate Ray on his retirement and wish him and his wife, Sheila, all the best in their coming adventures.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I wish to support the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016. The FAA extension provides the aviation community with necessary stability over the next year and sets into motion important reforms to improve safety and security for air travelers. This legislation includes provisions that support the general aviation community, as well as job creators in Oklahoma. First, this bill includes third class medical reform, the foundation to my Pilot's Bill of Rights 2, which will cut burdensome red tape and encourage pilots to disclose and treat medical conditions that could impact their ability to fly. It also includes a provision allowing critical infrastructure operators to use drones to support their needs for meeting existing regulations or in response to natural disasters. This provision will make way for innovative technology to be used with large-scale infrastructure, such as bridges or pipelines, so that businesses can safely and efficiently provide services to their consumers. I am particularly pleased to note that this bill includes the third class medical reforms from my bipartisan Pilot's Bill of Rights 2, which has passed the Senate three times since last December. This legislation is strongly supported by the entire general aviation community, a number of pilot unions, including the Allied Pilots Association representing the pilots of American Airlines, the Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association, and the NetJets Association of Shared Aircraft Pilots, as well as the National Association of State Aviation Officials. In particular, I want to highlight the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, AOPA, and the Experimental Aircraft Association, EAA, for their leadership and support from the beginning and all their work to educate my colleagues in Congress on issues that affect pilots. I am very grateful for the strong and consistent voice of AOPA and EAA members who have shared why third class medical reform is necessary. FAA's current medical certification process is bureaucratic, burdensome, and discourages pilots from disclosing and treating medical conditions that could impact their ability to fly. This legislation reforms the medical certification process for general aviation pilots in a way that will increase pilots' knowledge of risk while demanding treatment of identified conditions. The reforms expand the existing exemption for light sport pilots to include more qualified, trained pilots, as long as they complete three requirements. First, pilots must complete an online medical education course; second, pilots must maintain verification that they have been to a doctor at least once every 4 years and certify that they are receiving the care they need as directed by their physician to treat any medical condition that warrants treatment; and third, pilots must complete one comprehensive medical review by the FAA. The FAA extension legislation also includes a provision that would allow critical infrastructure owners and operators to use unmanned aircraft systems to comply with mandated regulations and to perform emergency response and preparation activities. This amendment would apply to energy infrastructure, such as oil and gas and renewable electric energy, it would apply to power utilities and telecommunications networks, and it would apply to roads and bridges and water supply system operators. Today critical infrastructure owners and operators are required to comply with significant requirements to monitor facilities and assets, which can stretch thousands of miles, and traverse rural and hard to access areas. Existing Federal safety regulations require periodic patrolling of the rights of way of critical infrastructure such as pipelines or transmission lines to check for encroachment, unauthorized excavation, evidence of leaks, or any other conditions that might jeopardize the safety of the pipeline or transmission line. Currently, Federal regulations allow periodic patrols to be conducted on foot, in vehicles, or with manned aircraft. This language would ensure that critical infrastructure owners and operators, sponsors or associations who sponsor critical infrastructure, or their agents are able to apply to the Federal Aviation Administration to use unmanned aircraft as well. This is of particular importance because unmanned aircraft can be quickly deployed to assess dangerous situations as part of a coordinated response to provide immediate feedback and situational awareness and direct resources to locations of highest danger. The use of unmanned aircraft would provide consistent and long-term on-scene information gathering capability in spite of weather or other incident dangers harmful to responding personnel, reduce the threat to response personnel in emergency situations. This amendment is supported by a wide array of stakeholders including the Small UAV Coalition, the National Rural Electric Cooperatives, the American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, CTIA--the Wireless Association, the American Gas Association, the American Public Gas Association, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the American Petroleum Institute, the Association of Oil Pipelines, the American Fuels and Petrochemical Manufacturers, 3D Robotics, and the American Wind Energy Association. Congress should provide direction to FAA to set up a process for critical infrastructure operators to be able to safety operate unmanned aerial vehicles where there is clear and articulable need, and the provision included in this bill accomplishes that goal. I strongly support this legislation, and I look forward to ensuring the swift implementation of these provisions by the Federal Aviation Administration in the coming months. Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today we have the opportunity to vote on an important piece of legislation that will support efforts to combat the opioid epidemic our country is facing. In my home State of Oklahoma, we have seen deaths from prescription drug overdose on the rise. In 2014, Oklahoma set a new record in the number of deaths by overdose. During that time, 864 people lost their lives and 510 of those people had prescription drugs as the cause. Oklahoma has continuously ranked near the top of the nation in narcotic prescribing activity and overdose deaths. In 2015, Oklahoma sought to address this problem by introducing House bill 1948 that requires doctors to check an online database before prescribing opioids. This law went into effect in November and was designed to help spot patients who are receiving prescriptions from several physicians at the same time, a practice known as doctor- shopping. Oklahoma is taking an important step in addressing the opioid epidemic, but as we know, this does not just affect my State, but the entire Nation. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, CARA, will provide grants to States to fight the abuse of prescription pain relievers and heroin, as well as grants that address criminal justice activities, treatment of pregnant and postpartum women with substance abuse problems, first responder education and training and treatment and recovery programs. In addition, CARA addresses the opioid issue as it affects the veterans' community specifically. Our veterans have put their lives on the line to protect our Nation, and it is our job to make sure that they are getting the treatment and prevention services they deserve. Many of our veterans come home with painful injuries that will alter their daily lives going forward. It is important that, through the Department of Veteran's Affairs, we develop best practices for pain management that do not lead to addiction. CARA addresses this by requiring that all VA employees who prescribe opioids receive education and training on pain management and safe opioid prescribing practices. This truly is a comprehensive response to the opioid epidemic, and I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill as we take an important step in combating this addiction crisis.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Illinois. Water Resources Development Act

Mr. INHOFE. First, Mr. President, I have been told I will have our time that I may use, and I appreciate that very much. This morning we heard from the ranking member--from both sides. I am going to bring up something here that everyone agrees on, and that is with the things we do in our committee--we passed our highway bill, and we passed the TSCA bill. Right now, I wish to talk about the WRDA bill that is coming up. I am on the floor today to express urgency to the often-neglected issues surrounding our Nation's water resources and water infrastructure. In my nearly five decades in elected office, I have watched the impacts of Congress prioritizing and failing to prioritize our Nation's water system. In 1986, Congress enacted the cornerstone WRDA legislation that set cost-share standards and created the harbor maintenance trust fund and the island waterways trust fund. Following this bill, it was intended for Congress to reauthorize WRDA every 2 years. ``WRDA'' means ``Water Resources Development Act.'' When we talk about what happened in 1986, not many people are aware of the fact that my State of Oklahoma is actually navigable. We have an inland waterway. It was our intention at that time to have this bill every 2 years because it is just as significant as the highway bill. But then the trend came to a halt. Between 2007 and 2014, the WRDA bill--Congress went 7 years without a WRDA bill, the Water Resources Development Act. We got back on track 2 years ago. This is important because now we are getting back on track to get into the 2-year cycle. Our coastal ports are grossly behind in their deepening projects to accommodate post-Panamax vessels. As you can see on this chart, the levees and flood walls are inadequate and well below the necessary level of protection. Our water infrastructure has become so deplorable that communities don't have the necessary resources to provide clean, safe drinking water, as you can see on this chart. This is not a partisan problem; this is a national crisis. A lot of the things we are going to be talking about around this place--and we will see it today--are partisan. This is not. The last WRDA took on the major reforms, and now, 2 years later, it is time for another WRDA to help clear up the logjam of Corps projects--the Corps of Engineers--and address concerns with aging infrastructure. Too often we take for granted how water resources and how water infrastructure projects affect our daily lives. Some will argue--unlike the highway bill--that the WRDA bill is not considered a must-pass bill, that there is no shutdown of a program. However, I would argue that the WRDA bill is a must-pass bill. Without WRDA, the 27 chiefs' reports included in the bill for port- deepening, flood protection, and ecosystem restoration will get put back on the shelf, and their construction will be delayed even further and it will cost much more money later on to make that happen. Look at the aging infrastructure, the lead pipes. We saw what happened in Michigan, and we are addressing these things, these kinds of problems. I have a letter addressed to Leader McConnell and Majority Whip Cornyn, with 31 signatures from my fellow Republicans, asking Republican leadership to bring WRDA 2016 to the floor in the next few weeks. I know my colleague Senator Graham supports WRDA. He has been fighting to authorize the deepening of the Charleston Harbor for several years now, as you can see on the chart. Any further delay in this project is going to cause unwarranted economic loss to his State and the Nation as we prepare for the increased use of the post-Panamax vessels that we are all aware are on their way. The same could be said for several of my other colleagues who have a vested interest in their projects. In this bill, port-deepening projects in Florida, Alaska, Maine, and Texas would be better positioned for those States to capitalize on increased import and export projections over the next 20 years. Flood projects in Kansas and Missouri would provide communities in their State the necessary assurance that homes and businesses will not be flooded by the next storm. Ecosystem restoration projects in Florida, Illinois, and Wisconsin would stimulate recreational and commercial economies otherwise left behind, as we can see here. That is Florida on our chart. Senators Vitter and Cassidy also support the passage of WRDA. Their State has experienced more catastrophic disaster from storms and flooding in the past decade than any other. They, too, have a project proposed for flood protection that had been studied for nearly 40 years. You can study something to death and never get anything done. If this project had been prioritized and constructed in the early 2000s as we intended, then St. John Parish in Louisiana and the surrounding communities would not have endured $600 million in damage from Hurricane Isaac in 2012. That is just a snapshot of what has been included in the WRDA bill. Water resources and water infrastructure projects are integral to our everyday lives--as we see in the next chart, the levees to protect our communities from floodwaters; ports and waterways that move American goods and services to a global marketplace. In addition to the traditional water resources projects and the provisions that have dominated WRDA bills in the past, Senator Boxer and I decided to go one step further and address the pressing water infrastructure crisis facing this Nation. As we put this bill together and we held hearings on critical water resources and infrastructure, we heard how communities are struggling to meet ever-growing clean water and safe drinking water mandates that are needed for flexibility and for targeted assistance. By the way, if people are wondering right now why we are dividing the time before voting on a bill, I was going to make this presentation yesterday, but the Senator from New Jersey dominated the floor so that was not possible. Our witness representing rural water, Mr. Robert Moore from Madill, OK, recommended that we target the grant assistance program addressing issues of greatest necessity. These programs include assistance for small and disadvantaged communities. This is something that is particularly of concern in my State of Oklahoma. We are a rural State. We have many small communities, and we have the unfunded mandates come down from Washington, and we just can't handle those. This is the one program that helps States like my State of Oklahoma. We have also empowered local communities to meet EPA mandates on a schedule that is doable and affordable for the community and that allows the community to prioritize addressing the greatest health threats first. That is good. That allows the communities to make these determinations. In addition to providing disaster relief for Flint, MI, we have also capitalized the new Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act Program, which can provide secured loans for water and wastewater. That is actually called WIFIA. I think we are all familiar with that program. Without being able to get this done, none of these good things are going to happen. We have in this bill $70 million for this new program that delivers as much as $4.2 billion in secured loans. We are talking about the WIFIA Program. This is a fiscally responsible way to partner with the States and provide Federal assistance. So when we are concerned about Flint, MI, there are other problems in other areas that meet the same criteria. We heard how new technologies can help address droughts and other water supply needs, like the issues we face in the Red River in Oklahoma. S. 2848 addresses this issue by promoting new technologies and the transfer of desalination technologies from other countries facing the same problems. Passing WRDA 2016 would guarantee the Federal Government's principal commitment to resilient water resources and water infrastructure and strong commerce. This is a major bill. We are all concerned. We are all very familiar with what we did in this committee. I often say the Environment and Public Works Committee is a committee that actually does things, and we did. We did the highway bill, we did the TSCA bill on chemicals, and this is the WRDA bill coming up. From the outset, Senator Boxer and I have worked closely with Senate Republicans and Democrats to make sure that all Members were heard and no one was left behind. We have done this successfully on several occasions, as I mentioned--the FAST Act and TSCA--and we have delivered for every Member of this body. We have done the same thing with the WRDA bill, and that is what we are talking about doing now. We listened to your concerns, we engaged your constituents and your project sponsors in your respective States, as well as the users of our waterways and transportation infrastructure. The message was clear and uniform: Get back to regular order and build upon the reforms in the WRDA bill of 2014. We went 7 years without doing what we were supposed to be doing every 2 years, and now we are back on schedule to do that-- to empower the Army Corps and local host sponsors to help keep our water resources infrastructure strong and functioning. Let me close by saying that not passing this bill would result in nearly $6 billion in navigation and flood control projects being unnecessarily delayed or never constructed. There would also be no critical reforms to the Army Corps of Engineers and their policies, no essential affordability reforms for the communities' clean water infrastructure mandates, no new assistance for innovative approaches to clean water and drinking water needs to address drought and water supply issues, no resolution of the national lead emergencies, like in Flint, MI, and no dam rehabilitation programs. So today, I am asking the leadership and my fellow Republicans to seize this valuable opportunity and bring the WRDA bill of 2016 to the floor. I know we want to do our appropriations bills, but we need to sandwich this in. We want it to get to the floor and passed before the July recess. Time is really of essence. We are putting the managers' amendment together now. I encourage all Members to bring to me and to Barbara Boxer their concerns and their amendments so they can have the proper consideration on this bill. If you bring them down, we can do that. We are going to be ready to do this very significant bill. It will take a lot of cooperation by a lot of people. It is something we are supposed to be doing in this country. People are impatient this morning, so I am going to yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. INHOFE. I understand that. But will the Senator please advise us as to how much longer he will be taking on the floor?

Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator mind, since I am going to be talking about projects in New Jersey and about the WRDA projects in which the Senator has a lot of interest--will he yield to me to talk about that for 10 minutes?

Mr. INHOFE. Let me ask the Chair. Is it possible for me to go ahead and receive from him a specific period of time at the end of which he retains the floor?

Mr. INHOFE. All right. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I understand that.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, on Wednesday we are going to be voting on something significant, which has been a source of discussion recently, and I wanted to put a little different perspective on the problems that are in Puerto Rico right now. Puerto Rico has $90 billion worth of debt right now. They say they can't repay it in full. I think a bunch of guys have done a good job in establishing a solution for that. Puerto Rico is scheduled--and is going to be missing--to have another debt payment, which is going to put that amount over $90 billion. This week, the Senate will consider legislation that will impose an oversight board that will set up the bankruptcy court restructuring process. It is important citizens of Puerto Rico and the residents of Vieques realize they still have an opportunity to play a significant role in the nation's defense--a role that could bring an economic investment of hundreds of millions of dollars to Puerto Rico. In April of 1999, following an accident on the Vieques training range--Vieques is a little island off of Puerto Rico--that resulted in the death of a Navy civilian employee, all training activities on that range were suspended. They had been training on that range for 60 years, and they suspended it. Despite the efforts of Congress and the Department of Defense leadership to include approving additional funding to hold a referendum on Vieques, as well as increased funding per year if Vieques remained open, the Navy was forced to end all training operations in 2003. After 60 years of that arrangement, they had to suspend it. When that happened, we had to close Roosevelt Roads. I remember when they were considering whether they were going to close Roosevelt Roads, I made the comment that they would be closing it. You guys need to quit rejoicing that you had the benefit of that because Roosevelt Roads was only there to support the Vieques training range. When the Navy left Vieques and closed Roosevelt Roads, they took with them over 2,500 uniformed military personnel, over 2,000 family members, and impacted more than 2,500 civilian employees. The total economic impact from the Navy was estimated to be over $300 million a year in 2003 when the Navy ended its operations. I recall when that happened. I was there, and I made the statement that you are going to have financial ruin on the island, and it all started when we were told we were not allowed to continue what we had been doing in Vieques. Today, as in 1999, our military is facing a readiness crisis and needs ranges like Vieques to train in full-spectrum joint operations. On September 2, 1999, as chairman of the subcommittee--at that time, I was the chairman of a subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee called the Readiness Subcommittee--I held a hearing on the military requirement for Vieques and the assessment of alternative sites that could replace Vieques. During the hearing, ADM William Fallon, who was the commander of the Navy's Second Fleet at that time, and Gen. Peter Pace, who was the commander of the Marine Corps at that time, testified before the committee I chaired that Vieques was a unique facility. It was the only one located in the Atlantic where realistic combat training could be conducted in a combined and coordinated manner. The only Navy live-fire land, complete with day- and-night capabilities, amphibious landing beach and maneuver areas, and the range had areas of low-traffic airspace and deepwater sea space, with underwater and electronic warfare ranges. That was the only one in the world. The Navy-Marine Corps study examined 18 alternative sites, evaluating the availability of the air-to-ground live ordnance range, with realistic targets and airspace for high-altitude deliveries, and for a naval surface fire support firing range, which permits the training of ships, forward spotters, and fire coordination teams, the ability for combat arms amphibious training, and nearby naval and air support facilities. We looked everywhere for that. We looked at 18 alternative sites. The study concluded that no single site evaluated was able to accomplish all of the training that was conducted at Vieques. The study also considered apportioning the training to various alternative locations but included the piecemeal approach--and this is using their language now--it ``significantly degrades training to support the effective integration and coordination of all combined arms.'' We are talking about the Marine Corps and the Navy. The Marine Corps is going in and bombing and the Navy has their planes up there and it is all taking place at one time. To fully understand the capabilities of Vieques and the potential to conduct Vieques training at other training sites, I visited Vieques and all 18 alternative sites around the world, as well as additional training sites that were used by the Department of Defense that are actually here in the United States. The sites I visited included Cape Wrath in northern Scotland; Capa Tulado in Sardinia; Mona and Dog Islands in the Caribbean; Kennedy County in Texas; Pinecastle, Avon Park, Pensacola, Eglin, and Tyndall in Florida; Cherry Point and Camp Lejeune in North Carolina; Townsend in Georgia; and San Clemente in California. That is a lot of sites, and I went to all of them. None of the locations had the capability to meet the training requirements of the Navy and Marine Corps and would have placed additional restrictions due to lack of training availability for training days, sea and airspace restrictions, proximity to large populated areas, live-fire restrictions, weather, and an inability to conduct combined operations, such as air, land, and sea operations simultaneously--no place. I also visited the John F. Kennedy Battle Group and the Wasp, and learned that live-fire training is essential for our Nation's ability to safely and effectively conduct combat operations, but by not allowing our forces to train using live ordnance in a realistic combined operation at sea, we are putting our military personnel at risk during actual combat operations. Numerous DOD officials have testified before our committee and reported that the loss of training at the Vieques range has resulted in the loss of critical combat training essential to the Nation's Navy and Marine forces and would increase the risk to our sailors and marines. In fact, it did. These very brilliant people, the top military officials, talked about how many of our troops and how many of our Americans had to die as a result of the loss of that training area. RADM Kevin Moran, the Navy commander who oversaw operations throughout the Caribbean, compared combined live training to practice for a football team. He explained that coaches could routinely do basic training for quarterbacks separate from the linemen and separate from the defense. They could train everybody individually, but--this is his quote--``at some point you have to bring them together before the big game. It's [Vieques] the only place we can do that.'' Secretary Richard Danzig, who was then the Secretary of the Navy, said: ``Only by providing in preparation can we fairly ask our servicemembers to put their lives at risk.'' Admiral Johnson, then-Chief of Naval Operations, and General Jones, who was the Commandant of the Marine Corps, said that Vieques provides integrated live-fire training ``critical to our readiness,'' and the failure to provide for adequate live-fire training for our naval forces before deployment will place those forces at an unacceptably high risk during the deployment. CAPT James Stark, Jr., who was at that time commanding officer of the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, said: When you steam off to battle you're either ready or you're not. If you're not, that means casualties and that means more POWs. That means less precision and longer campaigns. You pay a price for all this in war, and that price is blood. Admiral Murphy, then commander of the Sixth Fleet in the Navy, said the loss of training on Vieques would ``cost American lives.'' On March 12, 2001, five people died in Kuwait when a U.S. aviator dropped three 500-pound bombs off target. They missed their target, and some comments in the report of the incident point to the lack of live- fire training. The commander and deputy commander state that they actively sought opportunities for that training, but the limiting factor was range availability. In other words, they took away the live- fire capability at Vieques and we have five dead soldiers. What we were talking about then is true today. We put American lives at risk unnecessarily if they are not fully trained prior to combat operations. The success or failure of our military when sent into combat is a direct function of the degree of realistic training they receive before combat. Their ability to conduct live, joint operations is critical to battlefield success, and preservation of the ranges at which our military trains ensures that success. We have to ensure that our military is prepared for the next fight against a near-peer competitor. We have more near-peer competitors now than we have ever had in the history of this country. That will demand a full strength of our joint force. There is still no range like Vieques. This happened 15 years ago. It is still the only range with land and sea and airspace that could accommodate naval surface, aviation, and live artillery ordnance delivery with amphibious landings supported by naval fires, all conducted in a joint training environment. I understand firsthand both the importance and the significance of having a range in your home State. On May 3, there was a program--I keep forgetting the name of it, but it is Crossfire--where they had two different people, a liberal and a conservative. I have been on that program several times, but this was way back in 2000. I was debating a guy who was a Congressman from New York who was wanting to close the Vieques training site. As we went down to the end of that, he said: Well, look, Senator, how would you like to have a live fire training area in your State of Oklahoma? I said: Let me tell you about Fort Sill. At Fort Sill, we have 320 days out of the year--24 hours a day--that we have a live range going. It is within a town of about 100,000 people, and nobody complains about it. In fact, they talk about the explosions, the ordnance that are going off all the time, and they say: ``It is the sound of freedom.'' I will tell you something kind of interesting. It wasn't long ago that down in Lawton they built--that is the city right next to the live range at Fort Sill--they built what is declared to be the best elementary school in America. When you walk through it, you can't believe there could be a school like that. Well, anyway, there is, and they named it ``Freedom Elementary School'' after the sound of freedom. There are places where people in this country really want to do things that carry their end of it, and that was so significant. Anyway, Fort Sill has a live range that operates 320 days a year and nobody complains about it. So I think we have an opportunity to help Puerto Rico. We can do that--help them as a nation--and a program they put together for Wednesday is pretty decent. It is something that can be done. But at the same time--and I talked to the individuals who put that plan together. I said: As soon as we vote on that, let's go back and tell-- since Puerto Rico has had a shock treatment with the economic problems they have had--tell them: If you guys really want to make a contribution, you can do it. You can make a contribution of something that will save American lives. We have had people testify that when we went into Bosnia and Kosovo, that in both Bosnia and Kosovo, we lost American lives because we didn't have the training only the Vieques can give us. As I mentioned, all around the world--I will always remember when Governor Rossello came in and was complaining about all the environmental concerns and said: We are going to close Vieques as a range. And he said to me, because I was pushing it so hard--he made the statement: Don't ever come into Puerto Rico because you won't come out of there alive. And I went there the next day and I am alive. So, anyway, that is a serious thing, and I really do think we can support the bill on Wednesday and then after that talk to them in a very reasonable way to let them know what kind of a contribution they can make to the training of their people, as well as our people, to offset what we lost way back 15 years ago. I believe that is something we are now primed to talk to them about. They ought to be ready after all of this. So that is something to come, and I would like to have anyone thinking about the vote that takes place, which I will support on Wednesday, that now you have an opportunity to actually provide a service that is going to save American lives. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for such time as I may consume as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just say that my friend from Ohio is truly passionate. In the years I have been here, I have not heard of anyone who is stronger and has a better understanding of this issue than the Senator from Ohio. I find myself listening as he speaks and reflecting. I hear the same things. It is not just in Ohio; it is in my meetings that I have in Oklahoma. I am glad he has that passion, pleased he does, and I wish him success.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have to get on the record after the events of the last week and the claims that some of my colleagues made on the Senate floor and that the mainstream media have published about the horrific event in Orlando. Before we had all the facts about what happened in Orlando last Sunday, people on the left were blaming Congress, and people on the left were blaming Republicans. They were blaming all gun owners who were out there, and they were blaming anyone they could think of for this terrorist attack. The actual person responsible for killing 49 people that day is Omar Mateen, an Islamic terrorist. There is something wrong with this aversion they have to talking about the real cause of these tragedies that are going on right now around the Nation. By immediately politicizing this act of terrorism, the left has denied the victims, their families, and their friends our full attention and our care. They have denied the Nation a period of mourning for those we lost at the hands of a terrorist who pledged allegiance to the Islamic state. Last week my colleagues on the other side of the aisle participated in a filibuster against gun rights, and they have continued to demonize those who still believe in the Constitution and the rights that it protects. I am not just talking about gun rights, I am talking about the right to due process, the right to be innocent until proven guilty. In fact, in their effort to twist this act of terrorism into a need to curtail our constitutional rights, the Washington Post--we are talking about the Washington Post. That is not one of the more conservative publications around. They gave the arguments that they were using against guns three out of four Pinocchios for the way that they falsely twisted information to fit their narrative. Pinocchio means they have studied it, they have looked at it, and they have decided what they said wasn't true. The left was given a chance for the Senate to vote on their gun control proposals, which would not have prevented this terrorist act from happening, and their proposals ultimately failed to progress in the Senate. Meanwhile, Democrats voted against the amendments that would strengthen our gun laws and keep guns out of the hands of terrorists while protecting the rights of due process. Over the past week, you have heard my friends on the left say that if you can't fly, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. Well, this sounds good, and a lot of the media has kind of bought into this idea, but you can't take away the fact that flying is a privilege in this country and gun ownership is a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution. That is a huge difference. You cannot take away a constitutionally protected right without notice and a fair and impartial hearing. Denying someone their civil rights based on secret lists is unconstitutional. I think everyone knows that, and it will be struck down by the courts. Everybody knows that, but it sounds so good right now to say everyone is going to want to be for gun control. One of the things people forget is they are trying to pass laws that are going to offend the rights of gun owners when, by definition, a criminal breaks laws, a terrorist breaks laws. Consequently, you would have only those individuals who are law-abiding citizens complying with the law. It is a very simple concept. Again, everyone knows that, but given the irrefutable evidence of Mateen's motivations, many wonder why the administration, supported by the Democrats, is so focused on policies that don't address the core cause of this horrific act--terrorism and the influence of radical Islam here in the United States of America. The answer is simple. Focusing on the root cause and Mateen's motivations will only further expose the fact that the policies of this administration, supported by most of his own party in Congress, have been a complete failure. Time and again, the President's rhetoric on ISIL, terrorism, and the threat to America is proven wrong in reality. In January of 2014, the President referred to ISIL as a JV squad and downplayed their threat and influence. Yet just 4 days before he dismissed ISIL as a minor player in the Middle East, they had captured and raised the flag over Fallujah, where our marines fought and died. My State director is Brian Hackler. I first met Brian Hackler when I was in Fallujah. That was right after--we all remember; I am sure the Presiding Officer remembers--they were taking the fingerprints of the heroic people who were risking their lives to vote over there, and we won in Fallujah. It was like World War II, door-to- door combat. We actually won. Brian Hackler came back. I hired him after he came back. He is doing a great job for me now. When I called him and I had to tell him that we had lost Fallujah after we had Fallujah in our hands, he literally cried. He had friends who died over there. Furthermore, the President failed to recognize the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood. President Obama created the vacuum in the Middle East that gave rise to ISIL. He downplayed Benghazi. I remember he tried to blame it on a video. I can remember that because I talked to James Clapper, and I talked to all of the intelligence people right after that happened. I did so because of my position at that time as ranking member on the Armed Services Committee. They all said at the time of Benghazi they knew that it was a terrorist attack. It had nothing to do with the video. The President also said that ISIL was contained hours before the attack on Paris. The threat to our country and our security is increasing--Fort Hood, Boston, San Bernardino, and now Orlando. The attacks are not the fault of the West, they are the fault of radical Islam. Somehow the administration can't say it. They can't say radical Islam. Most recently we heard from the White House that ISIL is retreating. This is from President Obama--that ISIL is retreating, it is declining and losing territory and losing funds, but just last week CIA Director John Brennan testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and he said: ``Our efforts have not reduced ISIL's terrorism capability and global reach.'' Furthermore, Brennan went on to say: ``ISIL is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including the refugee flows, smuggling routes and the legitimate methods of travel.'' That is a quote from him. So we have the President on one hand saying it is contained, we are successful, ISIL is disappearing, at the same time the CIA Director he appointed is telling us the truth--that we are losing, and this is serious. I have looked back wistfully at the good old days of the Cold War. I never thought I would say ``the good old days of the Cold War,'' but in reality we are in a much greater threatened position today than we ever were in the Cold War. In the Cold War, we had two superpowers. We knew what they had. They knew what we had. We were predictable. It was mutually assured destruction. That doesn't mean anything anymore. These people want to break the law. It was incredible testimony John Brennan gave before the Senate committee, in light of the administration's talking points, and it should have all of us seeking ways to ensure they are not successful. However, policy proposals to combat these threats--extra vetting of the refugees, pausing the refugee program, the stepping up of border protection and enforcing our immigrations laws through visa enforcement--are all ignored by this administration. They would rather paint us, the Republicans, as arms dealers to terrorists and yet remain silent on the President's deal with Iran, the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. I can remember when the President, with the Secretary of State, put together the deal with Iran. This was going to see Iran all of a sudden change. Today, Iran is still the chief supplier of terrorist activity around the world. Yet we released billions of dollars to them through this deal that was made. It is interesting. I happened to be on the USS--I can't remember which one it was, one of the aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf at the same time this deal was being put together by the President and by the Secretary of State. That is when we found that there was an Iranian ship that was carrying weapons from North Korea to Yemen at the very time they were pledging their love for us and they were working with us in this program. Their deal with Iran is giving them the resources necessary to support terrorism. ISIL and similar radical groups seek to extinguish our freedoms and to terrorize, kill, and oppress anyone who lives counter to their extreme ideology. No matter how they carry out their evil, their mission will always be superseded by our Nation's laws. We have to protect the Constitution, support law-abiding citizens' rights to due process and to bear arms and to focus on the real threat: Islamic terrorism, radical Islam. I just wish the administration would talk about this--this greatest threat to our Nation. We are doing something--though this is totally unrelated, but it is something that happened in my State of Oklahoma earlier this week. Earlier this week, the county commissioners in my city of Tulsa and in my State of Oklahoma voted to renew a memorandum of understanding with ICE--that is Immigration and Customs Enforcement--to detain their inmates and train local deputies to refer threats of violent criminals to the Federal authorities. Entering into a memorandum of understanding--an MOU--had been a routine procedure until last week, when it was derailed by illegal immigrant activists--the same type of activists we see across the country pushing sanctuary policies, policies to give sanctuary to terrorists and policies to protect criminal aliens, allowing them to continue committing crimes against our citizens such as the one we saw with the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco almost a year ago. Law enforcement across the country takes part in this program so they can do their job of keeping criminals off the streets. However, their efforts are continually frustrated by liberal activists seeking to shield those same criminals from the consequences of their actions. We should stand with our friends in law enforcement, in their communities, who are working every day to ensure our safety and the safety of others. Whether criminal immigrants are here illegally or legally, it should not be controversial to deny them the privilege of staying in our country, and we should remove them from our communities until they are removed from our country. When we refuse to do it, we reward their behavior and give them an opportunity to continue to commit violent crimes. Why is this such a big deal? In 2014--and people heard this way back in 2014 but they have forgotten it. During the year of 2014, the Obama administration released over 30,000 criminal aliens from custody, and by July of last year--so now we are talking about in the first 6 months after they released 30,000 criminal aliens--1,800 of them went on to commit over 2,500 new crimes. That may not be believable, and because it is not believable, a lot of people don't believe it, but it actually happened. It is a fact the Obama administration released over 30,000 criminal aliens, and 6 months later, 1,800 of them--that we know of, probably more than that--went on to commit crimes. Instead of deporting people who shouldn't be here, the administration released them back onto our streets, where they committed new, preventable crimes, including assault, sex offenses, kidnappings, and even homicide. Between 2010 and 2015, we had 135 preventable homicides occur in our communities across the country by criminal aliens who had been released by this administration. Now, this is very difficult to believe, and certainly it is not acceptable. The excuse the administration uses is two little known Supreme Court cases that determined criminal aliens cannot be detained in the United States for more than 6 months while awaiting deportation. However, there are many factors which can prevent a deportation from taking place within the 6-month period. It is interesting that excuse is being used, and in order to take away this excuse, I introduced the Keep Our Communities Safe Act during the past two Congresses, and I am introducing it today as an amendment--amendment No. 4732--to the CJS appropriations bill. This legislation would allow the Department of Homeland Security to petition the courts to hold a criminally convicted alien for a renewable 6-month period until deportation occurs, if the Secretary deems the alien would be a threat to national security or the safety of the community, among other reasons. We are talking about communities. This is back home. This is my community. This is where this is happening and throughout America. Some organizations, such as the ACLU and other liberal organizations, believe this bill amounts to indefinite detention, in violation of a criminal's due process rights. However, in addition to the specified circumstances of continued detention I just mentioned, this bill requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security--that is what they are supposed to be doing--to recertify the person is a threat every 6 months. In other words, if this person is a threat, rather than automatically turning them loose in 6 months, he can recertify the fact they are a threat and every 6 months continue to keep them. Furthermore, an alien can submit evidence for review of his or her detention and will still have access to our courts, giving judges a say in the process. We were unable to get this added in the last 2 years. I can't imagine, after all the things that have happened just this year--and of course right on the heels of the disaster that just happened--I can't imagine people wouldn't want to do this, do everything they can to keep from turning these people loose. I go back and repeat that this administration turned loose 30,000 criminal aliens onto the streets--this was in the year of 2014--and in the first 6 months in the following year, they had actually committed more crimes. So there is this thing about turning people loose. It is very similar to what the administration is doing in Gitmo. We passed a law, actually in the committee. Let me make an inquiry of the Chair. Are we on a time requirement here?

Mr. INHOFE. The Presiding Officer is a member of the Committee on Armed Services who may very well remember when we passed a law, and that law said the President was not going to be able to release anyone from Gitmo until 30 days' notice is given to the Senate Committee on Armed Services. The President signed that bill and a matter of hours later released the Taliban Five. Everybody remembers the Taliban Five. They were the most egregious of all the terrorists who were in Gitmo. We don't know what they are doing now. Supposedly they are in Qatar or someplace under some supervision, but it happens that the recidivism rate of those who have been released from Gitmo is 30 percent. In other words, 30 percent of those released are back trying to kill Americans again. It is unacceptable, and it is very similar to this. Whether it is releasing people--terrorists from Gitmo--to go out and kill Americans or releasing people who are criminal aliens from our cities and towns, it is a problem, a serious problem, and we are going to have to address this problem, and we are going to address it. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.