Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. INHOFE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 419, S. Res. 420, S. Res. 421, S. Res. 422, S. Res. 423, and S. Res. 424.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 360, H.R. 1493.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following House concurrent resolutions, which are at the desk: H. Con. Res. 115, H. Con. Res. 117, and H. Con. Res. 120.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolutions be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 401, S. Res. 388.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment to the resolution be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, April 14; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 636.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would yield the floor, but I don't see anyone else here. I would like to comment on the FAA reauthorization bill. I had a couple of amendments to it, and I want to mention that both of my amendments have now been accepted. I feel very good about that. I think we are currently considering a bill that is very necessary to go ahead and get passed. I again commend Senator Thune and Senator Nelson for working yesterday to get through a number of important amendments that were approved by the Senate. Included in the group was an amendment I offered that would direct the FAA to establish rules to allow critical infrastructure owners and operators to use unmanned aircraft systems to carry out federally mandated patrols and to perform emergency response and preparation activities. This is one I feel very strongly about because there is a lot of controversy around drones, but we do know there are some things that have to be done--pipelines, for example. It is just as easy for a drone to do it, and it can be done in all kinds of weather. 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. It would apply to roads and bridges and water supply systems operators. This amendment provides needed congressional direction to the FAA where there is a clear and articulable need, and I am glad it was accepted yesterday. I thank Senators Booker, Heitkamp, Whitehouse, Moran, and King for cosponsoring this amendment with me. I want to turn to a provision that is in the base text of the FAA bill that is of particular importance to Oklahoma but impacts the entire aviation community--the commercial, military, and general aviators--and that is because it impacts air traffic controllers. The FAA bill, which is the bill we are considering right now, includes a provision to encourage the hiring and retention of high- quality air traffic controller instructors. This is particularly important to me because the FAA Academy, which is where all the air traffic controllers are trained, is located in Oklahoma City. These instructors, who are required to have prior experience as air traffic controllers, are discouraged from working full time due to existing government regulations because they are former air traffic controllers. Without full-time instructors, we need four times as many part-time instructors to provide the needed instruction time to train for the next generation of controllers to manage the air traffic at our control towers, so that means the FAA must bear four times the cost of training new instructors. I am glad this bill will remove the government regulations that discourage full-time instructors. I thank my colleagues for working with me to address this problem. Another one--and this is very significant. This is volunteer pilot protection. Last week I offered an amendment for consideration that supports volunteer pilots. This is a Good Samaritan law for pilots. Across the country, there are a lot of volunteer pilots. I myself have done this. I have been an active commercial pilot for 60 years. I can remember several times--once going down to an island just north of Caracas, Venezuela, that had been wiped out by a hurricane. I found 10 pilots to take down with me, medical supplies, food, and all of that. During that time, if something had happened, even though he was a Good Samaritan--he was doing it at his own expense--he could have been sued for any number of exposures that are out there. People are generous with their time and provide at no cost air transportation to someone in need of specialized medical treatment. We have done that before too. This amendment would provide those volunteer pilots limited liability protection as long as they follow appropriate procedures, as long as they have the required flight experience and maintain insurance. My amendment would not eliminate liability but would limit it in certain circumstances. Furthermore, volunteer pilots who do not meet all requirements or who are guilty of gross negligence or intentional misconduct don't have any protections. Furthermore, the pilots are required to maintain liability insurance to qualify for the protection. In the 1997 Volunteer Protection Act, Congress recognized that the willingness of volunteers to offer their services is deterred by a potential for liability actions against them. I think that makes common sense. I think we all understand that. This amendment remains true to congressional intent and removes a disincentive that keeps pilots from volunteering to fly financially needy medical patients, humanitarian and charitable efforts, or other flights of compassion to save lives and to provide great benefit to the public. Pilots are not going to get more reckless or choose to act more dangerously because they have liability protection. Pilots are already at risk, and they are a risk-adverse group because every time they fly, they take their own life in their hands--regardless of why they are flying. These pilots are acting out of the goodness of their hearts and willingness to help. Fortunately, accidents are infrequent, and anecdotally I am told that in the past 10 to 15 years, there have been perhaps five or six lawsuits involving volunteer pilots and volunteer pilot organizations. So the problem isn't that that is actually going to happen, but it is the fact that there is a deterrent there to discourage people from doing what they want to do, what a Good Samaritan does. The volunteer pilot organizations that work to coordinate volunteer pilots do not need to maintain databases of lawsuits and the results of lawsuits precisely because they are so infrequent. If there were a lot of accidents and resulting law suits, I think it is fair to say the FAA, NTSB, and volunteer pilot organizations themselves would be investigating whether volunteer pilot activity was a safe activity to begin with. The larger concern for volunteer pilot organizations is that pilots will not volunteer for fear of being involved in a lawsuit, which would then prevent a needy service from being provided. So it is more about what the lawyers say the potential could be, and that has a direct impact on recruitment for volunteer pilots. Looking ahead, if a pilot were ever successfully sued and his or her assets were at risk, it would be too late to act to prevent a mass exodus of volunteer pilots. This amendment is about making sure there continues to be volunteers who are willing to provide much-needed assistance. The amendment is not agreed to yet, but it recognizes the value of volunteer pilots and their contribution to the public good. I urge my colleagues to be supportive of this effort. In conclusion, I thank Senator Thune for his leadership, as well as Senator Nelson, for bringing this bill to the floor. I look forward to a robust amendment process. In fact, I encourage anyone who has an amendment to come down, present his amendment, and talk about it. One of the problems we had during the highway bill was not being able to get Members to bring their amendments down, and it ended up delaying the bill for several weeks, which was totally unnecessary. I also encourage the House to take up and pass this bill. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think Senators Thune and Nelson have done a great job of putting together the reauthorization bill for the FAA. It is something that should have been done some time ago. We are hoping the House will adopt what we have or something close to it because we are getting ready to do this. It is significant. I want to mention something that people may not be aware of. This month leaders from around the world are going to meet in New York to sign the Paris climate agreement--an agreement that hinges entirely on President Obama's commitments to reduce emissions in the United States. In Paris, he said: We commit that the United States will reduce our CO2 emissions somewhere between 26 and 28 percent by 2025. Of course, that is just not going to happen. President Obama has three legacies, as his days are now numbered. One of them is to take away people's guns. We all know about Second Amendment rights. Every time something happens, they always try to restrict gun ownership. He still wants to do that. Closing Gitmo is another one. The third one we are trying to survive is his global warming program. While the President has been working to solidify his legacy on global warming, he has chosen to ignore the reality that the United States will not keep his carbon promises. The document that will be signed on April 22--Earth Day--will soon be added to the president's stack of empty promises on global warming. This has been going on since 1997. While President Obama will undoubtedly issue a press release praising the signing as a ``historic'' event--he won't even be attending. That should be a good indication that he knows he is not going to be able to do this. He is not even going to be there. Once again, I want to make sure the international participants are warned that the President's climate commitment lacks the support of his own government and it is going to fail. There is no question about that. I can say that because history has already repeated itself. I have been on the frontlines dating back to the failed Kyoto treaty of 1997. For over 20 years, history has been repeating itself, and I have been on the frontlines dating back to that time. This is kind of interesting. In 1997 President Clinton and Vice President Gore went to the Kyoto convention. They signed the treaty and they thought: This is great. Everyone is going to have to do cap and trade. They got back here, and there was a little thing called the Byrd- Hagel resolution. It passed this body 95 to 0. What did it say? It said: If you come back with the Kyoto treaty and it does one of two things, we will vote against it. That was 95 Members; there were 5 people absent that day. They said they would not do it if two things were in it: No. 1, if it is an economic hardship on the United States of America, and No. 2, if you come back with a treaty that doesn't treat developing countries the same as developed countries. In other words, if we have to do something in the United States that China doesn't have to do, that India doesn't have to do, that Mexico doesn't have to do, then we will vote against it. Of course, they came back with something that violated both. So there was never any possibility that it was going to pass, and it didn't. We subsequently rejected four cap-and-trade bills in the following 13 years. This past year a bipartisan majority in both the Senate and the House spoke again when we passed two resolutions of disapproval formally rejecting President Obama's carbon regulations. There is a little thing a lot of people don't know about called the CRA, the Congressional Review Act. That means if the President tries to do something that is against the wishes of the people through their elected representatives, then you can pass a CRA--Congressional Review Act--that will reject the regulation. So we passed two resolutions formally disapproving what he was trying to do. So I say to the 196 countries that might show up here: Don't show up anticipating that something is going to happen, because it is not. This isn't even supported by a majority of the Members of the Senate or the House. Congress has continuously shown that the American people don't want the Federal Government imposing harsh penalties like cap and trade to address the highly contested theory of manmade global warming. The first attempt to enact cap and trade back in 2003 would have cost our economy upwards of $400 billion a year. I say to our good friend from Alaska who is the Presiding Officer right now that every time I hear a large figure, I take the current population in my State of Oklahoma--those families who actually pay Federal income taxes--and I do the math. In this case, this would cost in the neighborhood of $3,000 per family, and of course, as I will demonstrate in just a minute, they will get nothing for that. In 2003 the first bill that came up would have cost upwards of $400 billion. This has not been contested, and the numbers aren't much different from what the President is trying to do right now with his Clean Power Plan, which he is trying to do through regulation because he knows it won't pass as legislation. The Clean Power Plan--the centerpiece of the President's promise to the international community that the United States will cut greenhouse gases between 26 and 28 percent by 2025--this plan, which attempts to do through regulation what the President was unable to do through legislation, stands on very shaky legal ground. Most recently, the Supreme Court joined the chorus in signaling to the President that the President's efforts on climate change are dead on arrival. This is the U.S. Supreme Court. I think we owe it to the 196 countries to let them know that nothing is going to happen once they get here. I think it is nice if they all want to come and tour America and spend their money, maybe take old Highway 66 down through my State of Oklahoma and see what America really looks like. I would love to have them come. But I want to make sure they know that nothing is going to happen in terms of the President's Clean Power Plan or his broader international commitments. The Supreme Court dealt the President's legacy a major blow when it voted 5 to 4 in February to block the implementation of Obama's Clean Power Plan while it is being litigated by over 150 entities, including 27 States, including Oklahoma, which are filing a lawsuit to make sure this does not happen. So we have a majority of States in America saying: Not only do we not want it, but we are suing them to make sure it is not implemented. There are also 24 trade associations, 37 electric co-ops and 3 labor unions challenging EPA in court. They are all filing these lawsuits, so the Supreme Court comes along and says: Until these are resolved, we are going to stay the regulation. This decision delays implementation of the rule until the next President and completely upends Obama's Paris commitments. Without the central component of his international climate agenda, achieving the promises he made in Paris is a mere pipe dream. Even with the Clean Power Plan, the United States would fail to meet 45 percent of the promised greenhouse gas emission reductions. Now, with the Supreme Court's stay on these regulations, there could be an even greater deficit. If the Clean Power Plan is overturned, the United States will miss the mark by about 60 percent. Furthermore, the litigation on the Clean Power Plan won't likely get resolved until 2018. That means the regulations will be blocked for at least the next 2 years, as the chart shows. First, on June 2, the three-judge panel on the DC Circuit will need to hear the case. The three-judge panel will issue a decision sometime this fall, and it will almost certainly be challenged with a request for an en banc review by the entire DC Circuit. A decision from an en banc panel won't come until much later--likely by the end of the year, as we can see on the chart. This decision will almost certainly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Court decides to hear the case, a final decision is expected in late 2017 or 2018. The DC Circuit has already decided to delay hearing the case on the Clean Power Plan's sister rule on carbon controls for new power plants until after the November elections, signaling little appetite for allowing this to be an easy, quick legal review of Obama's carbon mandates. Similar to the Clean Power Plan litigation, any decision on a new source rule--new sources of power plants--would likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, with a final decision expected in 2018. Critically, the new source rule is a legal prerequisite for the Clean Power Plan, so without the new source rule, there is no Clean Power Plan. The success of Obama's carbon mandates hinges not on just one but on two Supreme Court wins that will be decided well after he leaves office. He will be long gone. And with a new administration needing to fill a vacancy next year on the Court--who knows how that will impact or delay consideration of pending cases. We are clearly a long way off from knowing the outcome of the President's carbon regulations. You wouldn't know that when you hear the releases that came from Paris saying this has been a great success. He made the commitment as to what kind of reductions we are going to have when he in his own mind knew for a fact that was not even a possibility. So we are a long way from knowing the outcome of the President's carbon regulations that were written to help fulfill his pledge to international communities. But, as I said, Obama will be long gone by that time. It is important for the 196 countries involved in the Paris climate agreement to understand what I am saying. The Congress, the courts, climate experts, and industry are all pointing to the same conclusion: President Obama's climate pledge is unattainable, and it stands no chance of succeeding in the United States. For the sake of the economic well-being of America, that is a good thing. Again, we still would welcome the 196 countries to come over here and enjoy America, but don't expect any of President Obama's climate promises to happen. A few countries have taken note. Specifically, China and India, two of the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gas, are now second- guessing the legitimacy of Obama's commitments. Navroz K. Dubash, a senior fellow at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi told the New York Times that ``[the Supreme Court stay] could be the proverbial string which causes Paris to unravel.'' Zou Ji, the deputy director general of China's National Center for Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation, also told the New York Times: ``Look, [if] the United States doesn't keep its word, why make so many demands on us?'' In another display of solidarity against Obama's climate agenda, I led 34 Senators and 171 House Members in an amicus brief filed in the DC Circuit arguing that the Clean Power Plan is illegal. The plan would cause double-digit electricity price increases in 40 States and have no impact on the environment. Further, these regulations would prevent struggling communities from accessing reliable and affordable fuel sources, which could eventually lead to poor families choosing between putting food on the table and turning the heat on in the wintertime. Much of the focus this past year has been the Clean Power Plan and the Paris Agreement that is reliant on its success. The administration has the power generation sector in its crosshairs, but they will not stop there. We know that. We are keenly aware of Obama's war on fossil fuels--coal, oil, and natural gas. If I don't have to be someplace in conjunction with my obligations with the Senate Armed Services Committee, I go back home every weekend. They ask questions you don't hear in Washington. They ask: Now, wait a minute, if we are reliant upon fossil fuels--coal, oil, and gas--for 85 percent of the power necessary to run this machine called America and if Obama is successful in killing coal, oil, and gas, then how are we going to run this machine called America? That is a logical question, but not here in Washington. You don't hear that here in Washington. The Clean Power Plan is a template for unauthorized action, and if it works for one sector, future bureaucratic agencies will use it to restructure every industrial sector in this country. The immediate threat to future generations is not climate change. The climate is always changing and will continue to do so regardless of who is in the White House. Luckily, the American people have caught on to the President's climate charade. But don't take my word for it; just look at the polls. I can remember back when the first bills were coming out. There was the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2003, and we looked at the bill. At that time, the polls showed that global warming was either the No. 1 or No. 2 concern in America. That has all changed. A FOX News poll found just the other day that 97 percent of Americans don't care about global warming when they stack it up against terrorism, immigration, health care, and the economy. Even an ABC News/Washington Post poll from last November found that the number of Americans who believe climate change is a serious problem is on the decline. According to the Gallup poll-- they have a big one every March--the Gallup poll in March of 2015 had global warming coming in dead last of environmental issues that people are concerned about. George Mason University did a poll of 4,000 TV meteorologists, and it also dispelled the President's talking point that there is 97-percent consensus among scientists that humans are driving climate change. The survey found that roughly one out of three meteorologists do not believe man is the primary cause--if, in fact, it is happening. Overall, neither the American people nor Congress supports the President's detrimental climate change agenda and his attempt to bolster his personal legacy with empty promises. Let me wind up and say that we welcome the international community to come over here, but with regard to the Paris Climate Agreement, nothing is going to happen. I wish to mention a couple other things. Many countries quickly jumped on the global warming bandwagon that the United Nations was trying to sell to the world and instill an obligation to impose associated restrictions. Australia was one of the first countries to join in. They did this several years ago--until they realized what it cost, and then they came back and passed legislation taking themselves off of this so that they are no longer legally obligated to do anything about their emissions. If you stop and think about China, every 10 days China is building a new coal-fired power plant. This is the country the president is using to justify his own climate agenda while convincing the American people China is making similar contributions to reducing greenhouse gases. The problem with this is that China admits they are going to continue to build coal-fired plants and increase emissions until the year 2030 and then they will consider reducing their emissions. We know it is not going to happen. Lastly, I remember when Lisa Jackson was appointed by President Obama. She was his first appointment as Administrator of the EPA. I remember talking to her in a public meeting live on TV, and I asked her the question: Let's assume that one of these pieces of legislation passes on cap and trade or that through regulation they are able to do it. Is that going to have the effect of reducing overall emissions worldwide? She said: No, because this isn't where the problem is. The problem is in China; it is in India; it is in Mexico. In fact, you can actually say this could have the effect of increasing emissions because as we chase our manufacturing base overseas, it may go to countries like China that have lower environmental standards and will ultimately increase emissions, not decrease. So the President's international climate commitment is not going to happen. I want to make sure people are aware of that. We wouldn't want them coming over here under the impression that something is going to happen when it is not.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 12:30 p.m.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we are all concerned about the plight right now of Puerto Rico and what is happening over there financially. And later on this week I will revisit the issue of the 4-year battle of Vieques that took place from 1999 to 2003. I am very much concerned that we might have an opportunity here to rectify something that was done that should not have been done back in 2002. The island off of Puerto Rico called Vieques had been an integrated training center for many years--about 60 years--up until 2002. For purely political reasons at that time, it became quite an issue. First of all, joint training took place on the island of Vieques. Joint training means you have different branches of the military trying to accomplish something together that they couldn't do individually. In the case of Vieques, it was the Marines, the Navy, and the Air Force. We were able to do the type of training we couldn't do anyplace else. It sounds kind of ridiculous, but when they were talking about doing away with using Vieques for a military center--what they had been doing for 60 years--it was all around an establishment called Roosevelt Roads. Roosevelt Roads was a major naval station. We had about 7,000 sailors there. They added something like $600 million a year to the economy of Puerto Rico. Anyway, we found out there was a great effort by a lot of people who I will always suspect wanted to ultimately develop that island for private purposes and to financially gain from that. Consequently, with no regard for the contribution it made to our defense, they started a major problem. One person was killed in 60 years on that island, and because that happened to have taken place, they used it as a reason to try to shut that down. It became quite a political football at that time. I know Al Gore was very much involved in that, and there were some great benefits, I am sure. From World War II through the operation in Kosovo, our military has been ready to execute combat operations due to the training they were able to get on the island of Vieques. In fact, during Kosovo they used those individuals to conduct successful operations. They were all trained at no place other than Vieques. The reason for that is if they were going into Kosovo, as our Air Force was going in, they would have to be able to draw coordinates from a high enough elevation that the surface-to-air missiles would not be able to reach them, for their safety. And if we hadn't had all those guys over there who were trained at Vieques, it was speculated that they would not have been successful. Secretary Richard Danzig, who was then the Secretary of the Navy, said that ``only by providing this preparation can we fairly ask our servicemembers to put their lives at risk.'' Admiral Johnson, then Chief of Naval Operations, and General Jones, then Commandant of the Marine Corps, said that Vieques provides integrated live-fire training ``critical to our readiness'' and that 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 deployment. Those are quotes from those two individuals. Admiral Ellis, then director of operations, plans, and policies on the staff of the commander in chief of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, said during his confirmation hearing--and I was there at that time--to be commander of Strategic Command, ``Those types of facilities, particularly those in which we can bring together all of the naval, and that means both Navy and Marine Corps, combat power for integrated and joint training, are particularly useful elements of the overall warfighting preparation.'' At the time we felt there was a problem, I personally went around the world to every place that might have been a substitute for Vieques. I went to Cape Wrath--I always remember that--which I think is in northern Scotland, and I went to Southern Sardinia in Italy, and none of those places were adequate and none could provide the same type of support. Admiral Fallon, then commander of the Navy's Second Fleet, and General Pace--remember Peter Pace--the commander of all Marine Forces in the Atlantic, testified that the United States needs Vieques as a training ground to prepare our young men and women for the challenges of deployed military operations. GEN Wes Clark, the Supreme Allied Commander at that time, said: ``The live fire training that our forces were exposed to at training ranges such as Vieques helped ensure that the forces assigned to this theater''--and he was talking about Kosovo. That is when we had to be ready on arrival to fight and win and survive, which we did. CAPT James Stark, then the commanding officer of Roosevelt Roads Naval Station--there were about 7,000 of our sailors there--said: When you steam off to battle you're either ready or you're not. If you're not, that means casualties. 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 of the Navy, said the loss of training on Vieques would ``cost American lives.'' And it has cost American lives, and that has been since 2002. We are talking about American lives unnecessarily put at risk if they are not fully trained for combat operations. I remember one person back at that time talking about the analogous situation of a football team where you have all the quarterbacks training over here, all the backs over here, and all the defensive people training over here, but never training together, and then they go and lose. You have to have integrated training. We don't even have that today. We have tried to find and to replicate that effort, and it isn't there. This week, I understand--and the reason I came down quite unprepared is because I didn't know this was coming up--the House Natural Resources Committee is going to consider legislation that provides bankruptcy powers to Puerto Rico while subjecting it to the authority of a Federal oversight board. This is something that is going to become very controversial. There will be a lot of people around saying: Why are we doing this? And once you provide these benefits to Puerto Rico, there is no reason why others won't line up and want the same thing. I really am concerned that Puerto Rico, apparently--and I don't know if this is true, but they are saying it--owes some $73 billion in government debt. In January, Puerto Rico started defaulting on part of that debt. Section 411 of this legislation--we are talking about the legislation that will be discussed tomorrow over in the House--would turn over approximately 3,000 acres of Department of Interior conservation zones that were formerly part of Vieques. What happened in 2002 was that the land that had been used for the training range was turned over to this department. Now they are talking about taking it out, I suppose, for people to develop. I remember so well the time when we were talking about closing Vieques. I was the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Readiness Subcommittee. Puerto Rico's Governor Rossello came. He is not in office anymore. But he made all kinds of threats: It is just a bluff that it would be closing. I made the statement that if we are denied the opportunity to use the island of Vieques for joint training, then we were going to lose Roosevelt Roads. Governor Rossello sat there and said: Inhofe is not telling the truth. We are not going to lose that. Of course, they did lose it. So in 2003 the total impact from the Navy was estimated to be $600 million a year. The departure of the Navy also impacted business and contracts, as we know. I was visiting with Miriam Ramirez just today. At the time, she was in the State Senate in Puerto Rico and was talking about the disastrous economic effects if they closed Vieques. She is still concerned about that, and many of the people who were the strongest opponents of my efforts at that time to keep Vieques operating are now saying we should have left it open. So I think any kind of a deal that is made has to include consideration that the training is still available. There is still no range like Vieques anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. What can be done in Vieques cannot be done in one location by a joint force. I understand firsthand both the importance and the significance of having a range in your home State. I remember a popular TV show at that time called ``Crossfire.'' I was on the show in May of 2000. Juan Figueroa was the president of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and we were debating this on live TV. He said: Well, how would you, Inhofe, like to have a live range in your State of Oklahoma? I said: Let me tell you about Fort Sill. They train 360 days out of the year, 24 hours a day, and they make all kinds of noise. It is within 1 mile of a population of 100,000 people--at that time, Vieques was within 9.5 miles of 9,000 people--and there are all these people who hear this noise down there. They were in town last week. They said: When we hear that noise, it is the sound of freedom. Here is something interesting. They opened up what is considered to be the most modern, most progressive elementary school. They call it Freedom Elementary School. They named it after that phrase: It is the sound of freedom. So this is what is happening. I am very much concerned that we are going to stumble and pass up an opportunity that might still be there. We have an opportunity to actually go back and use that for some of our joint training. So later this week I am going to go back and relive the history on the 4-year battle of Vieques. Hopefully, this might be an opportunity for us to save American lives and to have integrated training, which we still don't have today and which we had back in that time. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized as in morning business to use as much time as I shall consume.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to comment that I have dramatically shortened my presentation, as I was crossing off things from my list that have already been more eloquently expressed by my friend from Kansas, and I think it shows. He brought out a point I think is significant; that the first of the year we were able to pass the highway bill, which is a major piece of legislation. It is the first time since 1998 we were able to get that reauthorization bill, and it was because of the interim period of time we had the short-term fixes that the Senator from Kansas was talking about. Those are expensive, and you can't do major overhauls, improvements, and modernization unless you have an authorization bill, and this covers a lot of areas. I want to repeat one thing the Senator from Kansas stated, and that is in reference to Senators Thune and Nelson. Any time you--and I would say this to all of the members of the Commerce Committee--any time you get a major piece of legislation that covers a lot of stuff, there is always a lot of confusion and some opposition, although not as much opposition to this as we had anticipated would be taking place. So there are areas I want to visit that I have a special interest in. One is the certification process for general aviation pilots. I know this was mentioned by Senator Moran, but this is something that is very significant. I want to cover it in perhaps a little bit more detail, along with the other areas and an amendment we have. I am getting a lot of Democratic support on my amendment, amending the use of drones, the allowable use of drones. First of all, on the Pilot's Bill of Rights, I refresh everyone's memory that the first Pilot's Bill of Rights was something we passed in 2012. It was one that for the first time took care of a problem that had been out there. The only group of people in America who did not have the opportunity of the protections, the legal protections in our jurisprudence system, was general aviation pilots and other pilots because it allowed the FAA to come in and make all kinds of accusations without giving people the benefit of the evidence that was being used against them. We passed a good bill called the Pilot's Bill of Rights. Last year, in Oshkosh--Oshkosh is the largest general aviation event of the year. It is one that involves hundreds of thousands of people and actually thousands of aircraft on the field. I say to the Presiding Officer, I can remember this was the 37th annual convention that I have attended and flown in, in the last 37 years, so I am very familiar with this. Of course, when I got there, they were interested in the successes that were in the Pilot's Bill of Rights, but there are some things that weren't in there that should have been in there. So we had a session with people--I mean, there are people from all 50 States and countries around the world, and so one of the areas of concern has been about the medical certification process. It is called a third-class medical. A third-class medical is something that goes into a lot of things that are not necessary and sometimes deter the safety factor that is built into medical certification. So we reformed that system. By the way, I have to say that we have already passed this bill in the Senate. The last thing we did before breaking for Christmas, 10 minutes before we recessed, was to pass a freestanding bill that is worded exactly the same way that is in this bill. This is a backup. Since that got bogged down in the House for a period of time, we thought we would put this in here just to make sure that one way or another this does become a reality. It is singularly the greatest concern for large organizations, including the Experimental Aircraft Association and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the AOPA. We put a system in there that provides--first of all, the pilots will still have to do some of the elements of what was considered to be a third-class medical. A third-class medical--10 years ago we repealed that, or reformed it, for pilots of very small aircraft, the light aircraft. In fact, there hasn't been one injury or death in the last 10 years that could be related to anything, any change that was made in that system. So this just allows the other pilots to have the same benefits the pilots did in the small aircraft. Pilots still have to complete an online medical education course. Pilots are going to have to maintain verification that they have seen a doctor concerning anything that might impair their ability to safely fly an airplane. Pilots have to complete a comprehensive medical review initially by the FAA. So those safeguards are built in. The Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 increases its due process protections established for pilots in the original Pilot's Bill of Rights. The original Pilot's Bill of Rights--since I have been active in aviation for over 60 years, it was only natural that when problems came up, people would contact me as opposed to their own Senators, in many cases. I was concerned and always tried to help people. But until those abuses occurred to me, and I realized all of a sudden that I was at risk of losing a pilot certificate and didn't have the means to defend myself--that is when this whole effort started. Well, this was carried out in the reforms that we intended to put in the first bill that were not really strong enough to get the FAA to comply with, which we have in this bill. One of those is called NOTAMs, Notices to Airmen. By the way, when I talk about this, this doesn't mean a lot to a lot of other people, but there are 590,000 single-issue general aviation pilots in America to whom it means a lot. So these guys are all very much concerned about it, and they are all anxious for this to become a reality. A Notice to Airmen is something that is required and has been required for a long period of time so that people will know--if you are going to make a flight from airport A to airport B, if there is any problem at that airport where you are going to land in terms of work on the runway or in terms of lights being out or new towers being erected or something like that, they have NOTAMs, which are Notices to Airmen. So this is going to carry into reality the reform that we intended to do in 2012. It also ensures that pilots are going to have access to the flight data, such as air traffic communication tapes and that type of thing. So it is good. I know it doesn't mean a lot to a lot of other people, but it sure does to 509,000 people. The contract towers--this is a major program. It is kind of interesting. We established a program of contract towers intended to reach areas that didn't really have the unique, normal necessity of information and assistance that we would have in normal towers, and the towers do a great job. And I am now talking about the regular towers, but the contract towers have also done a good job. In 2013 the Obama administration targeted our Nation's air traffic control towers as an unnecessary mechanism to make the public feel the pain of nondefense budget cuts. Well, that was back during sequestration time, and at that time they were going to close all of the contract towers. They were saying that these towers don't--one of the arguments they used is that they don't have the traffic that many other towers have. Well, I suggest to my colleagues that in my State of Oklahoma, we have a number of great universities and colleges, and the two largest are Oklahoma State University and Oklahoma University. They are located in Stillwater, OK, and Norman, OK. I can tell my colleagues right now that if they had been successful in closing down those two contract towers, on football days, when we have literally hundreds of airplanes coming in, all converging at about the same time, it would have been a life-threatening event. We now have been able to maintain those contract towers in a cost-sharing program that has been very successful in the past, and that is in this bill also. Aircraft certification is an issue some of us are very concerned about. The Oklahoma aerospace industry is a vital and growing component of the State's economy. It is responsible for billions of dollars of economic output and employs thousands of people. The aerospace industry in Oklahoma includes commercial, military, and general aviation manufacturing, testing and maintenance activities, as well as a vibrant and cutting-edge culture of research and development that is located in my State of Oklahoma. Both of our major universities are an important part of this. With this in mind, I applaud the bill's inclusion of reforms to the FAA's process for certifying general aviation aircraft and aviation products such as engines and avionics, removing government redtape that is so prevalent that we are all so sensitive to and aware of. The bill also ensures that the FAA maintains strong engagement with industry stakeholders, so the FAA's safety oversight and certification process includes performance-based objectives and tracks performance- based metrics. This is key to eliminating bureaucratic delays and having increased accountability between the FAA and the aviation community for type certificate resolution or the installation of safety-enhancing technology on small general aviation aircraft. Now, I have an amendment. The Senator from Kansas was talking about some of the uses and restrictions and the expansion of the use of the UAVs. We are talking about drones now. Drones sometimes have a bad reputation, and normally it is not well-founded. But there are some areas where there were restrictions in the use of drones, which we are--I have an amendment that will allow drones to be used in areas where it does make sense. I already have several Democratic supporters and cosponsors of this amendment, including Senator Whitehouse and Senator Heitkamp and Senator Booker, who are all very enthused about this. It would direct the FAA to establish rules to allow critical infrastructure owners and operators to use unmanned aircraft systems to carry out federally mandated patrols of an area, and that could be a pipeline or anything else that is currently being patrolled, some by foot and some by aircraft, and this would allow unmanned aircraft to do that same thing. It is a safety thing because some of these patrols have to take place in bad weather and sometimes risk is involved. But if you don't have a person in the airplane--an unmanned plane--then this is an ideal use for it. It does establish a pathway for critical infrastructure operators to use the airspace under the FAA guidelines. It is still under FAA guidelines, but nonetheless it is an opportunity to use it. Today, critical infrastructure owners and operators are required to comply with significant requirements to monitor facilities and assets, which can stretch thousands of miles. This is something to which I think there should not be any opposition. We haven't had anyone whom I have asked to be a cosponsor deny us so far, and I don't anticipate that we will have a problem. The amendment is supported by a wide array of stakeholders, including the National Rural Electric Cooperative, the American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, CTIA--The Wireless Association, the American Gas Association, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the American Petroleum Institute, and I could go on and on. So far, there is neither organized nor just normal opposition, as one would normally find, so it is very popular. No one that I know of is against it. This is an amendment I will be offering as soon as we start working on amendments. This amendment will make this bill an even better bill. Again, I applaud all the work that has been done by the members of the Commerce Committee and particularly by the chairman and the ranking member, Senators Thune and Nelson, in getting this done. We are getting into an area where we are really being productive in this body, and I am very proud to be a part of it. We need to keep our eyes open on this. I would encourage any Members who have amendments they want to be included in this to come to the floor with their amendments and do what I am doing right now so that we can get in the queue, we can get started and get this done. I don't know when we are anticipating finishing this bill, but I don't see any reason why we can't do it, if everyone gets amendments done, by the end of next week. With that, I will yield the floor. I think we have several speakers lined up who are going to be here. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on February 13, 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away in his sleep. He was an enduring legacy of the Reagan administration and the conservative standard not only on the Supreme Court but for the entire American judicial community. History will remember Scalia as a stalwart defender of the Constitution and a brilliant legal mind. He authored the majority opinion on countless rulings of the Court, preserving and protecting our Nation's founding principles. His intellectual honesty, as well as his humor, will be greatly missed. Justice Scalia played a pivotal role in the shaping of constitutional interpretation throughout his 30-year tenure on the Supreme Court. He had within him a fervor for law and order; yet he demonstrated a warmth that resonated with many colleagues on both sides of the political divide. Scalia built meaningful relationships across that divide which were indicative of the strength of his character. Hadley Arkes, an expert in constitutional law, said that Scalia was able to ``find something redeeming and likeable in just about everyone he met, regardless of politics.'' This was no doubt a reflection of his strong Christian background and tremendous character. You can learn the character of a man best by listening to how those who knew him speak of him. Former colleagues and intellectual adversaries alike are unrestrained in their kind words for Justice Scalia. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer spoke fondly of the late Justice, saying: ``Nino sparkled with enthusiasm, energy, sense of humor, insight, and seriousness of purpose--the very qualities that I and his other colleagues have benefited from in more recent years.'' Justice Thomas described Scalia as a patriot with a true calling for interpreting the Constitution and noted that their relationship flourished based on that common interest. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also described their relationship as close and ``how blessed she was to have a friend of such brilliance, high spirits, and quick wit.'' Scalia had a positive impact on so many lives as a Justice, a colleague, a father, and a friend. His demeanor was just and fair, but marked with personality and humor. Late Justice Scalia was a staunch defender of the Constitution, rendering unbiased opinions and a unique perspective.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am rising now to respond to a statement that was made by our good friend from Illinois a few minutes ago, to clarify. It is kind of interesting that we look back and we find that when the Republicans had someone in the White House and the Democrats were trying to block a nomination, it was just the opposite as it is today. In fact, at that time, the Senators in the leadership of the Democrats--Obama, Biden, Clinton, Schumer, and Reid--all made the statement, a joint statement that the Senate does not have to confirm Presidential nominations and urged that the Senate refuse to do so, especially in an election year. Now, it is just the opposite of what the Senator said, but I don't blame them. I don't blame any Democrat for trying their best to get a nominee from this President because, as a Democrat, they are more liberal than Republicans are, and they would like very much to have a chance to change the balance of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been consistent in recent years in objecting to some of the extremist left programs. So I can't blame them for trying, but nonetheless that is not going to work. I applaud the leader. At the time the death--the sad death--of Scalia took place, he was in a position where we were in recess and so he had to make a decision and the decision was the right decision. Anyway, I wish to share a couple of letters with you that came from my State of Oklahoma. I will give the names and addresses, if anyone wants to check. This is what real people--you get outside the beltway, get out of Washington, DC, and get back to States such as Oklahoma, these are the concerns they have. I want to read the first one. This is from a guy named Robert from Tulsa, OK. It came right after the sad death of Justice Scalia. He said: Dear Senator Inhofe, I have just learned of the death of Justice Scalia. I should only be feeling sadness at the death of this great patriot and man of the law. I am terrified of what I am sure is now already in the works, his replacement by President Barack Obama. The person who replaces Justice Scalia will have the potential to change the balance of power on the bench for decades and may have the possibility to reshape the political landscape immediately and unalterably. I, therefore, beg you and all of your fellow Senators to not vote to affirm any candidate put forward by President Obama. This is an election year and the people should be given a chance to choose which direction this country will go and not have it decided by President Obama as he leaves the White House. Please, do not vote for any candidate offered by this administration. Another letter just came from Chickasha, OK, from Donald. He says: Dear Senator Inhofe, I have just received word of the death of Supreme Court Justice Scalia. His death is a loss for the conservative movement, but I fear it also puts our country in peril. With Scalia gone, President Obama will certainly present a nominee for his seat. If it is a justice that holds to Obama's progressive ideals and agenda, it could mean grave danger for our Constitution. I urge you to hold fast and refuse to confirm ANY Obama appointee to the Court. Hold out until he is out of office. I feel the future of our nation depends on it. That is from Donald of Chickasha, OK. Next is a letter from Matthew of Claremore, OK. Claremore is one of the towns where our famous Will Rogers spent his childhood. Everyone has heard of Will Rogers--a great guy. Matthew said: Senator Inhofe, I am contacting you in regards to the loss of Justice Scalia and his replacement. Justice Scalia was a brilliant man and a true patriot. Unfortunately, I do not feel any appointee by the President would follow the Constitution and serve with the same virtue as Justice Scalia. I am asking that you and the other members of the Senate do not confirm a new Justice until after the election, when the newly elected President can make the appointment. We have sent you to Washington to stop the agenda of the President that runs contrary to the wishes of the country. Please stand on your principles and do not allow the President to appoint another Justice that may be detrimental to our freedoms for decades to come. Thank you. That is Matthew from Claremore, OK. Let me assure you, of the hundreds of letters we have received, I have read them. I have no intention of changing the pattern that has been in existence since 1888 and allow a President, during an election year, to make such a nomination. So I think we did the right thing. I think it would have been inappropriate to say we are going to have hearings, knowing that we were not going to confirm a nominee. I don't think that would be fair to the nominee. So these are just a few examples of the hundreds of letters and calls from constituents that I have received, asking that the Senate wait to confirm the next Supreme Court nominee until we have a new President. We have heard from our colleagues and pundits on the other side--the Democrats, the other side of the aisle--that it is our constitutional duty to confirm President Obama's nominations. The Constitution says, and it says very clearly, that the President ``. . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court.'' The Senate clearly has a role in this process, and the Senate can either give its consent or it can withhold its consent and completely fulfill its constitutional duties. So it doesn't make any difference. We have the latitude of making a determination, and we are going to do it. It wasn't long ago when the Democrats were singing a different tune when the Republican was in the White House, and that would have been President Bush at that time. Some of the Democrats on the floor said that the Senate does not have to confirm Presidential nominations and urged that the Senate refuse to do so, especially in an election year. The Democrats were saying that, so it is just the opposite of what they are saying today. In fact, the leadership who was saying that at the time was none other than Senators Obama, he was a Senator at that time; Biden, he was a Senator at that time; Clinton, she was a Senator at that time; and Senators Schumer and Reid. They all made the same statement. They said the Senate does not have to confirm Presidential nominations and urged that the Senate refuse to do so, especially in an election year. Now, that is where there is a difference of opinion because actually the last time it was done in an election year was 1888. You have to go all the way back to 1888--128 years before you find a similar situation to the one we are in today. That is the last time a vacancy arose during an election year and was filled by the Senate from a party on the opposite side of the President. That is the last time that happened, 1888, and we are not about to change that now. Furthermore, even if this were not true, this President hasn't worked with Congress on much of anything. So why should we work with him on this? That is not the point. The point is, we don't have to do that, and when the Democrats were in control of the Senate and the Republicans had the White House, they made it very clear the leadership said the Senate does not have to confirm a Presidential nomination, and they urged us not to do it. And so the tables are turned now. Now why is this important? We have seen time and again when President Obama is not able to get his liberal agenda through Congress, he has turned to Executive action and to agency rulemaking to implement priorities. These regulations are actually making their way through our courts and are either going to be heard by the Supreme Court or have already been heard by the Supreme Court. President Obama's Executive amnesty was stayed by the lower courts, and the Supreme Court will decide this term if that injunction will stand or not. What we are saying is this: The President has a very liberal agenda on almost every social issue, every fiscal issue, every military issue. It is a very liberal agenda. So when the President can't get things done through legislation, he then turns around and tries to do it through regulation. I will give an example. If you talk to the American Farm Bureau right now, they will tell you the greatest problem farmers and ranchers have--I know this because I am from the farm State of Oklahoma--is not anything in the Agriculture bill. It is the overregulation of the EPA. Of all the regulations that are damaging to farmers and ranchers in America, the one they single out as being the worst is the WOTUS rule; that is, the waters of the United States. Historically, it has always been in the jurisdiction of the States as to how to control and manage the waters of the United States, except in cases where it is navigable waters. Well, we understand that. We understand that is where the Federal Government should be involved. But 6 years ago there was a lot of legislation and one bill in particular that was offered in the House and the Senate that would take the word ``navigable'' out. That being the case, that would mean all the waters in a jurisdiction would go from the States to the Federal Government, and we weren't going to let that happen. But this is what is going on right now. Things they have tried to get passed through legislation and haven't been able to do, they are trying to do through regulation. If the Supreme Court is split 4 to 4 in these two cases I just mentioned, the injunctions of the lower courts will stand until the underlying issues are fully litigated. That is what they are waiting for right now. The Court has said that until the litigation is cleared up, we are not going to act on this rule. Well, as you know, that is going to take a long time for that to happen. The Clean Power Plan is the other one. You might remember--to give a little background--that going back to the year 2000, which is when all this global warming started and the end of the world was coming, they were introducing legislation at that time to have cap and trade and regulate the emissions of CO2 throughout America. When people realized how much that would cost and the fact that the science was not yet settled, it was defeated. Every time they brought it to the Senate, it was defeated. I am talking about through legislation trying to do a cap and trade in America. One of the interesting things was that the first Director of the EPA that was appointed by this President was Lisa Jackson. I asked her a question in a hearing that was on the record and live on TV. I said: If we were to pass either this legislation or cap and trade or do it by regulation in the United States, would that have the effect of lowering the emissions of CO2 worldwide? She said: No, because this isn't where the problem is. The problem is in China. The problem is in India. The problem is in Mexico. So we went through that whole thing, and the President, when he came into office, decided: Well, they are never going to pass this by the elected representatives of the people, so we will do it by regulation. So he came out with the Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan is what President Obama came up with, and it essentially does the same thing as legislation would do when it would perform cap and trade for the States. We remember the trip to Paris. When he got to Paris, he was unable to get anyone to do anything. The deal they came up with was kind of humorous because China said: No, we are going to continue our emissions until 2025; at that time, we will start lowering our emissions. They were not going to do it, and they are not going to do it. But nonetheless, that was the Clean Power Plan that came up, and it was essentially the same thing that was killed by legislation. The Clean Power Plan would cost about $292 billion, and it mandates carbon dioxide cuts from the power sector to meet the President's standards. President Obama said in Paris that we are going to lower our CO2 emissions between 26 and 28 percent by 2025. Now, he never said how we would do that--never. He never did say how we were going to comply with that. But nonetheless, he was going to try to do that and, obviously, that was something that would not have worked. These and other Executive actions and regulations will have a big impact on our people and our economy and will all likely be decided by the Supreme Court. That is where I get back to the Supreme Court. The Clean Power Plan would then be decided. Right now on the Clean Power Plan there is a stay in the U.S. Supreme Court on the Clean Power Plan until all of the litigation that is pending right now can be settled. That could be a long time--certainly way past this particular Presidency. It is not just the Executive actions he has taken but the moral direction of our country too. Just last week, the Supreme Court heard a case challenging the State of Texas on its new abortion regulations that require that clinics meet the standard of other outpatient surgical clinics and mandate that abortion doctors have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. That is the Supreme Court. That is the type of thing you would see if the liberals would have their way and if the Supreme Court would change its direction. Many of these decisions are 5-to-4 decisions, and that is why I say this is an important decision. It is the American people who will bear the burden of these decisions and, therefore, they should have a say in who would fill Justice Scalia's vacancy. So this decision should be made by the next President. Let a new President decide who should replace Justice Scalia. That is exactly what is going to happen. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is quite a discussion when we talk about confirmations, one of the responsibilities this body has that the other body does not have. In the case of a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy, however, during an election year, I think it has actually been some 80 years since they have actually filled a vacancy as opposed to waiting until after the next election. I am concerned today, though, about another confirmation. VA IG nominee Michael Missal has been nominated, and I have a hold. To explain what that means, when you have a hold, that doesn't necessarily mean you don't approve of the nominee, but it does mean there is one reason or another you don't want to go ahead and confirm that person. That happened in the case of the nominee to be a VA inspector general, Michael Missal. Actually, I am not placing a hold on him because of deficiencies in him but deficiencies in the Office of the Inspector General. Today what I am announcing is that I am lifting that hold. That means they are free to go ahead and have this nominee go forward, and I think that is the right thing to do. At the Muskogee VA facility alone, the IG office has conducted nine investigations since 2009, and there has been little or no change in the quality of care. Right now, my office is working hundreds of cases of Oklahoma veterans facing inadequate care or blocked access to benefits. I wrote the VA IG in January of 2016 simply requesting that the VA IG--inspector general--visit Oklahoma facilities and to do so with an outside entity such as a joint commission. There is an attitude sometimes with individuals not wanting outside help, a kind of assumption that ``I don't need their help.'' Their response letter denied my request to conduct an investigation with a third party. It is time for our VA facilities in Oklahoma to be held to those same standards as private hospitals, and I believe it would take the aid of an outside group to make this happen because right now they are not meeting that quality. Since placing a hold on Mr. Missal, the IG office has committed to investigating Oklahoma's VA facilities with the oversight of an outside entity, and I have also had commitment from Michael Missal that he will do that. I appreciate their commitment, but our work to improve the care for Oklahoma veterans doesn't end there. Since the VA reform bill passed Congress this last summer--and it was a good bill--it is clear our facilities in Oklahoma have continued business as usual. I haven't seen any noticeable difference in the performance and treatment of our veterans since the passage and activation of that bill. I believe the impending investigations will show it is going to require a change in the management level to bring about lasting improvements for veterans care. That is why I, along with my junior Senator from Oklahoma James Lankford, introduced S. 2554, the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability Act, on February 12. This legislation is critical to providing the best treatment for our country's veterans. Building upon the comprehensive plan of the 2014 VA reform bill, our legislation grants VA leadership at the regional level the authority to fire and demote staff working in these facilities. I think a lot of them thought the reform bill did that, but it didn't. We haven't been able to do it. It also allows directors of veterans regional chapters to contract with an outside entity to conduct investigations of their VA medical facilities. As I have worked to address the many concerns I have with Oklahoma's VA facilities, I have come to trust the leadership at the regional level. One individual who has come in is Ralph Gigliotti. He has done a great job. He doesn't have the authority to do what this bill would allow him to do. Not only were intermediate surgeries suspended due to what they have now uncovered, but also the chief of staff has been temporarily removed from his position. However, this process revealed that regional directors are not presently empowered to address staffing concerns in the facilities they oversee. We have seen this in the State of Oklahoma numerous times. Our legislation peels away the layers of bureaucracy and allows the directors and each of the regional areas to play a larger role with improving the VA system as a whole. As we all know, freedom isn't free. Many of our veterans have paid the prices with scars, some visible and some may go unseen such as post-traumatic stress disorder--PTSD--depression, and traumatic brain injuries. In my great State of Oklahoma, there are more than 37,000 military families and roughly 340,000 veterans that call our State home, attend our churches, and contribute to our communities. On behalf of Oklahoma, I say we are humbled by the immeasurable dedication of each and every one of them. I think it is the government's duty to honor the promises made to our veterans in return for their sacrifice. I urge our colleagues to remember that. I can remember when I was in the Army, commitments were made to me when a decision was made--actually, mine was not a decision because it was compulsory service at that time, which I think we ought to go back to. Anyway, I think this is going to be good, and this is going to give us the resources and the capability of correcting the problems as we see them. For that reason, I am lifting my hold on Mr. Michael Missal and his nomination will move forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we have a very significant vote coming up, and people are not talking about it as much as they should. We had a hearing, and, of course, the Chair was there at the hearing, where we had James Clapper talking about the threat that we are faced with here in the United States. James Clapper--just to remind people--has been around as the chief intelligence director or involved with intelligence in hearings in Washington for 43 years. This guy knows what he is talking about. He made a statement yesterday that we have never been in as high of a threat position in all of the 43 years that he has been there. In fact, there was an article released yesterday where it was stated that ``North Korea had expanded its production of weapons-grade nuclear fuel, making clear that the Obama administration now regarded the reclusive government in Pyongyang, rather than Iran, as the world's most worrisome nuclear threat.'' That threat is real. We all recall when Kim Jong Un replaced his father, and as bad as his father was, he was at least a little more dependable in terms of predictability than Kim Jong Un. Just yesterday it was reported that he killed the chief of his general staff. It was a year ago that he did the same thing. So if someone disagrees with him, they execute him. Under the leadership of Kim Jong Un, North Korea has repeatedly violated Security Council resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. Since assuming power in 2012, his regime has conducted satellite launches in December 2012, and in February 2016 continues to develop it's ballistic missile program. It has conducted missile tests from several launched locations, and he has conducted nuclear tests in February of 2013 and January 2016, so he just continued all the way through it. All of these things are in violation of the U.N. Security Council resolutions. North Korea also continues to be involved in criminal activities around the world to include cyber attacks against organizations and governments. This bill that we are going to be considering--the passage of the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act that we will be voting on--toughens the sanctions against North Korea by authorizing comprehensive sanctions against countries, companies, and individuals who engage in certain trade with North Korea. This is something that is a fairly recent attempt to get compliance with the arrangements that are being made by saying to a country: If you continue to do business in North Korea, then we will have sanctions against your country. This is something that has worked to a degree in Iran. It is a system that should be set up, and we will have the opportunity to do that this afternoon. If anyone engages in trade with North Korea, as well as those determined to be responsible for human rights abuses, money laundering, counterfeiting, or undermining cyber security, this bill demonstrates America's resolve in holding North Korea responsible for its actions, along with those countries, organizations, and individuals who are assisting them. Of course, it is very significant that we go ahead and move forward with this, get this passed today, and send a very clear message, not just to North Korea but to all of those countries who might be tempted to be trading with them that they could be subject to the same sanctions. With that, I yield the floor.