Jim Inhofe

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 that I be recognized for such time as I might consume.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am here today to speak a bit about Burundi--something the Presiding Officer is familiar with. I had occasion to be in Burundi at their request some 16 years ago. At that time, the President's name was Buyoya. He is not there anymore; they have changed Presidents. There is something going on there on which I think the State Department has dropped the ball one more time in not interpreting, not understanding what the people of a country want: their self-determination. Despite its history of outside interference, civil wars, and social unrest, Burundi has emerged as a largely cohesive society, overcoming the ethnic divisions that plagued it in the 20th century, back at the time when I was first there. On April 3, I led a congressional delegation of six Members to Burundi, where we visited with President Nkurunziza. President Nkurunziza is in the middle of his second elected term in office. We talked to members of the Parliament, had really intimate relations with the members of the Parliament. We actually prayed together. We met together, and we got to know them quite well. We saw continued growth as a democracy and signs of movement toward a diversified economy under the leadership of President Nkurunziza. He announced on April 25 that he would run for President again and was met by increased protests and criticism from the international community, primarily led by us. Our State Department, the United Nations, and a few other countries seem to think they know more about an independent nation than they know. So they were criticizing him for running for office again. Here is the problem: A provision in their Constitution says that no one can run for the Presidency of Burundi more than two times. The problem is that he was not elected the first time; he was appointed by Parliament. So essentially, yes, he was elected once, but he hadn't been elected again until this recent election. But, again, why would we even want to get involved in it? On May 4, Burundi's Constitutional Court ruled that President Nkurunziza's first term did not count because he was picked by Parliament rather than elected by the people. That was followed by a failed coup, which took place right after that. Leading up to the Presidential elections, the Peace and Security Council of the African Union urged ``all Burundian stakeholders to respect the decision of the Constitutional Court, when delivered.'' So now we have the African Union, we have the courts, and we have the people in an election talking about the fact that, yes, he is qualified to run a third time--all except our government, which wants to impose its desires on another country. On May 29, six of us were in Burundi. We voiced our support for the decision of Burundi's Constitutional Court and called on the international community to support the court's ruling. President Nkurunziza won his reelection for President on July 21; he got 69 percent of the vote. Instead of working with Burundi and its people, the international community has been denouncing the election and stepped up pressure on the newly elected government via sanctions and withdrawal of support. The United States suspended military training in July. That is one of the things we do around the world that are really working now--a train-and-equip program, going to the country and working with them, helping to train those individuals. Of course, when that happens, we have the allegiance of those countries. If we don't do it, we can be sure that China or somebody else is going to do it. It is something that works. We withdrew that training. We are creating vacuums that are going to be filled by people who might be prone toward terrorism. We suspended the military training. We announced that Burundi will no longer benefit from the trade preferences under the African Growth and Opportunity Act beginning in 2016 and sanctioned four individuals who have contributed to the turmoil, including threats to peace, security actions that undermine democratic institutions, and human rights abuses. I am concerned that the responses by the United States and the international community will do more harm than good in terms of finding a resolution to the current political crisis. Young people are going to be denied jobs. They are not going to have the economic opportunities to participate. According to a New York Times article written on December 5, the violence seems to have shifted from what appeared to be government- sponsored to rebel-sponsored. ``There have been more assassination attempts, more grenades tossed at government property and more random shootings . . . all thought to be the handiwork of the opposition.'' Yesterday, December 8, nearly 100 Burundian protesters who opposed President Nkurunziza during the months of violence in Bujumbura were released from prison. We have to continue to support and stand with the people of Burundi and their growth as a democratic nation. The United States and international community should support and encourage a political resolution, not drive division and further unrest. While the violence and the loss of life that has occurred in Burundi can't be condoned, the situation could have been much worse if it were not for the actions taken by President Nkurunziza, the opposition forces, and the people of Burundi. I have been working to bring all parties together to resolve their differences and was encouraged by comments made at Burundi's National Prayer Breakfast by President Nkurunziza and the representatives of different political parties about looking forward and not looking back. There was tremendous applause. These countries on the continent of Africa meet in small groups on a regular basis, in the Spirit of Jesus, actually, and they have the National Prayer Breakfast now. Except for the outside interference, peace has been settling in and people are living with the decision they made--of course, 69 percent of them having voted for this President. I echo Uganda's President Museveni's--whom we are very close to-- confidence that a lasting solution to the conflict in Burundi will be found. I encourage all sides to meet together in Kampala or have a meeting there as soon as possible to begin resolving political differences. I consider President Museveni a friend. I believe he is the leader who can facilitate efforts to find a lasting solution to the political situation in Burundi. The way forward begins first with putting the elections behind us and acknowledging that Pierre Nkurunziza is the President of Burundi; second, an immediate agreement by all sides to work together to end the violence and to provide the time needed to resolve differences in Kampala, and this also includes the international community, which I charge to take positive actions to help enhance peace versus merely demanding it through punishment; and finally, beginning all-inclusive meetings in Kampala under the leadership of President Museveni from Uganda. I understand the fears that Burundi may regress toward ethnic violence, but I do not agree that it is a likely outcome of the current situation. We are going have to work on Burundi and not isolate it and its people. Only by working together to maintain stability and calm can we avoid widespread bloodshed, and the harshest critics are predicting that will come true. I know there are some good people there, but I have intimate relations with the leadership in many of the countries. I see what we are doing that is wrong. I remember that the same group of people--the United Nations, the State Department, and France--got involved in Cote d'Ivoire when President Gbagbo had won a legitimate election. It was rigged by someone who wasn't even from Cote d'Ivoire. I have been making several critical speeches on our involvement. It seems like we seem to want to impose our ideas on other countries when it is not to their best interest. I want everyone to be aware that this is a problem that is real.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I just found out that supposedly the big party that is taking place in Paris--it is interesting. For those people who are not familiar with this issue, the United Nations puts on a big party every year. This is the 21st year that they have done this. It goes back to the Kyoto treaty and to the fact that through the United Nations they have been trying to develop some type of a thing where global warming is coming and it is going to be the end of the world. I remember way back when I was chairing a subcommittee that had jurisdiction over this type of an area, back when this first started. We might remember when Al Gore came back, and they had developed this thing called the Kyoto treaty. They signed it on behalf of the United States, but they never submitted it to be confirmed by the Senate. Obviously, that is something that has to happen. They now are going to go in there to do a climate agreement. It was a real shocker on November 11 when the Secretary of State John Kerry made a public statement that the United States would not be a part of anything that is binding on the United States. The President of France didn't know that. He went into shock. He said that the Secretary must have been confused. They had to reconcile themselves at that time. That was 2 weeks before people arrived for the big party in Paris. They decided that we will put together something where we can have an understanding of what we want to do in the future--nothing binding. The reason I am mentioning this now is that this afternoon there is supposed to be a plan that is going to be unveiled that is going to reflect what they want everybody to do with this. I want to keep one thing in mind. The last event I went to was in Copenhagen. They are designed to try to get 192 countries to agree that the world is coming to an end and that we are going to have to do something about cap and trade to stop the global warming. This has been going on for a long time. There are significant problems that remain. The negotiators can't agree on whether it is binding or what part of the agreement might be binding and still comply with our laws and constitutional restrictions. They can't agree on financing. This morning, in order to entice the developing countries, Secretary Kerry, on behalf of the President, announced that the United States would contribute another $800 million a year to help developing countries adapt to the effects of climate change. Let's keep in mind that this is in addition to the $3 billion that the President expects Congress to appropriate to this cause. Yesterday, in Paris, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy again misrepresented to the international community the EPA's authority and confidence in the U.S. commitments. The highlight of her remarks was her claim that ``the Clean Power Plan will stick and is here to stay.'' When attending international delegates asked questions about their legal vulnerability and the possibility of the future administration changing anything that is adopted by this administration, she reportedly walked around the question and many in the audience were upset that she wouldn't answer the question. The reason she wouldn't is because there is no answer to it. I chair the committee called the Environment and Public Works Committee. We have the jurisdiction over these things. When the President came out with the Clean Power Plan, we said: All right, you are saying that you are committing the United States to a 28-percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2025. How are you going to get there? They wouldn't say. No one to this day has talked about how they are going to do it. He said: Let's have a hearing. We are the committee of jurisdiction. I don't recall any time when a bureaucracy that is in a committee's jurisdiction refused to testify, but they did refuse to testify. I think we all know why. We know there is no way of coming up with that type of a commitment. If you have all these costs and what it is going to cost us, does it address climate change? The Clean Power Plan will have no impact on the environment. It would reduce CO2 emissions by less than 0.2 percent. It would reduce the rise of global temperature by less than one one- hundredth of a degree Fahrenheit, and it would reduce the sea level rise by the thickness of two sheets of paper. In fact, the EPA has testified before the environment committee that the Clean Power Plan is more about sending a signal that we are serious about addressing climate change than it is about clearing up pollution. The Justice Department requested that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals not rule on the Clean Power Plan, the principal domestic policy which supports our commitments to the climate conference, until after the conference concludes. What they did was they went to the courts, knowing that the courts were going to be acting on this power plan and probably acting against it, and they didn't want that to happen before the party in France. I think it is the biggest signal to the international community that the administration lacks the confidence in their own rules. Administrator McCarthy also claimed that the next administration cannot simply undo the Clean Power Plan because of the extensive comment period supporting the rule. The international community is not fooled by this either. Congress disagrees. Not only can Congress withhold funding from any element of an agreement that the administration refuses to send to Congress for approval, but the Congress has explicitly rejected the Clean Power Plan in the bipartisan Congressional Review Act, saying that we do not agree with this and we want to do away with this Clean Power Plan before it is finalized. That should be the signal to the people who are at the party in Paris. I think that a lot of them do understand that. Even President Obama is now conceding that specific targets each country is setting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may not have the force of treaties. He is hoping that 5 years or some type of periodic reviews of those countries would be in the form of a binding commitment. But even if that is the case, that would merely be a review. Although the European Union and 107 developing countries are hoping for a legally binding long-term deal with review mechanisms and billions of dollars, any truly binding agreement must be sent to the Senate for approval. Back when they first went down on the Kyoto treaty, we had the Byrd- Hagel rule. The Byrd-Hagel rule says that we are not going to ratify any treaty if it either is bad on our economy or it doesn't apply to countries such as China. So they have to do the same thing that we are doing. That passed 95 to 0. That was way back at the turn of the century. Everyone knows that he can't unilaterally do these things, even though he tries. In 1992, when the Senate approved President H.W. Bush's agreement to have the United States participate in the conference of parties--that is the one that is going on right now, the 21st one--the process, any emissions, targets or requirements were going to have to be approved by the Senate. This is the President who was in charge at that time, George H.W. Bush. That was the agreement in 1992, and that agreement hasn't changed. Legally binding agreements must go before the Senate for consideration, and there is no way around it. This is the message I conveyed when I attended the COP convention in 2009 in Copenhagen, and nothing has changed since that time. Nothing is happening over there now. They are having a good time. I am sure there are lots to drink and lots to eat, but that party will be over. Let me share one experience I had. I have been very active in Africa for a number of years. There is an officeholder in the tiny country in West Africa of Benin. I saw him at the convention that was in Copenhagen. I said: What are you doing here? You don't believe all this stuff. He said: No, but they are passing out hundreds of billions of dollars, and we want to get some of ours. Besides that, this is the biggest party of the year. Enjoy your party over there. Nothing is going to happen. Nothing binding is going to take place on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alicia Kielmovitch, an education legislative fellow in Senator Hatch's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this calendar year.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me first of all thank the Senator from Wyoming. It is interesting that every time we are involved in something--it could be reconciliation, the budget or the highway bill-- he is always in the center and he has always been the anchor that holds us all together, and we appreciate that so much. I will recognize the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to address very briefly the comments made by one of the Senators earlier about how bad this bill is. I think it is important for us to understand that it shows us how difficult a bill like this is because we are facing accusations, and it is the kind of thing that people would want to believe, but it is just not true. We don't have the things that sound good. The Export-Import Bank, that is something I had to swallow. I have opposed the Export- Import Bank every opportunity I have had for the last 20 years. Yet this is a huge bill. This is the largest bill in 17 years. The most important part of this to me is those who criticize it fail to realize that when we take an oath of office, we hold up our hand--every Senator does--to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It says in the Constitution, the only two things that we are mandated to do in article I section 8 is to defend America and roads and bridges. Ever since 1956, when Eisenhower came and did the national bill, the National Highway System, it has been successful, but where we have dropped the ball is we have been failing to have the Transportation reauthorization bill. We take into consideration all of the things that we are supposed to do, and these are things that we are supposed to do in accordance with the Constitution. It is easy for me to say this because I have been ranked the most conservative Member many times and probably more than anyone else, but I recognize that we do have this responsibility. Having said that, let me just say that I agree with the comments that were made by the majority leader and by Senator Boxer. She and I have disagreed more than we have agreed on things, but we have gone through a couple of these bills together and people look at us and think, If both of them want to do this, there must be something good about them. So I have enjoyed working with Senator Boxer. It has been my honor to do it. We have actually shocked a lot of people with how well we get along. That is not going to happen after this bill, but it did before. So let me just say this. I wish to thank some people. I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Wyoming recognizes his staff. I look around here and I see these two guys. They were up more nights all night long than they were sleeping all night long, and this is for a long period of time. We have been working on this for a long period of time. It is the result of months and months of really hard work. In particular I want to thank our EPW team of Alex Herrgott, who was trying to drive this thing, and Shant Boyajian, one who does maybe the hardest part, the actual road part; he is the expert that pulled that through. We also had Chaya Koffman, Susan Bodine, Jennie Wright, Andrew Neely, Donelle Harder, Daisy Letendre, and Kristina Baum. And Senator Boxer's team: David Napoliello, whom I really enjoyed working with. This is funny. I could talk to David just as I talk to one of our people here. We all have the same concerns, and so it makes it easier. I also thank Andrew Dohrman and Jason Albritton. I would include so many others, but I see that Senator Boxer is still here, and I would like to just conclude right now. I know Senator Boxer wants to recognize some of the people that worked so hard in her shop, and we worked with a lot of people. I will yield to Senator Boxer.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I recognize the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen, for such time as she needs to use for her side.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a joint statement by the chair and ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Representative Shuster and Representative DeFazio, and the chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, myself and Senator Boxer, to clarify an issue with the Joint Explanatory Statement of the committee on conference for H.R. 22.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order raised under rule XXVIII that section 32205 of the conference report to accompany H.R. 22 exceeds the scope of conference.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, both sides have agreed to have 5 minutes equally divided. How much time did the Senator from California take?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I recognize Senator Roberts for 45 seconds. The Senator from Kansas.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I recognize the junior Senator from Arizona, Mr. Flake, for such time as he wants to use of his 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I recognize the Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, for 15 seconds.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I recognize the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Moran, for 30 seconds.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would ask the Chair the time remaining for the proponents and opponents?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me make sure everyone understands what we are doing here. The budget act of 2015 had major cuts in the Federal Crop Insurance Program. Some of those were restored in the highway bill. Now, if the highway bill is changed--if this should pass--it has to go back to the House, which means we could not have it this year. In other words, the issue here is not how you feel about crop insurance; it is whether or not you want this bill. I would suggest to the 65 Members who are here today and who voted for the bill that it would be very difficult to explain how you could vote for the bill and then turn around and vote for the very order against it that would kill the bill for this year in 2015.

Mr. INHOFE. That is great, Mr. Leader.

Mr. INHOFE. We have a lot of requests for speakers to be heard. I am going to put myself at the end of the line so that everyone else can get in there first. The order is going to be Senator Boxer, and I understand she might want to share a little time with the Senator from Florida. Then Senator Lee from Utah, Senator Enzi after that, and then whoever else wants to talk. If nobody else wants to talk, then I will wind it up. Before I turn it over to Senator Boxer, I am going to tell a story because I want to make sure that Senator Sullivan doesn't have to wait for 2 hours to hear it. Ten years ago, in 2005, we had the last bill of this nature. It was a bill that we passed. I was an author of it, and I was very proud. That was 10 years ago. That was the last time we did a bill like this. I remember standing here, as I am standing today. The chairman of that committee wanted to talk about what a great bill that was--the Transportation reauthorization bill--and all of a sudden the alarms went off. They said: The bombs are coming. Everybody run. Evacuate, evacuate. I wasn't through talking. I talked for about 15 minutes. It is very eerie when you are standing here and are the only one in the U.S. Capitol making a speech with the TV going but no other people are around. I made my speech. Afterward I started going down, and I saw a great big guy walking down the steps very slowly. I went up to Ted Kennedy. I said: Ted, you better get out of here; this place is going to blow up. He said: Well, these old legs don't work like they used to. I said: Let me help you. I put my arm around his waist. Some guy had a camera. The front page of the cover of that magazine said: Who says that conservatives are not compassionate? That is my story. We will go on to Senator Boxer.

Mr. INHOFE. We certainly agree with that. Senator Boxer.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we will go forward with the previous agreement and hear from the Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee, followed by Senator Enzi from Wyoming.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield? I have a favor to ask. I will give the Senator from Utah all the time in the world, but he originally asked to speak for 5 minutes. I plan to respond to the issues he is talking about, which I don't happen to agree with, but I wonder if the Senator from Utah will allow his colleagues to speak in the order we agreed to and then come back and allow the Senator from Utah to finish his remarks. I ask the Senator through the Chair if that will work?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, before we get too wrapped up with our concern for the Syrian refugees, let's keep in mind that this administration doesn't have a policy in the Middle East today and hasn't had one since it came into office. It doesn't have a policy in Syria. They don't know where we are. He has drawn a line in the sand and just ignored his commitments. We wouldn't have all of these Syrian refugees if we had a policy in the first place. Secondly, it was this administration's own Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who said that it is a fact that the refugees who come in from Syria could very well be bringing terrorists into the United States, and I think we need to consider that and consider our citizens before we consider some of the others. There are other options. We could have no-fly zones and have refugees settled in their own country, and that would be a lot safer for America and a lot cheaper. Anyway, that is not why I am here. President Obama made a lot of points to the American people in 2010 about how ObamaCare would improve health care for everyone. He said it would lower costs, it would expand access, and it would make health care more affordable for everyone. Yet, 5 years after this law's passage, ObamaCare has only increased premiums and increased deductibles, cut down employee work hours, and threatened the religious liberty of many employers who are providing needed jobs in a slow economy. Since Obama's disastrous rollout, I have listened to heartbreaking accounts of how ObamaCare has negatively impacted middle-class Oklahoma families. I go back every weekend and I talk to these people. Their budgets are taking the hardest hits. The longer this law has been on the books, the worse the stories have become. Oklahoman Fred Imel's premium is going from $1,100 a month to $1,700 a month. In fact, it was just announced that next year Oklahomans will see an average increase of 35.7 percent in premium prices, which is the highest in the Nation. That is why I am concerned about this. We have an opportunity, actually, tomorrow to act on something that can change all of this. In addition, BlueCross BlueShield notified 40,000 Oklahomans earlier this year that they will no longer offer their current plans and that policyholders would be forced to move to other plans in the two other networks in the State. Both plan options have fewer participating doctors, hospitals, and other providers. In other words, access to care is going down for these people, all the while costs are going up. At the same time, many other insurance companies are dropping out of the Affordable Care Act market altogether, leaving Oklahomans with even fewer choices, not more, as President Obama promised back in 2010. In fact, nationwide, ObamaCare offers, on average, 34 percent fewer providers than health care networks outside the exchanges. But ObamaCare isn't delivering bad news just to Oklahoma. Across the Nation, federally backed co-ops are going under due to ObamaCare. On October 16, the Wall Street Journal had an article that said that these cooperatives are ``collapsing at such a rapid clip that some co-ops and small insurers are forming a coalition to consider legal action to try to change health-law provisions they blame for their financial distress.'' Twelve out of the 23 ObamaCare established co-ops have gone under. More than half of them have gone under, leaving more than 500,000 currently insured Americans to find new insurance once again or face a steep penalty from the Federal Government. These co-ops also received over $1 billion in taxpayer loans from the Federal Government, most of which will never get repaid. So it is really worse economically for this country. Since the beginning of this Congress, I have sponsored 12 bills to dismantle and fully repeal ObamaCare, and my colleagues and I are committed to maintaining our promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare. This reconciliation bill is a step in that direction. The House passed reconciliation on October 23 with a vote of 240 to 189. This bill repeals the major components of ObamaCare, including the individual and employer mandate. It also repeals the medical device tax and the Cadillac tax, which is a tax placed on certain high-value, employer-sponsored insurance plans. The Senate reconciliation bill also takes repeal of ObamaCare a lot further by repealing $1 trillion in ObamaCare taxes and fully repealing the Medicare expansion and all ObamaCare subsidies by 2018. Importantly, the reconciliation bill also prohibits Federal funding for Planned Parenthood and instead uses that money that is saved by that repeal to increase funding for community health care centers. We hear people talk about health care for woman who are going to be hurt if we get rid of Planned Parenthood, yet we have more than 9,000-- 9,000--community health centers. These facilities are better equipped to provide women with the health care they need when compared to only 700 Planned Parenthood facilities. So keep in mind that there are 700 Planned Parenthood facilities and 9,000 community health centers, so they actually have the opportunity to get better care. This issue is of particular importance given the sting videos that were released over the last few months showing the lengths Planned Parenthood affiliates have gone to profit from the sale of fetal tissue following abortions. Planned Parenthood is a private institution that largely serves urban areas. While abortion may not be the only service they provide, it is what they are primarily known for. Everybody knows that. Whether they have broken the law or not, the taxpayer money they currently receive would be better directed toward the community health centers, which, on a ratio of 12 to 1, would be able to help with women's services. Life is one of the single most important issues we consider here in the Senate, and I am proud of what we have already done this year. A few months ago, a majority of Senators voted to defund Planned Parenthood. That vote has already taken place. A majority of us here-- although the tally did not pass the 60-vote threshold that was necessary to break a filibuster, it did show that more than a majority of Senators support ending subsidies to the largest abortion provider in America. More important than the Senate's views of this, a majority of the American people support protecting life of the unborn. Every survey demonstrates that very clearly. When I go back home, people say: Why is it that if this is something the American people want, this taking of life continues? The American people support it, and it is very important to me and my constituents that we do everything possible to protect the sanctity of life. That is among the top reasons why it is necessary to vote for this reconciliation bill. We have the chance to end the Federal financing of the institution that has chopped up babies and negotiated the most profitable price for their organs. There is no moral gray area here. Let me tell my colleagues something about Oklahoma. I am going to tell my colleagues about how immoral and abrasive ObamaCare has been. In my State of Oklahoma--I was in the State senate back in 1970. I had a good friend then whose name is David Green. He developed a business in his garage--this was in 1970--where he made picture frames. He had only one employee, and then he started growing. Over a period of time, he has grown to where he now has Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby has 600 stores, 23,000 employees, and it started in a garage in 1970. David Green is a real Jesus guy. He loves the Lord. He has his own principles, his own morality, and his employees do too. So ObamaCare came along and required a contraceptive type of pill taken after fertilization that is very similar--it is a type of abortion, in the eyes of this man. Well, he refused to force his employees to do that. ObamaCare--the Federal Government--came along and they sued him and they--no, they were fining him $1 million a day--$1 million a day for refusing to take human life. He filed a suit. Now, keep in mind, $1 million a day. He went to district court, and he won the case by a close decision over ObamaCare. Then they appealed the case to the circuit court. He won there, and he won ultimately in the U.S. Supreme Court by a split vote of 5 to 4. Here is a guy who is willing to risk $1 million a day because he knew what was morally right. This is something that actually happened. I will tell my colleagues, we have to get rid of ObamaCare and get out of the abortion business. We will have that chance tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar Nos. 387, 388, 390, 391, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, and Navy; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, December 1; 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; that following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings.