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 immediately following the resumption of legislative session upon disposition of the Smith nomination.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 139, S. 1698.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 322, submitted earlier today.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble 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. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to leave the bill for a couple of minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Madam President. It is my intention to ask to set aside the pending amendment for the purpose of considering the Inhofe amendment No. 2820, and I want to explain what this is. Today the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the FAA are working on the next generation radar system. We have talked about this for a long period of time. I think the Senate knows that this Senator has been active in aviation for a long time, and this is something we have been working on together. The next generation radar system, called Multi-function Phased Array Radar, or MPAR, is comprised of individual radar stations capable of both air traffic tracking and weather surveillance. The new system will replace the multiple systems separately maintained by the FAA and NOAA and allow the consolidation of the number of discrete radar sites in the United States by about a third and yet do a more thorough job. To support the development of the next generation radar, it is important for the FAA and NOAA to be working together and one not getting out in front of the other one. For that reason--and I think my junior Senator, who is going to be working on this, agrees--there is some concern that the FAA is getting out in front of NOAA on the selection of technology to meet both goals. We would clarify that in the amendment. What I will be asking for is the consideration of amendment No. 2820, as modified. The modification is at the desk now, expressing the sense of the Senate that the FAA and NOAA continue to work together so that one agency doesn't get out ahead of the other and ensuring that the priorities of both agencies are met. Sometimes you have to get involved with the bureaucracies when there is more than one working on it. At the proper time, I will be wanting to do that. There is a courtesy being extended to another Member to be involved perhaps in this. So with that, I will yield the floor and be prepared to offer my amendment.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I spent some time on the floor a few minutes ago explaining an amendment that I have. It is amendment No. 2820, as modified. The modification is at the desk. It is one of those things where there is no opposition at all. We are trying to get to a new radar system that is--it is rather complicated. It will end up saving a lot of money and letting other people in other parts of the country--all over the country--have the radar capability they don't have today. So it is something I know that no reasonable person would object to. Madam President, for that reason, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up my amendment No. 2820, as modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, at 5:30 p.m. today, two votes are going to take place on the two CRAs--one by Senator Capito and one by Senator McConnell, as he just referred to. The Congressional Review Act is something really good that has come along for a reason. A lot of people don't understand that the bureaucracy gets out of hand sometimes. I was listening very attentively to my friend from Delaware. When I see some of the regulations that come through, I am wondering: How in the world could this happen? These are things that we have voted on over and over, as with the case of cap and trade, which is what we are talking about now. Our first one was the McCain-Lieberman act of 2003, then again in 2005, and then the Warner-Lieberman act of 2008. And Waxman-Markey didn't even come to the Senate floor because they knew they didn't have the votes for it. Each one of these was rejected by the elected Members of the Senate and by a larger margin each year. It is interesting what this President has done. He has taken the things that people don't want and has said: Well, if we can't do it through legislation, we will do it through regulation. We have seen time and again that he has followed this. It is really going to come to a screeching halt this time because there are some things that are going on that people are not aware of. There are a lot of legal problems with Obama's carbon rules--especially his power plan. Right now we have 27 States, 24 national trade associations, 37 rural electric co-ops, 10 major companies, and 3 labor unions representing just under 1 million workers. They are now challenging the final rule in court. This chart shows you the States that are challenging the rule in court. A lot of these entities have requested a judicial stay, which would likely put these rules on hold until early next year. While the courts work through the numerous other challenges, time is going to go by and time is certainly not their friend. I was listening carefully to what my friend from Delaware was saying. One observation I have is that the people have caught on. In 2002 it was very lonely standing here at this podium in this Chamber, and no one else wanted to be a part of that discussion. Yet, at that time, the ranking of people, insofar as what they thought about the legitimacy of the argument that the world was coming to an end because of global warming, was either No. 1 or No. 2. I am talking about the polls that were across the nation at that time. Now that same poll last March that said that global warming was the No. 1 concern back in 2002 is now No. 15. People have caught on. They realize that the cost is going to be exorbitant, and they realize it is not going to accomplish anything. I don't have any doubt that once the courts assess the merits of these challenges, the Obama administration's power plan will not survive judicial scrutiny. President Obama and Administrator McCarthy are equally aware of their legal vulnerabilities, which is why Obama's Agency deliberately slow- walked the implementation process to try to prevent any CRAs or negative court rulings prior to the International Climate Conference in December. It has already been done over there. It is going to get very active here in a matter of just a few days. POLITICO had an article a week ago that reported that the administration has asked the DC Circuit to postpone decisions until after December 23. What does that tell you? It tells you that they don't want to go over to the International Climate Conference for the big show and then walk in and find out that nothing is going to happen over here in this country and where the people are in terms of this issue. The Agency's lack of legal authority is not the only reason for bipartisan opposition to the administration's carbon regulations. The President's power plan alone would cost $292 billion, resulting in double-digit electricity price increases in 46 States. That is conservative. We have documentation from MIT and from many of the organizations saying that the cost of this type of cap and trade is somewhere in the range of between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. The Presiding Officer and I are very concerned about the State of Oklahoma. In the State of Oklahoma, every time I hear a figure that talks about trillions or billions of dollars, I find out how many families in my State of Oklahoma paid Federal income tax, and I do the math. This would cost somewhere around $3,000 a family--an average family in Oklahoma. You couple that with the fact that nothing is happening only here. If you believed in all the dangers that you hear about with CO2 emissions, if you really believe that to be true, that would not be true in terms of what we are talking about now. The first Administrator of the EPA who was supported by President Obama when asked the question if we were to pass this regulation or pass the legislation on cap and trade, would this have the effect of reducing CO2 emissions worldwide, said no, it wouldn't because it would only affect the United States of America. If that is the case, then it is not going to affect the other countries. In fact, you can carry it one step further. If we have very tight restrictions in this country where our manufacturing base is forced to go to other countries, and then there are countries that don't have any emission requirements at all, it has the effect of increasing, not decreasing, the emissions. We had a hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee, which I chair, and we had as one of the witnesses Harry Alford. Harry Alford is the President of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. He talked about how any type of a cap-and-trade scheme is unfair to very poor people. He estimated that the Obama power plan would result in an estimated job loss of nearly 200,000 jobs for Black Americans and more than 300,000 jobs for Hispanics. The increased energy cost undermines global competitiveness for American small business and energy-intensive industries. These companies will ultimately shut down here at home where the electricity bill becomes unaffordable and create jobs instead for our competitors, such as China. I can remember talking to China at the various meetings such as the International Climate Conference meeting that is coming up at the end of next month. They are hoping that something will happen where we are going to restrict our manufacturing base because they are the beneficiaries of that. The EPA has consistently acknowledged this. The former Administrator, Lisa Jackson, says that U.S. action alone is not going to have any reduction. Her job didn't last too long after she made that statement. The current Administrator, Gina McCarthy, testified that the President's power plan is not about pollution control but rather about sending a signal to the rest of the world that the United States is serious about addressing global warming. The minuscule benefits that might come would be hardly measurable to this country. Lastly, I would like to mention something that people don't talk about very often, and that is, there is something good about the process that we have available to us, the CRA--the Congressional Review Act. There are a lot of people who are of liberal nature, and they like overregulation. They don't mind it a bit. I am talking about Senators and House Members now. They go back to their States, and they get hit by all the business communities that say: We can't compete because of the overregulation of EPA. The response is always this: Well, I have nothing to do with that; the unelected bureaucrats are doing that. That is not true. You need to carry this message back with you. The CRA is there so that a person cannot tell the people at home that he is opposed to regulations that he is really supporting, because what is going to happen tonight--I can tell you right now--is that both of them are going to pass. But they are not going to pass them by a two-thirds margin. That means that they will go to the House, and they will pass them. They will go to the President's desk, and he will veto them. Therefore, it is going to take two-thirds to override a veto. They will come back for a vote. Those individuals who always rejoice in not having to vote and getting on record are going to have to vote on them. That is a neat deal. It is going to happen. You are here in on it right now. That reminds me a little bit about Copenhagen, back in 2009. I remember so well that they were all going over there. That was back when the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. They made it a real issue. They put on quite a show over there. President Obama went over. Pelosi went over. John Kerry went over. They all talked about the 192 nations that were there and how we were going to pass cap and trade as legislation. This is 2009. I went over at the very last conference and told them they were telling the truth. We are not going to pass it. In fact, there weren't 30 votes in the Senate that would pass it at that time. Of course, that is what ended up being the case. There is a real setback that happened 6 days ago. You may have noticed that Secretary of State Kerry made the public statement that nothing would be binding on the United States that came out of the International Climate Conference. Immediately, the President of France and all the others were outraged, saying that he must have been confused. They used the word ``confused.'' Right now the big fight that is going on is not Republican or conservatives and liberals. It is between those participants who are all for restrictions on emissions. That is what is going on now. I think the vote this afternoon is going to be a very important one. I can assure you that anyone who wants to vote against this can go ahead and do it. But keep in mind that this is going to pass. It is going to be vetoed by the President. It is going to come back for a veto override. Everyone is going to be on record. Here it is. These are the States that are currently anticipating the process of putting together legal action to stop this outcome. It is a very important vote this afternoon. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Presiding Officer, Senator Lankford, and I want to recognize and pay tribute to Army MSG Joshua Wheeler. Joshua was born in Roland, OK. He was deployed to Kirkuk Province, Iraq, in support of Operation Inherent Resolve. I didn't remember him at the time, but I was there during that time. He was deployed to Kirkuk to support Operation Inherent Resolve. That was his 14th deployment in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Joshua's unit, along with Iraqi and Kurdish forces, raided a compound near the city of Kirkuk, freeing 70 prisoners from captivity. Josh died of injuries sustained in that firefight. He would have turned 40 this month. Josh attended and graduated from Muldrow High School in 1994, and a classmate of his, Ms. Tra Moreland, said this about Josh and his character: If you would have asked me 20 years ago, would he be the man--the kind of man to do this, to give his life for everyone else? I'd say most definitely! I wish everybody could have known him! Josh enlisted in the Army straight out of high school. During his military career, he served in the 24th Infantry Regiment, 75th Ranger Regiment, and from 2004 until the events that bring us here today, he was assigned to the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, where he served with the Delta Force. I think we all understand what the Delta Force is all about. It is a unit of the elite, the very best of the best. That was Josh--the best of the best. Josh was the epitome of a selfless and patriotic soldier. Mr. Lance Hunter, Sergeant Wheeler's friend of 30 years, said that Josh was the kind of person who would stop and help a stranger change a tire on the side of the road and always dedicated himself to challenges. When he enlisted, I knew he would go as far as he could go. He was made to be a soldier. A soldier he was. During his career, Master Sergeant Wheeler had earned 11 Bronze Stars, including 4 with Valor Device, and countless other medals. He was posthumously awarded the Purple Heart for his actions during the raid on the ISIS prison. He is a true American hero. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter expressed how selfless Sergeant Wheeler's actions were, stating that ``they weren't part of the original rescue mission plan, but were critical to the mission's success.'' In other words, he did something he didn't have to do. Still, the Secretary is one of thousands who know what a hero Josh really is. I was honored to hear that his hometown honored him by engraving his name in a stone monument and releasing hundreds of balloons in his memory. On top of being a highly decorated soldier, he was a consummate family man and father of four. Joshua's grandfather, Mr. Jack Shamblin of Roland, OK, said his grandson loved fishing and hunting and was a family man and was always taking care of everyone else, including his four half sisters. His brother Zack said: He was a soldier, but I didn't realize he had all of these accomplishments, all these achievements--it just blows my mind. He's an American hero, he just wanted to take care of people. Ms. April Isa, a classmate of Josh's and an English teacher now at the old high school said: He was always funny, even mischievous, but always the guy who seemed like he had your back. Most of our class was cliques, but he wasn't with just one group. He was friends with everyone. Josh lived a life for his family and friends. I had occasion to talk to Ashley, and I found out that he was a real Jesus guy. He loved everyone, and he knew what was going to happen to him, and we know where he is today. He will be remembered for his commitment to and belief in the greatness of our Nation, and his memory and legacy will continue forever in the love of his wife Ashley and his four sons, Zachariah, Matthew, Joshua Junior, and the youngest, David, just 3 months old. The fight that took Josh's life is tragic. But make no mistake; his sacrifice made a difference and will continue to make a difference, not just in Iraq but in the security of our great Nation. We are safe in our country, and it is secure because of Josh and our service men and women. We must continue our unwavering support of them. I extend our deepest gratitude and condolences to Josh's family. Senator Lankford and I are honored to pay tribute to this true American hero who volunteered to go into the fight and to make the ultimate sacrifice of his life for our freedom. It is my sincere hope that his family takes solace in knowing that their husband, father, brother, grandson, and friend is a true American hero and will not be forgotten. We say God bless you, Josh. We will see you again. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. There is a lot of mumbling going on. I am not sure what we finally decided to do.

Mr. INHOFE. All right. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Delaware, I be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me say in response that a couple of times my good friend from Delaware has observed that the American people are not stupid, but the American people also want highways. That is one of the big things they want. In fact, we have a document called a Constitution that says we are supposed to be doing two things here: defending America, and roads and bridges. And I think we both agree on the significance of that. Burundi I hope I will have time to get into something because our State Department of the United States of America is getting involved in Burundi, in their election. They had a duly-qualified election. The constitutional convention declared that Nkurunziza, who is the President, had a legal election, and we ought to stay out of their business. If there is time, I would like to elaborate on that, but I know I am competing for time. Gitmo On the President's Gitmo message, we have--I will give a little chronology on that. On January 22, 2009, Obama signed an Executive order to close Gitmo within the year. On February 3 of that same year, 2009, I introduced a bill to permanently prevent Gitmo detainees from being relocated anywhere in the United States. At that time they were ready to talk about relocating them to parts of my State of Oklahoma, in the Fort Sill area. In May 2009 I authored bipartisan legislation with Senator Danny Inouye to block funding to close Gitmo and to move the detainees anywhere on U.S. soil. That passed 90 to 6. Every year since, Congress has blocked the attempts by this President and his administration to close Gitmo or move terrorist detainees into the United States. Every year, Congress has passed laws that continue to limit the transfer of these detainees, including in the conference report for the fiscal year 2016 NDAA bill. That is what we are talking about right now. It prohibits the transferring of Gitmo detainees to the United States through December 31, 2016. That also tightens the restrictions on the detainees being transferred to other countries. The fiscal year NDAA also included language preventing closure of Gitmo through December 31, 2016. However, this has not prevented President Obama from trying to empty Gitmo and releasing these terrorist detainees to any country he can pay to take them back and now threatening an Executive order to bring them to the United States--to the States of Colorado, South Carolina, and Kansas--against the will of the Senators from those States, the House Members from those States, and the American people. This is not the first time the President has gone against the will of the American people and violated our laws. The President violated the law last June when he transferred the Taliban Five from Gitmo in exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl, and my colleagues will remember that issue. He failed to notify Congress. The laws we passed said they had to notify Congress 30 days in advance of any transfer of terrorists to any facility. His failure to adhere to the law he signed placed our Nation's security at great risk. Let me just mention--I carry this with me. If people realize whom he turned loose, the Taliban Five--this is a statement that was made by the Taliban commander. His name is Mullah Khan. He was talking about Mohammad Fazl. Keep in mind he was arguably the most dangerous person-- terrorist--who was being held in Gitmo. He said: His return is like pouring 10,000 Taliban fighters into the battle on the side of jihad. Now the Taliban have the right lion to lead them in the final moment before victory in Afghanistan. These are the kinds of people he is turning loose. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 29 percent of the detainees transferred out of Gitmo have either been confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight and killing Americans. That is how serious this is. Gitmo is outside the sovereign territory of the United States, which means detainees held there do not have constitutional rights. But if we put them back in the United States, it is very likely they would have those rights. I have a quote from former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who said: The question of what constitutional rights may apply to aliens in government custody is unsettled, but it is clear from existing jurisprudence that physical presence in the United States would be a significant, if not a decisive, factor. I am also concerned about the security of the people here who would have to guard these terrorists. Back when a Thomson, IL, prison was discussed--that was in 2009-- Representative Mark Kirk--at that time he was in the House; that was before he was in the Senate--called the move ``an unnecessary risk,'' and other Illinois Members were concerned that the transfer of prisoners--some for trial and some for indefinite detention--could make the State a target for terrorists. Mark Kirk was then and is now correct that prisons holding these detainees will become magnets, and there is the very real possibility that these detainees would recruit more terrorists. We have to keep in mind that a terrorist is not a criminal. A terrorist is someone who trains other people to be terrorists, and that is what we would be seeing happening in our courts. FBI Director Robert Mueller said there is the very real possibility that Gitmo detainees will recruit more terrorists from among the Federal inmate population and continue Al Qaeda operations from outside the country. I have been to Gitmo several times, as has the occupier of the chair. It is a state-of-the-art facility that provides humane treatment for all detainees. When I was there, the biggest problem they had with the detainees was that they were overweight. They are all obese because they are eating so well. It is fully in compliance with the Geneva Convention and provides treatment and oversight that exceed any maximum security prison in the world, as tested by human rights organizations such as the Red Cross, Attorney General Holder, and an independent commission led by Admiral Walsh. It is a secure location away from population centers, and it has a $12 million expeditionary legal complex. That is a courtroom. We can't use our courtrooms because of the confidentiality of information that is extracted from these individuals and used in the courtroom, so they use the expeditionary legal complex. The last thing I would say is that it is clear that--and this comes from former CIA Director Leon Panetta. He was talking about the fact that our President--talking about the way they were able to get the bad guy, and what they have refused to understand is the information they extracted at Gitmo was used to actually capture Osama bin Laden. Anyway, we don't want that to happen, we can't afford to let that happen, and we are going to do everything we can to keep the President from making that happen. This has become an obsession of his, and we are not going to let that happen. Burundi Lastly, I do want to mention that on this whole issue in Burundi right now, we have to understand in this country that there are other nations that have their own systems of government. They are the ones that have their elections. In this case, I happened to be there in Burundi when the court declared that the incumbent President, Nkurunziza, was qualified to run again, even though they have a term limit. The first term was not a complete term, so that didn't count, according to the court. For us to come in afterward and say ``Well, we think the court was wrong, we don't think he is qualified to run, and we are going to withhold things from that country'' is something we should not be doing in this country. I can assure my colleagues that the six Members who went with me over there were all on the scene and agreed that Nkurunziza should be legitimately elected, and we should stay out of their business. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

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