Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the senior Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, who serves as the cochair of the Senate Army Caucus, together with the members of the caucus, I proudly wish to pay tribute to the Honorable John M. McHugh, former Member of the House of Representatives, colleague, friend, and inspirational leader as he leaves his current post as one of the longest serving Secretaries of the Army in U.S. history. To say this patriot has faithfully served his country is an understatement. After over 42 years of public service, John leaves our Army, our Nation, and our world both safer and more secure. Moreover, his tireless advocacy and bold leadership for our soldiers, civilians, and their family members are legendary. From improvements in family and mental health programs to unprecedented strides in combating sexual assault and suicide, John M. McHugh has truly earned the oft-stated moniker of ``The Soldier's Secretary.'' Raised in Watertown, NY, John served as assistant city manager and went on to serve four terms in the New York State Senate. From there, this great leader was asked to run for Congress, ultimately representing his district in the House of Representatives for nearly 17 years, and rising to be the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. As Congressman McHugh demonstrated repeatedly, it takes thoughtful, determined, and visionary leadership to ensure the security of our Nation. As a Representative of the 24th and later the 23rd District of New York, which includes one of our most important Army posts, Fort Drum, John ensured that cutting-edge facilities and programs supported our warfighters. To say that Fort Drum is the ``House that McHugh Built'' is very apropos. From MILCON projects to weapons systems, the soldiers, civilians, and families of that historic post were always cared for and supported, and John ensured that the 10th Mountain Division had all of the tools it needed to be at the tip of the spear of our Nation's defense. Moreover, his exceptional work as the cochair of the Army Caucus for over 15 years and as a critical member of the West Point board of visitors was instrumental in improving Congress's understanding of the Army's needs. During his tenure as the second-longest serving Secretary of the Army, John M. McHugh has been at the very forefront of national military strategy, policy, and programs. His expert leadership, bold initiatives, and pragmatic management of the oldest and largest military service has ensured that our Army remains the finest fighting force the world has ever known. And it has been no easy task. John presided over some of the toughest missions the Army has ever faced. From overseeing one of the largest retrogrades in military history; while holding the Army together as it was hit by sequestration; to reorganizing, revamping, and restructuring our force, while our soldiers conducted combat operations around the world, Secretary McHugh led with distinction and results. Of particular note, John's determination, devotion, and love of our servicemembers ensured that our most sacred and hallowed ground, Arlington National Cemetery, overcame years of neglect and transformed its management and oversight. With profound admiration and deep respect, we pay tribute to Secretary McHugh for all he has done for our Nation. We thank him for his dedication and sacrifice. We wish him all the fullest measure of peace and happiness as he boldly takes on new challenges in the next phase of his life.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it has been a long day. We have heard about everything that can be heard from a lot of different people, and I have come to some conclusions that there are some things that are incontrovertible after hearing both sides of the debate all day long. There are six things we should be looking at. I will quickly summarize these. I think it is kind of a good wrapup. There are six things. First of all, this deal rewards and legitimizes Iran for violating international laws and treaties and United Nations Security Council resolutions. I say it rewards and legitimizes. The second thing it does is it rewards Iran with $100 billion dollars. You heard it today. That could be a floating figure. We are not sure just how much it is, but we do know this: what they do with their money is to expand their influence with terrorist organizations. The third thing is it places the Middle East on the brink of a new arms race. This is something we have heard from others for quite some time, and now we already have some countries coming forward with what their intentions are. The fourth thing is it fails to dismantle Iran's enrichment infrastructure. That has been stated by a lot of people. No one really is denying that. And fifth, it places no restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program. You have to keep in mind we have been talking about bombs all day, but you have to deliver the bombs to make them effective. That is when the missile program comes into play. And sixth--and I think it is most important--there is, in my opinion, no verification at all. I would like to summarize all of that real quickly. In speaking about the fact that the agreement rewards and legitimizes Iran's violations, keep in mind they have violated almost every international law or treaty or United Nations Security Council resolution. The Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, for developing nuclear weapons-- they have violated that. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has to do with the freedom of expression, the freedom of religion, freedom from discrimination, and freedom from torture--they have violated that. The International Convention against the Taking of Hostages--several people have mentioned today--I think the junior Senator from Georgia asked: What about the four hostages who are over there? I would carry that one step further. One of the hostages is an FBI agent named Robert Levinson. Robert Levinson now holds the record of having been held hostage longer than anyone else in history, and he is still there. He is still there at a time we are in this process. The U.N. security resolutions on access to nuclear facilities--they have violated that. I think everyone knows that. Iran has shown from time to time they can't be trusted. The Director General of the IAEA has said Iran has consistently failed to provide information or access needed to allay the IAEA's concerns about the weapons potential. So that is the first thing. The second thing is rewarding the world's leading sponsor of terrorism. The United States does not normally negotiate with terrorists. This is something I have heard for many, many years, as long as I have been here, until now. Iran remains the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, as we have heard all day today. According to the State Department's ``2009 Country Reports on Terrorism,'' they have provided training and weapons to the Taliban fighting our forces in Afghanistan. Iranian IEDs have killed U.S. troops in Iraq. They have paid the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill U.S. troops. Iran supports Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Assad in Syria. I had occasion to be in the Persian Gulf on the USS Carl Vinson just a few weeks ago. It was during the negotiations. There I was in the Persian Gulf at the same time an Iranian ship was taking weapons down to Yemen to kill Americans. That was while we were negotiating. Iran is bankrolling the slaughter of tens of thousands of Syrians and has publicly committed to the annihilation of the State of Israel and has called for ``Death to America'' while we are in the middle of negotiations. General Austin, the commander of the U.S. Central Command, made the statement--and I was there when he made this statement--that ``Iran represents the most significant threat to the central region . . . Iran continues to pursue policies that threaten U.S. strategic interests and goals throughout the Middle East.'' As was stated by my good friend before me, even Susan Rice, who would do almost anything the President asks, has said we can expect some of this money--this $100 billion dollars or whatever the amount ends up being--is going to be used to fortify their terrorist friends. So we can only conclude the financial windfall estimated to be over $100 billion will be used to fortify more terrorism. The third point I think was made today is--and these are the six I think have become incontrovertible--this agreement places the Middle East on the brink of a new arms race. Dr. Kissinger, who testified before our committee--the Armed Services Committee just the other day--when testifying regarding the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran, said, ``The impact of this approach will be to move from preventing proliferation to managing it.'' We all recall last month, when Prime Minister Netanyahu warned us and said, ``The deal that was supposed to end nuclear proliferation will actually trigger nuclear proliferation. It will trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.'' Saudi Arabia has been talking recently about possibly being the first to jump in there on this new program, so we can expect that to happen. We know it is going to happen. The fourth thing is, the agreement fails to dismantle Iran's enrichment infrastructure. I think that has been driven home by many people here. And it permits Iran to retain its enrichment infrastructure, including advanced centrifuges and continued development of its enrichment technology. That is something that is now pretty much agreed to. Fifth, and next to last, is it places no restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile development. People have not talked much on the floor about this fact. They have talked about the bomb, but there has to be a delivery system before the bomb can be effective. I can remember in 2007 that our unclassified intelligence report said that by 2015 Iran would have the bomb and a delivery system. Well, here it is 2015, and they weren't that far off. So we know what the capability is out there, what they are planning on doing, and the U.S. intelligence assesses--this is the quote and this is very significant-- ``that Iran's ballistic missiles are inherently capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction and that Iran's program on space launch vehicles improves Tehran's ability to develop longer range missiles, including an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).'' What no one has mentioned on this thing is we made an arrangement in the previous administration knowing that Iran was going to have this capability. We have some 30 ground-based interceptors, but they are all on the West Coast, because we thought that was where it was going to have to come from. But guess what. All of a sudden Iran is going to be coming from the other direction. Well, the first thing this President did when he took office was to do away with our commitment. We had an arrangement with the Czech Republic to have a ground-based interceptor there. I remember so well that one of the best friends we have over there made the statement: Are you sure if we enrage Russia by having this system that you are not going to pull the rug out from under us? I said: Absolutely. That was Vaclav Klaus, one of our best friends over there. I said: Absolutely. Of course, that is what the President did. Now we have that same problem with the delivery system. The last thing I think is most important--and I may be the only Member of the Senate who believes this, but I look at this and I go back home. A lot of times you don't find the wisdom here in Washington; you have to go back home. Certainly over this past month, being around my State of Oklahoma, people have asked the question: Well, wait a minute, if they have all this time once accused of something or if the IAEA should say ``We believe they are making a bomb in a certain location''--once they do that, if they have the ability under this deal to delay that not just 24 hours, not just 24 days, but they can go on and delay it for two additional periods by applying to the joint commission for 15 days and then the Minister of Foreign Affairs for 15 days--that is 54 days. I suggest we stop and think about that. If we know somebody has something, but they have 54 days to either destroy it or hide it or put it someplace else, they are going to do it. So my people in Oklahoma say there just isn't any kind of verification. And we all remember what Ronald Reagan said: ``Trust, but verify.'' These pages are too young to remember what happened with the Soviet Union and all those problems, but clearly that was the major concern at that time. So this is the situation that was pointed out way back during the joint presentation of the House and the Senate by Netanyahu. If he would just change his registration, I would love it if he would run for President of the United States. He is the kind of guy we need. He made the statement at that time that no deal is going to be better than the bad deal that is on the table. I believe that is true. I had occasion to publish an op-ed last week in the Wall Street Journal urging States to hold fast to their sanctions on Iran. Even if they consider strengthening and expanding those sanctions, here is the thing people don't understand. The reason the President gets by with not calling this a treaty that would have to be confirmed and verified by this body is that it is dealing with the States and not the Federal Government. So my hope is that many other States will be doing what we are doing in the State of Oklahoma and holding on to our sanctions and not releasing any of them. I think that could certainly be, if this thing becomes a reality, one of the few things we can do. I will end with a quote from then President Bill Clinton in 1994. I remember this because I was there, and I heard him make this statement. After the deal with North Korea, this is what he said: This is a good deal for the United States. North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons. The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments. Two decades later, the Defense Intelligence Agency announced that it had ``moderate confidence'' that North Korea has a nuclear weapon small enough to be placed on a ballistic missile. So that is what is going on. In today's New York Times--I don't know how anyone can take them seriously when we have the guy who is the real boss over there--the Ayatollah Khamenei, talking about Israel, said: I'm telling you first, you will not be around in 25 years. We will annihilate you in that period of time. Then he talked about the United States. He said: Iranians must not forget the United States is the Great Satan. Ayatollah Khamenei warned, criticizing those calling for better relations, wanting to show this Satan as an angel, but the Iranian nation has pushed this Satan out. We should not allow it to sneak back in through the window. These are the guys we are negotiating with. With that, I would say this is not a treaty, it is not a deal, it is surrender. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my cochair of the Army Caucus, the senior Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, I rise today to honor GEN Raymond T. Odierno, the 38th Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, and one of our Nation's finest military officers. General Odierno will retire from Active military duty in August 2015, bringing to a close 39 years of distinguished service to our great Nation. In 1976, General Odierno was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Field Artillery upon graduation from the United States Military Academy at West Point. He commanded units at every echelon, from platoon to theater, with duty in Germany, Albania, Kuwait, Iraq, and the United States. General Odierno deployed in support of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm; commanded the 4th Infantry Division during Operation Iraqi Freedom from April 2003 to March 2004; served as the commanding general, Multi-National Corps-- Iraq, III Corps, from 2006 to 2008; and later served as the commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq and subsequently United States Forces--Iraq, from 2008 until 2010. General Odierno went on to serve as the commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command from 2010 to 2011, where he led the development and integration of joint capabilities in support of combatant command requirements around the world., On September 7, 2011, General Odierno became the 38th Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. Since assuming this position, General Odierno's leadership and commitment to his soldiers, to the Army, and to the Nation have significantly contributed to the U.S. Army being the most highly trained and professional land force in the world. General Odierno developed and implemented the U.S. Army's vision establishing a path for the Army of 2025 and beyond. He envisioned how future Army forces would prevent conflict, shape security environments, and win wars. He ensured that we possessed the capability and capacity to provide globally responsive and regionally aligned forces, as well as expeditionary and decisive land-power across the range of military operations in defense of our Nation at home and abroad, both today and against emerging threats. But the one thing that remained constant was General Odierno's tireless commitment to soldiers and their families. He built leaders capable of navigating the complex challenges of the world we face today and cared for our families by focusing on keeping the total Army-- soldiers, families, and civilians alike--healthy, ready, resilient, and total Army strong. General Odierno is an exceptional leader, an American patriot committed to our Army and Nation, but most importantly, General Odierno is a great man of character. It is for GEN Ray Odierno, a soldier, leader, and selfless servant, whom we with profound admiration and deep respect pay tribute to for all he has done for the U.S. Army and our Nation. We thank General Odierno, his wife Linda, and his three children, Tony, Katie, and Mike, for their dedication and sacrifice, and we wish them well in the years to come.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today on behalf of Senator Lankford and myself, we are pleased to congratulate Lt. Gen. Bruce A. Litchfield upon the completion of his career of service in the U.S. Air Force. Throughout his 34-year military career, Lieutenant General Litchfield served with distinction and dedication, ultimately becoming the commander of the Air Force Sustainment Center at Tinker Air Force Base, OK, responsible for providing operational planning and execution of Air Force Supply Chain Management and Depot Maintenance for a wide range of aircraft, engines, missiles, and component items in support of Air Force Materiel Command missions. From his command in Oklahoma, he was responsible for operations which spanned 3 air logistics complexes, 3 air base wings, 2 supply chain management wings, and multiple remote operating locations, incorporating more than 32,000 military and civilian personnel. Finally, he oversaw installation support to more than 75,000 personnel working in 140 associate units at the 3 sustainment center bases. In July 2012, General Litchfield became the first commander of the newly established Air Force Sustainment Center in Oklahoma. During his command, he returned over $1.5 billion back to the Air Force, and ultimately the taxpayer, through comprehensive initiatives like the AFSC Way and Cost Effective Readiness. General Litchfield entered the Air Force in 1981 as a distinguished graduate from the Reserve Officer Training Corps program at Norwich University in Vermont. During his distinguished career, Lieutenant General Litchfield commanded at the squadron and group levels in addition to commanding two wings, and was the director of logistics, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces, Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii. He spent the last 6 years in the great State of Oklahoma at Tinker Air Force Base as commander of the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, as well as commander of the Air Force Sustainment Center. General Litchfield earned military awards to include the Defense Service Medal, Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with four oak leaf clusters, the Air Force Commendation Medal, and the Air Force Achievement Medal as well as other service awards. Under General Litchfield's command, the Air Force Sustainment Center earned two of the prestigious Department of Defense Maintenance Effectiveness Awards, as well as the Outstanding Unit Award. General Litchfield led the successful reorganization and standup of the Air Force Sustainment Center, placing command and control of depot maintenance, supply chain and associate air base wing support under one command chain of command at Tinker Air Force Base, OK. His proactive leadership incorporated a revolutionary leadership model and governance process that drove rapid culture change and is currently under review by multiple universities as the example of success for government and industry. General Litchfield, his wife Linda, and children Matthew and Jennifer have made many sacrifices during his Air Force career, and we appreciate their contributions of conscientious service to our country. His family and his fellow airmen can be proud of his service. As he departs the Air Force to start the next part of his journey, I call upon my colleagues to wish Bruce and his family every success. It is our pleasure to recognize him at the conclusion of a distinguished career of service to the Air Force and to the United States of America.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, just one quick comment before Senator Boxer makes some remarks. We have talked about this. We have talked about the significance of the upcoming vote. I just want to reemphasize to my conservative colleagues on the Republican side that this is something which is a conservative position. The only alternative to this is short-term extensions, which cost about 30 percent off the top. So let's do in this vote what the Constitution tells us to do and take care of one of the two assignments that are given to us in article I, section 8 of the Constitution; that is, roads and highways. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator for raising this issue and for his commitment to helping to pass a long-term surface transportation bill. The Senator is correct about the time constraints the Senate is under, as we must pass this bill before July 31. Unfortunately, that means we have been unable to include many worthy provisions in the DRIVE Act, such as his amendment, which I support as a means of improving the efficient delivery of Federal taxpayer dollars. I share the Senator's enthusiasm for fostering the use of private sector expertise in transportation construction. While this expertise is useful at all times, it is particularly useful in the aftermath of natural disasters, when a State must act quickly to rebuild its infrastructure. This is something we are very familiar with in my home State of Oklahoma. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his leadership on this issue and he has my commitment that I will work with the Senator on this matter during our bipartisan conference negotiations with the House.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do appreciate the comments from the Senator from Nevada. It is a reminder that a lot of people think almost all of this act is from the Environment and Public Works Committee. About 75 percent is, but we do have the commerce committee, we have the banking committee, and the other provisions. A lot of people have been working on this, not just our committee. I am glad we got a good vote yesterday. I think it is important that we have a strong vote because we certainly want to encourage the House--and I think the House will be taking up our bill. In fact, I think a lot of the staff people are working on that right now over on the other side. Anyway, the importance of this is significant. If we do not pass the DRIVE Act out of this Chamber, then what we are doing is reinforcing current law. What is current law? Current law is short-term extensions. That means it is the worst possible outcome. It means no big projects, for one thing. We spent yesterday--most of the day yesterday, our comments were on the big projects, the big bridges, and those things that need to be done. But the big projects--normally you are talking about between $700 million and $1.4 billion. They can't be done on short-term extensions. Logically, everybody knows that. They are not done. Our problem is, the last bill we passed was in 2005. It ran out in 2009. Since that time, it has been short-term extensions. So we have not gotten into any of the projects that have to be done. The tendency, I guess, to do the hard things, is to wait until something collapses and a bunch of people die, such as happened in Minnesota. That could have been done before. That was done in the 2005 act in my State of Oklahoma, however, not until after a young lady was driving her car under one of our bridges and a bunch of concrete fell off and killed her, the mother of three children. Why wait until a disaster occurs? The current law fails to provide the long-term certainties the States and cities are going to have to have on their big projects to get them off the ground. Current law funding has no growth, not even for inflation. The DRIVE Act provides growth in highway and transit programs to each State. The current law gives States and local governments no certainty. There have been 33 short-term extensions since the SAFETEA-LU bill was passed--that is 33. When you pass those extensions, as I said, it takes 30 percent off the top. Clearly, the conservative position is to have a long-term bill. You would not have the project delivery. The DRIVE Act eliminates the duplicative review and expands categorical exclusions. We cannot do that with short-term extensions. Transparency. That was a lot of work. What we don't want is, as we are spending money as the years go by and the months go by and the weeks go by--we have transparency built into this so people can have faith and know exactly what programs there are. Innovation. The DRIVE Act prepares our Nation's transportation system for the future by promoting innovation across all aspects of the program. The transportation system will be stuck in reverse if we stick with the current law. The current law, now this is what we have been doing since 2009. I think it is also worthwhile for us to keep in mind that there are some things I wanted in the bill that we could not get in. I wanted to change this 80-20 Federal match program. First of all, we had 60-40-- that was not acceptable--and 70-30. I have to admit it was not the Democrats; it was the Republicans who objected to that. Consequentially, we had to go ahead and go back to 80-20. If this legislation does not pass, then it is still going to be 80-20 because that is current law. So that would not change. Anyway, the freight section of this directs new funding toward freight transportation projects that provide the platform for our businesses to compete globally. The freight program sometimes does not get the attention. One of the good things about a transportation bill and the way we do this, and have done it historically, is we go to the States. I can assure you that the Arizona Transportation Department knows a lot more about what their needs are than we do in our infinite wisdom here in Washington. So they don't get as concerned about freight programs and freight expenditures because they do not directly benefit the particular State it goes through, but they benefit the entire country. We actually have a freight section in this that is very good. It hasn't been done before. I will go into greater detail about the new National Freight Program and what it means to America's economy. Today, the National Highway System carries more than 55 percent of the Nation's highway traffic and 97 percent of the truck freight traffic. Of the 4 million miles of public roads, the National Highway System represents only 5.5 percent. So what we are saying is, 5 percent of the roads out there transport 55 percent of the highway traffic and 97 percent of the freight traffic. Americans depend on the well-maintained National Highway System that provides a critical connection between the urban areas and the rural areas. American businesses pay and estimate $27 billion a year in extra freight transportation costs due to the poor condition of the public roads, which increases shipping delays and raises prices on everyday products. Recognizing that this is the foundation for the Nation's economy and the key to the national ability to compete in a global economy, it is essential that we focus efforts to improve freight movement on the National Highway System. The DRIVE Act includes two new programs to help the States deliver projects and promote the safety in that delivery. The bipartisan freight program levies its Federal investment by encouraging public- private partnerships and other creative financing approaches. It also will create the first-ever freight-specific investment program, prioritizing investment in our commerce-moving network. The first new program is the National Freight Program. It is distributed by a formula that will provide funds to all States to enhance the movement of goods that go through their State. This is something, as I have said, that has not been done before, and I haven't heard any objection. In fact, this isn't just State specific because this goes to the whole Nation, and so it is very popular. The program expands the flexibility for both rural and urban areas to designate key freight corridors, and it will help identify projects with a higher return on investment. The second program that is new is the Assistance for Major Projects Program. It creates a competitive grant program to provide funds for the major projects. This is what we have been talking about the past several days, the very large projects that can't be done with short- term extensions. They are just neglected. These new freight programs will only exist with the passage of the DRIVE Act, when it is enacted by Congress. It is time for us to become innovative and forward-thinking in how the Federal Government is using taxpayer dollars. In talking about this type of program for States to improve the National Highway System, the DRIVE Act is the answer. It directly helps to relieve the freight bottlenecks around the country. This is a chart of Chicago I-290, I-90, and I-94, the three intersections. This goes between those three. Look at it. It is all of these. I haven't even counted the lanes. Traffic is stopped, and it is just one of the congestions. When this happens, the average speed in this case is 29 miles an hour. In the morning and evening rush hour, it is 20 miles an hour. Then it talks about all of the pollution that is there. People are idling their engines while they are waiting in traffic. There is a very similar situation in Houston, TX, the I-45. I have been on this one quite often, quite a few times. It is I-45 at U.S. 59. If you look at the chart, it is home to five of the top freight bottlenecks in the Nation. Texas is home to nine of them. The overall cost in conjunction with this to individuals in Texas is $671 million annually and 8.8 million hours of delay. The I-45 is ranked third by the congestion index. We have an index, and people know how bad it is and how it compares to other States. That is why this has been so popular. I-45 at U.S. 610 is ranked 15th. The average speed is below 39 miles an hour. For morning and evening traffic, of course, it is much less than that. Fort Lee, NJ, I-95. Anyone who is in Washington and wants to go anyplace on the north coast--New York, Connecticut, and on up--they have to go all the way up on I-95. This particular intersection, which is in Fort Lee--this is the George Washington Bridge. It connects Fort Lee, NJ, to New York City. By congestion index, it is the second worst freight bottleneck in the Nation. The average speed is 29 miles an hour. I have been on that one before, and it is a very old bridge. When you drive over it, you worry about whether you are going to make it. The George Washington Bridge is the world's busiest motor vehicle bridge, carrying over 106 million cars a year. The DRIVE Act, with the newly formed freight program, will make targeted investments in the infrastructure critical to moving commerce and alleviating these bottlenecks I just mentioned. These new programs invest in the infrastructure needed to move goods across the Nation. When you look at the corridors and you look at the bridges--we actually had one presentation where we went over the 20 busiest of all the traffic-congested areas in the country. We are going to have a vote in 40 minutes. It is going to be one of the most critical votes of the year. I have no doubt that it is going to pass. But I wanted to send the signal across America, to the House of Representatives, and to everyone else that we really care about infrastructure. I repeat--I feel compelled to do so--there are a lot of people who don't realize that the conservative position is to vote for a long-term infrastructure bill because it costs about 30 percent off the top--and that is a figure no one has debated, no one has talked about--if you do it piecemeal with short-term extensions, along with not getting this. The other thing is, we have that old document nobody reads anymore; it is called the Constitution. If you look up article I, section 8, it says--you know, we do a lot of things around this Chamber that our forefathers never envisioned. They said what we ought to be doing--and it says so right in the Constitution--is two things: defend America, and roads and bridges. Well, that was foreseen by Dwight Eisenhower. I have here in the Chamber a picture of Dwight Eisenhower. Many of us who are old enough to remember or those of us who have studied World War II know what a hero this guy was when he came in as President of the United States. He wanted the first national system to be primarily for defense, for defending our Nation. He said: Yes, it will help the economy. Here is the quote he makes. He talks about how this will be helpful to the economy. We all know that. There will be jobs, and people will be put back to work. But he also said-- this was after World War II--that we have to move our goods and services around this country to defend this Nation. I kind of have a dual role in this. The two major committees that I have--and I have served as the ranking member on both of them--are the defense committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee--and so I am very sensitive to the fact that there is a defense component to this bill we are going to be voting on today--as well as chairing the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This is what he said back then. He said it is for defense purposes and it is something we have to have so that it goes in a uniform way across the Nation, not just for defense but for our economy. I would make one comment. You hear people say, and I used to say it myself-- they talk about the program called devolution. Devolution is what a lot of people have looked at, and it sounds so good on the stump. Confession is good for the soul. I remember when I was the father of devolution, along with Connie Mack from Florida when we were both serving in the House. What that says is you repeal the Federal highway taxes and then you make them local taxes, you make them State taxes so the States are participating. But there are two problems with that. One is, how do you get a uniform program across the country? Take Wyoming, for example. If they repeal their Federal tax, in order to make up for it, since there are very few people in Wyoming but there are a lot of roads, they would have to pass a 48-cent tax increase. That is not going to happen. Devolution is based on the assumption that all States will pass a tax increase, and that isn't going to happen. So that is the other reason we really need to have this, and we will. We are going to pass this bill. I think in the final analysis the House will too. I will share with you, I say to the Presiding Officer, that when we had our last bill, it wasn't all that good. It was only a 27-month bill. I can remember going over there, after we passed that on the floor of the Senate, and I requested an audience with the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee at the House, with the Republicans because there were a lot of them who were tea party Republicans, a lot of conservatives. I explained to them the same thing I just went over--the constitutional aspect of it as well as the cost of it and the fact that you cannot get projects done if you continue to do short-term extensions. When this came up in the House, every one of the 33 Republicans--all 33 of them--voted for it. I think that is what gives me confidence that when they see that there is a bill that we have passed out of this Chamber--you know, I was disappointed that the House was only going to be in session until Thursday; that is today. But they left last night; they moved it up a day. And I am not saying they did that so they wouldn't have to make a decision on this bill, but nonetheless that did happen. I understand there are other Senators who wish to speak before the vote, and I certainly want to give them the opportunity. So I will conclude by saying that this is arguably one of the most important votes we will have. We are doing what the Constitution tells us to do. We are going to pass it, and it is going to happen. I know there are two Members--one from the majority and one from the minority--who wish to speak. I think the majority leader will be coming in a matter of minutes too. So we do have several who want to be heard on this bill. I think it is worth stating that 75 percent of the bill is in the Committee on Environment and Public Works. That is the committee I chair. When we developed this bill, we developed it over a period of time. They took about 4 months, and we worked on it. We took amendments, and we had major changes. In fact, I can remember going to the Republican conference and saying: If you have amendments, before this is passed out of our committee and goes to the floor, I think it is important for you to get your amendments in so we can make them a part of the bill and then later on part of the managers' package. Well, the managers' package didn't work as we wanted it to, and everyone knows there are problems that caused that. But we argued. We discussed this bill. We put it together for about 4 months in the committee. On June 24, we passed that out of the committee unanimously. All 20 members of the Environment and Public Works Committee--all Democrats, all Republicans--all voted for it. That doesn't happen very often. The ranking member, the ranking Democrat on the committee is Senator Boxer from California. Senator Boxer and I don't agree on very much, but we do agree on this. I mean, she is a very proud liberal, and I am a very proud conservative. What we have in common is this bill; that is about it. As soon as this bill is over--I was joking with a group this morning--I said then we will go back to fighting again. Maybe that is more fun. But with all of the problems we have in this country right now, a lot of people don't realize that one of the greatest problems is the overregulation by the bureaucracies, the unelected bureaucracies. We have watched that coming. We have seen it particularly in this administration. Just look at what the EPA is doing to harm businesses that are trying to do the American thing and hire people out there. We have all of these regulations that are coming online. We have the water regulations. This is kind of interesting because historically the regulations over water have always been a State function, with the exception of navigable waters. Well, I understand that. I think everyone else understands that. But there are always the collectivists, the liberals who want to bring all of that power into Washington and take it away from the States. In my State of Oklahoma, we do a lot better job than the Federal Government does, so we have been in a position to be able to continue to have that regulation of water as a State function. About 5 years ago, Senator Feingold in the Senate and Congressman Oberstar--they are from Wisconsin and Minnesota--introduced a bill to take the word ``navigable'' out, which means then the Federal Government would have regulation over all the waters. We have areas in Oklahoma that are very arid. The other day, I was out in the panhandle, Boise City. You don't get anyplace drier than Boise City, OK. I was out there and I told them that if the Federal Government were doing this, they would probably find the time after a rain to declare the panhandle of Oklahoma a wetland because that is what they do. They want power. They want to expand their authority. Anyway, they had this bill, and not only did we defeat the legislation to take the word ``navigable'' out, but we also defeated both the Senator and the House Member who were the sponsors. I see my good friend from New York has arrived. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I know the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, and I both want to thank a lot of people who worked very hard. People don't realize how many people are involved. Quite frankly, a little bit of guilt always comes to me, because this is my sixth highway reauthorization bill, and it always ends up that I don't work as long as all the staff works. They are up many nights until midnight and many nights all night long. This was a good bill. It was tough doing it. From this point forward, we have the opportunity to send it to the House. I have already had communication with some of the House Members who do want a multiyear bill. The staffs are working together as we speak to pull it together so we can pass one and get out of this long string of short-term extensions. They don't serve any useful purpose. I wish to mention the names and to get them in the Record of those people who really put in the long hours. In my office is Alex Herrgott. He has been with me--we have been together, I guess--over a dozen years. He is the leader on our side. He put together a great team, including Shant Boyajian, who is the guy who was the transportation expert on our end, and he did a great job. We have had others just about as good as he is in the past, but they all sweat. This guy doesn't do it. He does it with a smile on his face. We have Chaya Koffman. She came with incredible experience. We couldn't have done it without her. It is equally important to thank David Napoliello and Andrew Dohrman. David and Andrew work for Senator Boxer and are experts within the office, working on this alongside our staff. It is kind of interesting because Senator Boxer and I can't get any further apart philosophically. She is a very proud liberal, and I am a very proud conservative. We would be fighting like cats and dogs over these regulations that are putting Americans out of business. But, today, we think alike, and we are working together. I am so proud of her staff working with my staff. Bettina. There is Bettina, and she is probably the No. 1 hard working person, sitting in the back here on that side, and whom we really appreciate. Some days I don't appreciate her, but I have all during this process. So many others have made contributions to the success today. It is important to thank on my staff Susan Bodine, for her work on environmental provisions, and also Jennie Wright and Andrew Neely. I wish to thank my communications team, including Donelle Harder, Daisy Letendre, and Kristina Baum. They have to get the message out as to what we are doing, how significant it is. People who are witnessing this today are witnessing the most popular bill of this entire year. We can go back to any of the 50 States, and they are all going to say the one thing we want is a transportation system. It is not just that they want this bill. This is what the Constitution says we are supposed to be doing. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says to defend America and provide for roads and bridges, and that is what we accomplished today. There are some others outside of our committee I want to thank: Chairman Hatch, Chairman Thune, Chairman Shelby, and their staffs, including Chris Campbell, Mark Prater, David Schweitert, Shannon Hines, and Jen Deci. I want to thank our leader, Mitch McConnell, who really came through to put this at top priority. Without that priority, we couldn't have done it. I know Sharon Soderstrom, Hazen Marshall, Neil Chatterjee, Jonathan Burks, and Brendan Dunn were all involved. If my colleagues would just permit me, 10 years ago today is the last time we passed a significant, multiyear bill. I remember standing right here at this podium, right when this moment came, and it was time to thank all of these people who worked so hard. All of a sudden the sirens went off and the buzzers--evacuate, evacuate; bomb, bomb. Everyone left, but I hadn't made my speech yet. So I stood there and made it longer than I probably should have. There is nothing more eerie than standing here in the Chamber when nobody else is here and everybody else is gone. After a while, I thought that I had better get out of here. As I walked out the front door and down the long steps--they had already shut off the elevators and all of that; it was dark--I saw a bulk of a man walking away very slowly. I saw that it was Ted Kennedy. I said: Ted, we better get out of here; this place might blow up. He said: Well, these old legs don't work like they used to. So I said: Here, put your arm around my shoulders. And I put my arm out to steady him. Someone took our picture. It was in a magazine, and it said: Who said that Republicans are not compassionate. I always think of that when I think of these bills. I say to my friend, Senator Boxer, with whom I have worked so closely during this time--and I actually enjoyed it: Any time we get a coalition between your philosophy and my philosophy, it has to be right. It was, and it is over. I yield the floor to Senator Boxer.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Impact of the U.S. Tax Code on the Market for Corporate Control and Jobs.''

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Sanctions and the JCPOA.''

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2015, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2015, at 12:10 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I had some time reserved, and I am halfway through that time now. So I will talk a little faster than usual because we have an Armed Services meeting right now, and we are trying get to the bottom of this side agreement that was apparently made with Iran. I wish to applaud the Senate for taking another step, and that is what we are going to be doing in just a few minutes with the DRIVE Act in Congress with these votes, and tomorrow we expect to see a final vote for passage so we can send it to the House. This will be my sixth reauthorization over the past number of years. These bills are all about compromise. It is hard to do. There are a lot of Members of this body who didn't think they got what they wanted in this bill, and I have to say that I didn't get what I wanted. I suspect that the occupier of the chair didn't get what he wanted, and Senator Boxer didn't get what she wanted. That is not the way this works because this is a bill to get us away from the short-term extensions. It has been obvious that Members of this body are opposed to moving to a 6-year reauthorization bill and are willing to use any procedural means to slow it down, and that is what happened. If we had not dragged on yesterday, and if we had yielded back some of the time, we could have had these votes that we are about to have now yesterday. If we had done that, we could have final passage today, and it would be sent over to the House before they leave. They are going to leave. That doesn't mean that this is not important. What we are doing today and tomorrow is passing this bill. Even though the House is going home, they all agree that we need a good, long-term bill as soon as they get back. That is why we have a motion before us for a short-term delay--so they will have time to do it. We will have a good bill for them. We have worked on it for several months. It passed out of committee unanimously. Every Republican and every Democrat voted for it. We will have a chance to do that. Also, I have State sheets on every State. I can read off how every State benefits from this 6-year reauthorization bill. All you have to do is talk to the Governors, mayors, and the departments of transportation across the country. They fully expected Congress only to deliver piecemeal extensions, as we have in the past. We have to keep in mind that the last reauthorization bill that we had was in 2005. I remember that vividly because I was the author of the bill. When we passed it, everyone rejoiced. Yesterday the Senator from Minnesota was talking about the tragedy of the fallen bridge in Minnesota, where 13 people died. I told the story about how a bridge in Oklahoma City had a chunk of concrete fall off of it and hit a mother of three children and kill her. You don't want to wait until this happens. We have bridges in this country--and we have talked about each one of them on the Senate floor during the discussion on this bill--that are deteriorating, and we have to do something about it. If any Member or the staff of any Member--I know the staffs are all watching right now. We have every State listed on these sheets, and it shows what they will have and how they will benefit from the DRIVE Act, which will be before us in a moment. If we don't do it, there are consequences, and I have to remind everyone of that today as we approach a shutdown of the transit programs. I urge my colleagues to join in voting yes on this procedural hurdle today. If you vote no, you are reinforcing current laws and extensions, which is the worst possible outcome. One area deals with big projects. We cannot do big projects with 3- month, 4-month or even 1-year extensions. We have gone through 33 short-term extensions since the SAFETEA-LU bill was passed.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 5 additional minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. We have the problem of not having any of the big projects, and everyone knows that is a problem. The reason big projects can't be done is due to the costs. But a study has been done by Gary Ridley, who is one of the foremost authorities nationwide on this subject, and in that study he came to the conclusion that it costs an additional 30 percent off the top to do short-term extensions. If there is anyone who is a conservative and wants to take the conservative position on this issue, the conservative position is to vote for a long-term reauthorization bill, and that is what is before us now. The current funding has no growth--not even for inflation. The DRIVE Act provides growth in the highway and transit systems in each State. For those who are interested, we have all of this listed State by State. The current law gives States and local governments no certainty. However, the certainty is there in the DRIVE Act. So we have every reason to do this. Project delivery. We are going to be able to deliver the projects. We can't even start the projects on short-term extensions. Freight. We have a freight section. We have never had a freight section before for moving freight across the country. Transparency. Everything is there so that everyone can see every nickel that is used. This is the most transparent of all of the reauthorizations we have had. Lastly, innovation. The DRIVE Act prepares our transportation system for the future. That is why it is so important that we get to it today. I compliment the leaders for moving us forward and making every effort to get this done before the House goes home. This will give them a good start on what to do during the recess. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have all been disturbed--just really outraged--about the things that have come from Planned Parenthood recently. We have seen the videos exposing their casual disregard of human life. It is unconscionable. It is very sad. We have known this for a long time. The junior Senator, Mr. Lankford, back when he was in the House of Representatives was introducing bills to defund Planned Parenthood, and that was before the most recent events that have happened. The Center For Medical Progress spent 3 years investigating Planned Parenthood and produced at least three videos revealing what appears to be an intentional and illegal harvesting of body parts from aborted babies. There are countries such as China that condone killing children, but our Nation should not be condoning the act of killing our own children or allowing these corrupt organizations to sell body parts for profit. There was a book that was written that I remember very well entitled ``Modernizing China'' by Anthony Kubek. This was 30 years ago, when there was still a separation between China and Taiwan. They talked about at that time having a limit on how many babies people could have. They would go in and find out that there was one more child than they should have had, and they would take that baby and kill it. Of course, the harvesting of body parts was taking place there. That was China. This is America. It is hard to believe this could be happening. It is not about being pro-life or pro-choice anymore; it is about our country's moral conscience. If Planned Parenthood has either profited from selling aborted babies' organs or they have modified procedures used to conduct an abortion for the purposes of obtaining body parts, then they have broken the law. In fact, the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 states that ``no alteration of the timing, method or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy [may be] made solely for the purposes of obtaining tissue.'' That includes arms, legs, kidneys, and body parts, but this is exactly what Planned Parenthood has admitted to doing in these videos. The Federal law also states it is unlawful to sell human fetal tissue. Title 42 of the U.S. Code, section 289g-2(a) states: ``It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.'' Again, it is illegal. Based on the evidence in these videos, particularly with the Planned Parenthood employees haggling and negotiating over prices, joking about it, and using the income of the dead babies' body parts to buy a Lamborghini--some kind of automobile--it seems as if it is commonplace. There is a total disregard for the babies or what they were doing. My colleague Senator Ernst of Iowa and I, along with others in the Senate, wrote to the Department of Health and Human Services requesting answers to these questions. One thing that is important to note is that Planned Parenthood receives $1.4 million of taxpayers' money every day. It is unthinkable that they are being supported by the taxpayers in the United States, according to their 2013-2014 annual report. They received 528.4 million taxpayer dollars and then performed and profited from illegal and immoral actions taking the lives of innocent babies. This is so incredibly evil it is even hard to talk about. We are talking about women being manipulated into putting their health on the line for a government-funded organization to profit from harvesting their child's body. Vulnerable women are being coerced into having abortions and delaying the abortions until the baby has grown to the age within the womb that they would have fully developed body parts in order to sell. This is what is happening today. Planned Parenthood fights to keep mothers from seeing the human value of their babies with an ultrasound. They don't want the mother to hear the baby inside their womb with an ultrasound, but they will use the same technology to guide them to more valuable organs as they perform abortions for monetary gain. These actions deserve to be fully investigated. Crimes have been committed. It is our moral obligation to fully prosecute any violations of the law. Today I have introduced legislation that would require the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute these atrocities. To pay for this, the legislation would rescind all moneys that have been appropriated to Planned Parenthood and provide the special prosecutor with as much of this money to conduct the investigation as is necessary. We have to protect innocent lives. Now that this has opened the door to a reality that has been suspected for so many years, this Senator wants America and the world to know that endangering women's health and profiting from killing children is not acceptable. The video just released today shows a lab technician placing and celebrating the monetary value of a baby's arms, legs, kidneys, and spinal cord as they pulled apart its body. The bill is S. 1877. We have gotten a lot of calls about it. I didn't want to let this opportunity go by without coming to the floor and getting something started to do something to stop the barbaric acts we are seeing on behalf of Planned Parenthood.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2015, at 11:30 p.m.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?