Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we are getting close to having votes on amendments and final passage tonight, the most significant vote of the year each year. For 52 consecutive years, we have passed the National Defense Authorization Act. In almost every year there has been a last-minute misunderstanding as to how these different provisions might affect something that has nothing to do with the defense of America. In this case, there was--and procedurally I have disagreed with it. I have said several times that a land package was included on the bill. I have felt that once we have gone through the process of what has been referred to as the big four, we have ironed out the differences. There are a lot of things that I don't like, but there are more things that I do like. I daresay to Chairman Levin, he is in the same situation. I have to say one more time that this chairman has been so incredibly fair to everyone. We have to keep in mind that we passed this bill. After working on it for 4 months, we passed it to the floor from the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 23. There are a lot of things on here that we had. Of course, it went over and the House then passed their bill. They passed their bill actually on May 22; we passed it out of committee on May 23. The problem is, they were able to pass theirs on the floor; we were not. It is something we should have done a long time ago, and I am hoping that we learned a lesson from last year to this year, and we are not going to let this happen again. So we have now before us a bill that does the necessary things in this most difficult time. I think most people would agree there has not been a time in our history where we have had more opposition from different parts of the world. I refer to the good old days of the Cold War with two superpowers--we are one, and the Soviet Union was the other one--and they were predictable. Mutually assured destruction meant something. If something happened, we could bomb them and they would do the same to us, and it is now all over. That is not the way it is anymore. We have forces out there from North Korea and Iraq, and all these things are taking place at a time when--and I don't want to make people angry about what this President has done to the military, but we have virtually disarmed America. Our generals now are facing the possibility of sequestration. So the most important bill is now even more than just most important. It is a must-pass bill. It has to pass. If this doesn't pass, there is no other time we can take it up. Should December 31 get here, it would be an absolute disaster. We right now have 1,779,343 enlisted personnel in the military. If we didn't pass a reauthorization bill, they would lose their benefits on December 31. I have talked about the benefit of that. I think everyone understands it, and it would be redundant to repeat it. But we can't have people making career decisions predicated on assumptions that they would have hazard pay, the assumption if they are pilots that they would have pilot pay; that critical skills like the SEALs would have bonuses, and then all of a sudden on December 31 we take them away. We are not going to let that happen. We are going to pass this bill today. The concern I have is that any amendments on it would cause a problem that I think would be insurmountable. It would have to go back. They would have to recall the House and then come back, and timewise it can't happen. So this is the last train leaving town. We have to have this for the sake of our men and women in uniform. If there is time remaining after the chairman makes his remarks, I will even comment on some specific parts of this bill in terms of how good this bill is and why it is necessary to pass. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. It is my understanding that we were to begin at 12 o'clock for 3 hours until the first motion on the NDAA, and that would begin now, it looks like, about an hour late; is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will be very brief because I know we have some other things coming up before going on to the NDAA, and I will be standing here with my good friend and brother Carl at that time. I recall when I was first elected to the House of Representatives--it is hard for me to believe that was 28 years ago-- and I became good friends with a guy named Levin. It was not Carl. It was his brother. There was a real sincere, lovable attitude about him. I can remember talking over some of these sitting by him during some of the debate on very partisan things. I thought this guy is really neat. It is the kind of thing where you can't dislike him. Then I came over here 20 years ago, and there is another one. I have two major committees, Environment and Public Works and the Senate Armed Services Committee. I thought this is remarkable because while on occasion we will differ--I am talking about the chairman and me--and I am the ranking member of that committee--occasionally we will come up on an issue where we don't agree. On two occasions, last year and this year, we had to go into this process of the ``big four.'' That is where it gets contentious because at that point you have to come up with a bill. There was never a time that, yes, we have to give in. I don't know whether he gave in more than I gave in. But whatever it was, it all had to happen and it did happen and it happened because of Carl more than me. Chairman Levin and I can both say the same thing, and people will hate me and they love him. I always wonder how you get by with doing that, but you do. He is a lovable guy whom I will sincerely miss and that relationship, and I hope you will be back often so you can be here to remind other people what a real statesman is. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is just about time for the vote. I want to mention something which hasn't been mentioned. We have two really great Americans, one serving in the House and one serving in the Senate. We have been talking about Chairman Levin and how fair and open he has been. I think there is not a person of the 100 Members of the Senate who doesn't agree with that. At the same time, we have Buck McKeon over in the House of Representatives. He is the chairman of the House committee that Carl Levin is the chair of over here. He also is retiring, and he has served for quite some time--not as long as Senator Levin. Against their objections, we have named this bill the Carl Levin-Buck McKeon bill, so I want to make sure everyone recognizes that proper tribute has been made to the long hours and years and the hard work they have contributed. This guy over here to my left has been through 16 of these. He has been working about 36 years, and I want to say he is deserving of that recognition. I also want to mention two other people. One is the guy sitting next to me to my right, John Bonsell; the other is Pete Levine, sitting next to the chairman. Their job is to make us look good and make all this a reality, because it is a very complicated thing. It is a 24-hour-a-day work project. So I thank them for their effort. I know we are just talking about amendments right now and we will have a chance to maybe expand later on, but I think it needs to be said, and it needs to be said more than once. I yield the floor. The hour is here. Vote on Motion to Refer

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think it might be appropriate for the ranking member of the appropriate personnel subcommittee to be heard on this. In my opinion, he is the most knowledgeable person on this subject at this time, and that would be Senator Graham.

Mr. INHOFE. I know we are out of time. The vote is going to take place in 1 minute and we all appreciate that. I will repeat what I think is most significant: We have to pass this bill. The House is going to go home. There is no way of making any changes at this point. It has to pass. If it doesn't pass, when December 31 gets here, there will be 1.8 million enlisted personnel throughout the country at all of our establishments who are going to lose their benefits. I am talking about pilots' pay, flight pay. I am talking about the SEALS who have extraordinary duties and all the rest of them. These benefits will be taken away from our enlisted personnel if we don't pass this bill. In order to pass this bill, we have to pass this procedural vote that will take place right now. So I encourage everyone to keep in mind, if my colleagues truly want to help our enlisted personnel, they have to have this bill and this bill has to pass now.

Mr. INHOFE. The other Senator from Oklahoma. I wish to make some unscripted comments, but sincere and from the heart. I hope I am accurate when I say this, that I think in some respect I discovered Tom Coburn. I suspect that Tom and I are the only two who have ever been to Adair, OK. I remember hearing that there was a conservative doctor from Muskogee. I remember calling him up at that time and asking him to run for the House of Representatives, which he did. He kept his commitments and did everything he was supposed to do. I always remember that day. As Senator Coburn knows, we have a place my wife and I built on a big lake in Oklahoma back in 1962--a long time ago. When I drive up there, I go through Adair, and I go by that little sheltered area that is half torn down now. They tore down the biggest bank in town. Every time I go by there, I have to say I recall meeting for the first time with a young doctor named Tom Coburn. I regret to say there are times in our service together when we have not been in agreement on specific issues, and I think we have a characteristic in common. I think we are both kind of bullheaded, which has created some temporary hard feelings, but there is one thing that overshadows that. Jesus has a family, and His family has a lot of people in it. Some are here in this room. Tom Coburn and I are brothers. In the 20 years I have been here in the Senate, I don't believe I heard a speech that was as touching and sincere as the speech I heard from my junior Senator a few minutes ago. I really believe that in spite of all the things that have happened-- and there were some differences, but they were minor--that he never ceased to be my brother, and I want to ask the Senator right now to forgive me for the times I have perhaps said something unintentionally that was not always right and was not always from the heart. But I want my junior Senator to know that I sincerely love him and am going to be hurting with him with the troubles he has right now, or might have in the future, and will sorely miss him in this body. I ask that the Record show that I sincerely love my brother, Senator Coburn. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I have to say what a joy it is to work with Senator Levin. I know the public thinks that no Republicans like any Democrats and vice versa--at least those are the flames they try to fan--and that is not true. I can only think of two issues on which Senator Levin and I disagreed with each other. He has been through 16 of the NDAAs as either chairman or ranking member. I am sure that is some kind of a record. But to work with someone who you know will be totally honest with you even when you have a difference of opinion is really a joy. I hope we can be an example for some of the other committees that don't have that much joy when they are working on an issue. The long history he has had here and the integrity he has expressed will be sorely missed, I have to say to my good friend Senator Levin. As Senator Levin said, we will have to get to the bill before we leave. This bill has passed for 52 consecutive years, and that really says something. But each year there is always a problem. The comment that was made on the land package--I think the process is wrong regardless of the merits of the bill. As was pointed out by Senator Levin, it was supported in a bipartisan way by all the appropriate committees; however, that is not us, that is them. The process should not allow others to come in on this bill, so I think it is flawed. I don't think it will happen again. I really don't. I talked to the people who will be involved in next year's NDAA, which, by the way, we will start working on in February of next year. I will go over a couple of other reasons why we have to get this bill done. As I said, we have done this for 52 consecutive years, and I am sure we are going to be able to get this done. We passed this bill out to the floor from our committee--the committee chaired by Senator Levin--on May 23, the day after it was done in the House committee. So we were ready to do this way back in May, and the problem was we could not get it on the floor. I can remember coming down to the floor with Senator Levin and begging people to bring amendments to us. We have to have amendments down here because we can't expect the leader to bring this to the floor unless we know people will work with us on amendments. So eventually they did bring amendments, and we responded. We had many amendments. I don't remember exactly how many amendments were put forth, but I do remember we considered and put 47 amendments into this package--we did it through the big four method, which was the only thing left for us to do--47 amendments divided almost equally between Republicans and Democrats. We considered those amendments and put them in as a part of the bill. Of course, despite pushing for months that the NDAA be considered under regular order, which we should have done, we find ourselves in the unfortunate situation we are in today. It is reminiscent of last year. Last year we went all the way up to December 26 before we finally passed it. It would really be a disaster if we didn't pass it. People don't realize that if we don't pass this bill--our last chance is this week because the House will be out of there. There will be no way to have amendments or change anything now from the product we have. We already have a lot of the amendments in, but we can't make changes to them. We can't have another bill because we have run out of time. It will not happen unless it happens with this bill. I know a lot of people would prefer to have something else, although I know this bill is going to pass by a large margin. It is a good bill. People wonder what would happen if we didn't pass this bill. It would be a disaster. Enlistment bonuses--a lot of these kids have been over there serving, and they have been told they will have certain things, and one of them is the bonuses. Well, all of a sudden, on December 31, if we don't have a bill, those expire and those kids will not have enlistment or reenlistment bonuses. The incentives are important in order to keep troops with critical skills. We hear a lot about the SEALs and the great work they do. These critical skills incentives will go away on December 31. There is also incentive pay for pilots. I have researched this because there is a lot of competition out there for our pilots--pilots for heavy vehicles, as well as strike fighters. Right now there is a competition with the airlines. Everyone wants to hire these guys, so there is competition out there. All of a sudden the flight pay would come out on December 31 if we don't pass this bill, and that means we will lose some of these guys. It is a $25,000-a-year bonus for these guys over a 10-year period, so it is $250,000. However, for each one who decides not to come back--to retrain someone to the status of an F- 22 would cost about $17 million. We are looking at bonuses that might be $25,000, but the alternative, if we don't get this done by December 31, would cost $17 million for each pilot who needs to be trained. So that is very significant. We have skill incentive pay and proficiency bonuses for all of those. So that singularly would be enough reason to say we have to have it; we just can't do without it. Stopping all military construction, which would be on December 31. One of the areas where the chairman and I disagree is on Gitmo. We have had a friendly and honest difference of opinion on that. I look at Gitmo as one of the few resources we have that is a good deal for government. We have had it since 1904 and it only costs us $4,000 and half the time Cuba forgets to charge us, so it is a pretty good deal. There is no place else we can put, in my opinion, the combatants. People say bring them back to the United States. The problem is if we intermingle prisoners at Gitmo with the prison population--these people at Gitmo are not criminals, they are people who teach terrorists. So there are a lot of arguments against bringing Gitmo prisoners to the United States. That in itself would be a 2-hour speech, so I will not get into it now. There are some areas where the chairman and I disagree and there were a lot of compromises because we knew we had to have the bill. If we don't pass this bill, there will be no European Reassurance Initiative to stand up against Russian aggression. I shouldn't have done this because I was on the ballot this year for reelection, but for the week prior to our election, I went over to see what was happening in Ukraine because Ukraine was having their elections the week before we had our elections. Not many people are aware that in Ukraine, Poroshenko--what happened in their election in Ukraine, a political party cannot have a seat in Parliament unless they get 5 percent of the vote. The vote took place 1 week before our vote. This will be the first time in 96 years that the Communist Party will not have one seat in Parliament. That is amazing. We have to understand what is happening with Putin. I also went to Lithuania and Estonia and Latvia and those areas in the Baltics. That is another problem we have. They want to give us the assurance that it is not just Putin in Ukraine, but they are becoming aggressive. I coined the term for what Putin is trying to do, ``de- Reaganize'' Europe, to try to take out all the freedoms that were there and try to put a coalition together. That is a huge issue, and it is addressed in this bill in a very aggressive way with the reassurance initiative. Also, if we don't pass this bill, we would not have the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, which I think we are all aware is so necessary with ISIL on the rampage they are pursuing. So we have a lot of provisions. I think the chairman did a good job of covering them. A couple of them perhaps might have been overlooked or that I might add for my own personal interests. One is the support of the Aircraft Modernization Program. Historically, we have always had the best of everything, but now when we look at China and at Russia and what they are doing, it is a very difficult situation for us. We had the F-22; the President terminated that program his first year in office. So now we have all of our eggs in the basket in terms of the strike vehicles and the F-35. A lot of people don't like the F-35, but that is what we have to have and that is in this bill to continue with that. The E-2D surveillance aircraft is one very few people know about. It is one of the ugliest airplanes in the sky, but it is one that is necessary for surveillance and other functions of government. We have the KC-46 tanker aircraft. We have been using the KC-135 now for decades and we have to go toward a more modern vehicle, and we do have on the books that we will continue to do that, working with the KC-46. So several others--some improvements to the workhorse of the military, the C-130 aircraft, and other vehicles. Without this bill, we are going to have to stop some of these projects, so think about the cost. We are in the midst of contracts right now that we could be in jeopardy of losing. The construction on military and family housing is there. It is very significant. So I think all of these pieces--and one piece I think people are interested in is this will end the reliance on Russian-made rocket engines. We hear a lot about that. This bill includes a timeframe for when the current contracts run out, so that we are going to be developing our own rocket engine. I have heard from a lot of outside experts. Tom Stafford is one of the famous astronauts from Oklahoma. He and I have talked at length about what we are going to be able to do with some of these rocket engines. So I think this is enough reason why we have to do this, and I think everyone realizes that. We have heard a lot of talk that frankly is not true. Unfortunately, there are some groups that are kind of antimilitary groups that came out with some statements that weren't true and some of the talk show hosts I admire were given information that wasn't quite as accurate as it should have been. Right now, if we can think of no other single major reason to pass this bill, it is to take care of those individuals who are in the field right now who are fighting. We have the exact count, to make sure we use accurate figures. As of today, 1,779,343 troops in the field or enlisted personnel. These are the ones who can be affected, 1.8 million of them. We would be reneging on the commitments we have made to them. We have heard criticism that we are somehow cutting their benefits to put in a land package. That just isn't true. We don't need to talk about this because that is not our committee. That is the committee referred to by the chairman in his remarks--the Energy and Natural Resources Committees of the House and the Senate. But it is budget neutral. Over a 10-year period, the CBO says it is budget neutral. So there is no legitimate argument that we are using any of the funds that would otherwise go to the military on the land package. I have to say the process was wrong. We have done this in the past and we are not going to do it again. We shouldn't have had a land package come in that has nothing to do with defense, but nonetheless it is there. I was offended by the process. Frankly--I have to confess, and it is good for the soul, I guess--I thought after reading it, it was a pretty good bill. If it would have been brought up outside of this bill, I would have still voted for it. But the process is wrong, and I think we all understand that. We did the best we could. We have these things that are going on right now, and I think we can't take a chance on not having or, for the first time in 53 years, not passing an NDAA bill by the end of the year. It would be a crisis. The system could be criticized for the way it happened. Considering that we passed our bill out of the committee on May 23, we should have had it on the floor. We should have had it done in regular order. We will do everything we can in the future to try to make that happen. For two consecutive years now we have not been able to do that. We have had to go through the system of what they call the Big Four--the chairman and ranking member of the House and the chairman and ranking member of the Senate--to pass this bill. I think in this case we have come up with a good bill. We have been able to incorporate 47 of the amendments that have come from those that were filed to be added on the floor. So we have done the best we can. There is no other alternative now when we consider what will happen if for some unknown reason this would be the first year in 53 years that we don't have an NDAA bill. I will just repeat what I started off with; that is, what a joy it has been to work with Carl Levin over these years in the capacity of either the chairman or the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He will be sorely missed. Oddly enough, we also have the same situation happening over on the House side with Buck McKeon. I served with him when I served in the House. He is going to be retiring after this year as well. So we have two retiring chairmen of what I consider to be the most significant committees in Washington. We are going to continue to work together for the rest of this bill. We have a good bill, and we are going to uphold our obligation to the 1,779,343 enlisted personnel in the field. We are not going to let them down. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me reclaim my time just to make one other comment. The two people who are sitting here, Peter Levine on your side and John Bonsell on our side, their compatibility in working together is also unprecedented. It doesn't happen very often. I can't speak for the Senator from Michigan, but I can speak for myself, to say that without these two working together I sure could not have participated in a meaningful way. So I thank them as well.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Tonight there will be a speech. I think everyone is aware of that. I think we all know pretty much what the President of the United States is going to say. I would like to read the oath of office that any President of the United States has to take, and this President has taken this oath in an affirmative way for--I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE. Tonight we have the President's speech, and I would like to recite one more time what every President has to say and has to affirm before he becomes President. I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I think people are overlooking this because they know what to expect tonight. They know what is going to happen. They know the President is going to do something that in the eyes of most people--and I have to say that most of the people I talk to are from my State of Oklahoma. They have a lot of common sense and ask the question: Is this illegal, what we are about to witness? The President is bound by the Constitution to ensure the laws on the books are being carried out in a manner that is true to the law that is written and passed by Congress. It is his duty, his obligation. That was envisioned by our Founding Fathers. As any school-aged kid or any of my grandchildren would say, laws are made in Congress and signed into law by the President. Once bills become law, the President's constitutional duty is triggered at that point, no matter who holds the office or how that person feels about the particular law. If a President finds a law problematic, then this is how he has to address that problem: He has to work with Congress to change the law. He does not have the authority to unilaterally declare that law not to apply to millions of Americans, which is what I think we are going to witness tonight. That is exactly what the President is doing. He issued ultimatums to Congress: Pass what I want or else. We heard that. We heard those words. When Congress and the American people push back against him, he charges forward with Executive orders that are written and executed behind closed doors. Let's remember that at the time this President first took office, his big thing was transparency. He wants people to know what is going on and not have any surprises. Yet this is what is happening: These Executive orders are taking the place of those laws that are passed by Members who are elected to the House and to the Senate. He says the reason for this is he is tired of waiting on an immigration system that is broken. Those are his words. He has taken action because Congress won't. That is not the way it works. A Congress that has had--by the way, he had a Democratic majority the first 2 years in the House and Senate and the White House. He can't say we are not doing it. He is certainly not referring to Republicans. These are the excuses for doing what he is doing. Some claim he is not doing anything different from what President Ronald Reagan or President George H.W. Bush did. I think it is very important, very briefly, to show you that is not true at all. In 1986 Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which gave amnesty to close to 3 million illegal immigrants. Amnesty was granted by statute, not by Executive order. That was a law which was passed and which the President signed and agreed to. Soon after, the people realized the children of these immigrants--who were still eligible for deportation--were simply overlooked. The fact is, if there is a husband and a wife and they are able to go ahead and become naturalized citizens, their underaged children would have to be as well. Everyone agreed, no one disagreed, and so they went ahead and did it. That was working with Congress. Congress made that decision with the President of the United States. In 1990 President Bush expanded President Reagan's grant of deferred deportation to all minor children and to the spouses of those who were granted amnesty in the 1986 law, and Congress codified the policy later that year in the Immigration Act of 1990. So it wasn't George H.W. Bush who did this; it was the Congress of 1990 that did this. We are not talking about the same thing at all. In the case of both Reagan and Bush, they worked with Congress and interpreted a statute. That is not what is happening now. President Obama is creating a law on his own as to how he wishes the law would be. He has no authority to do it. We are going to see this tonight, and I think we need to have this in our background in what we are looking for. As we saw with his previous amnesty--that was 2012; we remember that, about 2\1/2\ years ago--this new Executive amnesty will encourage more people to come here and break the laws. This year, thanks to President Obama's Executive order--called the deferred action for childhood arrivals, DACA--Americans watched as unaccompanied alien children--that is, the UAC--poured over our southern border seeking the same amnesty others had been given. Who is to say the President won't give them that? It is reported that tonight he will be changing the qualifications of the DACA to include even more. What happened then is really worse than what is happening now and going to be announced tonight because at least tonight they are talking about 5 to 6 million people who are going to be granted amnesty, and what he did before in encouraging the young people to get here to the United States--we don't know where they are today or how many there are. In my State of Oklahoma--Fort Sill in Lawton, OK--we have a base that was given several hundred of these young children. They are under 18 years of age. They were told they were to house these children until January. It worked out pretty well because we were in the middle of building some buildings down there, and so we had a place for them for a temporary period of time. They were supposed to be released in January. I went down there in October, and they were already gone. They didn't really know where they were, but they were gone. Even to this day, if you call up and talk to the commander down there, they will tell you they don't know for sure where they are. To go even further into this, I went to the Texas border, where I went to a center called Los Fresnos. There are 18 IES facilities on the southern border. It is not just in Texas but all--I think 13 of those are in Texas. I went down there to see the process they used. I talked to the Border Patrol. The Border Patrol told me they are instructed to--and they did--send the kids as they came to the various facilities, these 18 facilities. So I went to the one that I believe is the largest. It is called Los Fresnos. It is on the southern border on the eastern side of Texas. They weren't very happy about this. I went in and took a bunch of pictures to see what was going on there. I found out that they had a facility that had 200 beds. They had 200 beds. That is a very small number of people. I asked the question: How many kids are coming through here? They said: Thousands. I said: How many in the last 6 months? They said: Well, several thousand. Let's keep in mind they can only bed down 200 people. Thousands have come through. We came back to trace where these thousands actually ended up. We were not able to find out. You can find that they have a Web site saying how many States received how many kids. We have no way of verifying if that is true. For all we know, there are hundreds of thousands of kids out there, and we don't know where they are. Those people who are concerned about 5 to 6 million people tonight, keep in mind that it is really much more than that. On that number, the issue we have is we don't know where the children eventually end up, and the administration does not have to notify the local governments of their presence. There are counties that are published as to how many are in a county. We don't know their names. Interestingly, when I was at Los Fresnos on the border, I talked to a lot of the kids who were being brought into this country. Those kids-- each one had a story, and you could tell it was a rehearsed story: I have parents who live in California. I have a dad who lives in New York. They all had a story down as if they are coming back. Keep in mind--these are kids who came not from Mexico but through Mexico. We heard only yesterday some of the atrocities, the things that had happened to some of these kids--the raping, the killing, all of that--as they were making the transition through Mexico. They publish online what States they end up in, but we don't know the numbers, whether these are verified numbers or if we are taking their word for it. Something is going on, and even I, as a Member of the Senate, have gone down there two separate times to Los Fresnos and still don't know the answer to the questions that I get from people in Oklahoma who are very much concerned about this. Who monitors to ensure that they remain and show up for court? If they evade the law long enough,--and they know now they can evade the law; if the President can do it, they can do it--then amnesty will eventually be received by them. We have immigration laws that are going to be ignored. What does this say to the immigrants who are coming into America and applying for citizenship in accordance with the law? I have been honored several times to go and be the speaker at naturalization ceremonies in my State of Oklahoma. I will tell you, you cry when you look out there. You see a couple hundred people who have come to this country, gone through the system, studied the history--and I would suggest those people up for naturalization probably know the history much better than people who are born here in this country. They learn the language. They go through all these things, and finally they become citizens of the United States. That is the legal way to do it. What are their thoughts right now after all they have gone through and the doors are open for anyone to come through? Is that compassion for those people? I don't think so. Compassion is acknowledging and respecting the millions who adhere to our laws and achieve citizenship. But here is the thing. When you stop being a nation based on the rule of law, you are at the mercy of one man and his whims. It sounds exactly like something our Founding Fathers were looking to avoid and escape. I think that is the problem we have. I have people asking me: Why is the President breaking the law with regularity? Does he not have to obey the law the same as we do? Well, as you know, there is a lawsuit that is being processed over on the House side. But we also know this: Anyone who comes who has 2 years left in his term knows if something is starting the process to determine whether action is legal, it would be probably 5 or 6 years before that case would be decided. By that time he is long gone. I want to mention one thing that is specific. People say: Well, how can you say the President is breaking the law? He does break the law. He breaks it all the time. One of the things I have been concerned about for a long period of time is keeping the installation named Guantanamo Bay--called Gitmo--keeping it open. It is the only place that we can keep the type of terrorists we have down there. It is one, I think, that has worked out well. But somehow there is the obsession that this President has--he wants to close Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay. Knowing that, I put an amendment on the Defense authorization bill in 2014. If anyone wants to look it up, it is section 1035(d) of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA. It specifically states-- anticipating that the President would start releasing these people from Guantanamo Bay without authority, we put into law that the President shall notify Congress not later than 30 days before the transfer or release of any Guantanamo Bay detainee. What did we find out? The President, without notifying anyone, released probably the five--in fact, not probably, certainly the five very worst of the terrorists who were being kept down there. In fact, one of their names was Mohammad Fazl. One of the Taliban commanders, whose name is Mullah Salem Khan, made this statement--this is right after the President released the five terrorists. We do not know where they are, whether they are killing Americans, where they are right now. He said, ``Mohammad Fazl, his returning is like pouring 10,000 Taliban fighters into the battle on the side of Jihad. Now the Taliban has the right lion to lead them in the final moment before victory in Afghanistan.'' So that is another issue altogether. These people are released to come back and kill Americans. But the point is, that law was aimed specifically at the President that he cannot do that. He did it. So when I see these things happen, I think I have never seen this before. I am not a real student of history, but certainly I have read an abundant amount of the history of this institution as well as the President and what is going and what should go on in Washington and what our Founding Fathers envisioned. Our Founding Fathers never envisioned they would have a President who would blatantly break the law, specifically break the law. That is what is happening now. That example is just one of many I could give. So enjoy the speech tonight. I think you are going to see that another one of our laws looks as though it is going to be broken. That would be our immigration laws that are on the books now. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about China's inability to keep its promise with the United States. We had someone go over there. Of course, the President went over and talked to President Xi, and they gave assurances that certain things were going to happen. I have always said for quite some time--I have had occasion to visit with the Chinese, and a lot of them were hoping the United States would restrict development here at home so that the only place our manufacturers could go would be places such as China, India, Mexico, and so on. One of the statements made by the President of China was that they would stop increasing their emissions by 2030. But it is impossible to accomplish this goal because of its current domestic energy mix and heavy reliance on coal for affordable electricity for its economy. Now, even if that statement were accurate--that they will eventually stop increasing emissions--what they are also saying is that they are going to continue increasing their emissions from where they are today until 2030. That is a long ways from now. Nonetheless, I made a speech last week in which I said that China has no known reserves of natural gas. I was wrong. I was wrong due to some of the misinformation we got. The fact that they are not able to realize these reserves is very significant. That shouldn't distract from the fact that China has a difficult road ahead in developing affordable sources of fuel to meet its energy demands. According to a Forbes article dated August 19, 2014, ``China is not the United States and faces technological, geological, technical and topological hurdles in developing its shale gas resources.'' That is a quote from Forbes magazine. China announced in August that it had to lower its natural gas production forecasts significantly. In 2012 the Chinese projected they would produce 60 billion to 100 billion cubic meters of natural gas from shale by 2020. In August of this year they cut that forecast to only 30 billion cubic meters, and an additional 30 billion cubic meters of production is expected to come from coal field sources. Now, all told, this would meet 1 percent of China's total electricity generation needs by 2020. That is 1 percent. That is all we are talking about here, if all of these assumptions are right, and this is by their own admission. As the New York Times reported on August 21 of this year, China's ability to extract sufficient natural gas is in serious doubt and its natural gas production is ``growing at a slower pace than its decelerating economy.'' China's problem is that its shale deposits are much different than ours. The formations are deeper and they are more laden with clay, making it more difficult to extract the natural gas and more expensive to get it out through the hydraulic fracturing process. I am very familiar with this. Hydraulic fracturing actually started in my home State of Oklahoma in 1948. So we are familiar with this. Chinese companies have had a difficult time bringing online the natural gas they have found. One company, Far East Energy, recently shut a quarter of its wells for a number of technical and transportation problems, including a lack of gas-gathering pipelines. This underscores that China simply doesn't have the deep technological know-how that we do in this country, which made the shale revolution possible that we have all enjoyed so much in the last 5 years. It was built on the back of 100 years of successful oil and gas development and technological advances in this country, which obviously they haven't had. China will continue to rely heavily on coal for its electricity generation, and we see this happening today. China continues to build the equivalent of one new coal-fired powerplant every 10 days. Just think about that. In the last 7 years--in a speech I made on the floor, we had analyzed and calculated the number of coal-fired plants they have, and they are going to continue that into the future. Another option for producing electricity with lower CO2 emissions is nuclear. However, the country's nuclear plants have stalled following the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Renewables are also an option, but we all know these alone can't affordably power the world's largest economy. I doubt China will stick to any agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if it puts at risk the country's economy. Meanwhile, the United States has agreed, by the President's statement, to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions from 26 to 28 percent by 2025, so that the President can solidify a legacy on climate change that will be at the cost of the American people. We are handcuffing our economic future to the President's policies, which fail by their own measure. Acting unilaterally, the President's greenhouse gas regulations would reduce global temperatures by only 0.018 degrees Celsius by 2100. That is 86 years from now. We have been doing this for quite some time--ever since they started the United Nations meetings to get together all of these countries that make all kinds of promises and projections. China has always been there with tongue-in-cheek, just wondering if we were really going to do that in this country. We should stop and think about what China is doing right now in its development, in its growth, and the fact that they are just cranking out these coal- fired plants at a rate that is hard for us to understand. Nonetheless, they are doing it and will continue to do it, by their own admission, until 2030. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to applaud the University of Central Oklahoma and the University of Oklahoma for being recognized by the Military Times as among the 100 best colleges for our Nation's veterans. With over 2,400 students who are veterans between them, UCO and OU provide outstanding support and academic experiences for our Nation's heroes after they have returned from their service to our Nation in uniform. Founded in 1890 as one of Oklahoma's first institutions of higher learning, the University of Central Oklahoma is ranked 40th on this list and cultivates creativity and innovation from its 17,000 students, of which more than 700 are veterans. Students have the opportunity to earn diplomas from the more than 100 major areas of study offered at UCO. In 2010, UCO established the Veteran's Hero office to address the unique needs of our veterans and their families as they transition from the battlefield to the classroom. Continuously recognized as among the best universities in the Nation, UCO puts the extra effort into taking care of our veterans and has earned distinction in this area for 3 consecutive years in similar rankings by Victory Media, a nationwide veterans' employment recruiting service. Also founded in 1890, the University of Oklahoma ranks 85th on this list and has nearly 30,000 students, of whom more than 1,700 are veterans who are earning degrees from the more than 150 majors offered on three campuses. Through the Veterans Support Alliance, faculty and staff volunteers at the University of Oklahoma have provided a positive and supportive learning environment for veterans. OU's efforts have helped student veterans and servicemembers achieve academic excellence and personal success. As a pacesetter for public higher education, OU is also ranked by the Princeton Review as among the top 10 public universities in the nation in terms of academic excellence and cost for students. On behalf of the great State of Oklahoma, I commend UCO and OU for making the ``Best for Vets: Colleges 2015'' list and salute their steadfast efforts to provide quality education for those who have defended our freedoms at home and abroad.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a distinguished public servant and officer in the U.S. Army, LTG Peter M. Vangjel. General Vangjel served as the 64th Army inspector general and retires on February 1, 2015, after more than 37 years of selfless service to our Nation. Throughout his professional life, General Vangjel personified the Army values of duty, honor, and selfless service in leadership roles around the world and here at home. Many of us on Capitol Hill know General Vangjel by these qualities and have enjoyed the opportunity to work with him on a wide variety of Army issues and programs. It is my privilege to recognize his many significant contributions. General Vangjel is a native of New Hampshire and graduated from the University of New Hampshire in 1977. He served in a variety of command and staff assignments and has led our soldiers in both peace and war, in combat and humanitarian missions, in the United States, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. He has proven himself as a stellar leader demonstrating unselfish devotion to the Nation, our leaders, soldiers and their families. For the final 3 years of his noteworthy career, General Vangjel served as the Army inspector general, providing independent and unbiased advice to the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army. His advice, assistance, and detailed oversight of timely, high-visibility inspections and investigations proved critical for an adaptive Army in transition. He personally led multiple efforts to promote readiness, resource stewardship and accountability of equipment, funds, personnel and leader behavior. As he has throughout his career, General Vangjel embraced his charter to conduct outreach to our Army's leaders, soldiers, families, and the public at every opportunity, stressing the importance of resource management and creativity. Nowhere was this more evident than during his 2-year assignment to the Middle East, where he supervised efforts that provided nearly $8 billion dollars in cost avoidance and streamlined contracting and logistic support efforts as our troops surged in to Afghanistan and retrograded from Iraq. His vision, passion, and energy kept key military and civilian leaders aware of emerging trends enabling them to correct problems and anticipate future challenges. General Vangjel led his team in conducting many significant inspections enabling our Army to address critical issues, revise policies, and improve processes. His special inspections of Arlington National Cemetery restored effective oversight and reinstilled public confidence in the effort to honor our fallen heroes at a place sacred to all Americans. Likewise, his team's work to help our suffering soldiers receive more efficient behavioral health treatment within the Integrated Disability Evaluation System brought to light new information about process issues and the need for better coordination and support from Veterans Affairs. In addition, during his tenure, the Army inspector general performed vital compliance oversight inspections for some of our Nation's most sensitive activities, including nuclear and chemical research and development centers, intelligence oversight, and information assurance operations. LTG Peter M. Vangjel has consistently provided superb leadership, advice, and sound professional judgment on numerous critical issues of enduring importance to the Army and our Nation. On behalf of Congress and the United States of America, I thank General Vangjel, his wife Joanne, and his entire family for their commitment and contributions to our Army and the Nation, and I congratulate them both on an exceptional career of selfless service.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I read with a lot of interest about the trip President Obama made to China and his meeting with President Xi over what they characterized as an agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. I didn't hear any kind of agreement or anything that was said by the President of China, and they have been talking about this as a historic breakthrough. That is exactly what they said in 2009, back when Copenhagen was center stage for the big annual party. Just so people are aware of what goes on, the United Nations throws a big party to get countries to agree to reduce greenhouse gases by a certain amount. It is kind of interesting since at one of the first ones I went to, I saw a good friend of mine from Benin in West Africa, and I said: You guys are not sucked into this thing--I know that for a fact--in terms of any kind of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. What would happen to the economy of West Africa if you did that? He said: This is the biggest party of the year, so we are all going to be here. The same thing was true in Copenhagen. Before I go into that, let's take a look at what they called a major historic breakthrough between the United States and China where the President pledged to reduce the emissions in the United States between 26 and 28 percent by 2025. What did China agree to? First of all, even if they did agree to reduce emissions, we would not believe them because they don't end up doing what they say they are going to do in these agreements. But China says that what they are going to do is stop increasing their CO2 emissions by 2030. In other words, between now and 2030 they are going to continue to increase their levels of CO2 emissions, which I agree they are going to do that. Next year--that is, a year from December--there is going to be another big party that will be in Paris, and it will be the one where President Obama says he and President Xi from China have an agreement. But, of course, that is going to be kind of like it was in Copenhagen back in 2009. I remember 2009 so well. At that time I was--and I still am--on the Environment and Public Works Committee. We had a wonderful lady who was President Obama's appointee to be the Director of the EPA, and at that time in Copenhagen they already had Congresswoman Pelosi, Senator Boxer, President Obama, and then-Senator John Kerry. All of them were over there promising the 191 countries that were in Copenhagen that we were going to pass some kind of cap and trade. After that was over, I went on a quick roundtrip to Copenhagen. I always remember that trip because I was on the ground, after all that travel, all of 3 hours, but I think it was the most enjoyable 3 hours I ever had because I was able to be over there as a one-man truth squad and to say to the people attending that great meeting there that the United States was not going to pass any kind of cap and trade. In fact, the most votes they could have gotten in the Senate at that time--and the Senate is changing, as we all know--was 30 votes. Obviously it took a lot more than that to do that. I went over as the one-man truth squad to tell them that they were not telling the truth and that there is no way in the world we are going to pass it, and the same is true this time. I will tell you what that meeting reminds me of. It reminds me of the meeting that took place in China a couple of days ago with our President. It reminded me of the meeting that took place in Rio de Janeiro. This would have been in 1998, which was during the Clinton White House. They went over there and agreed and signed the Kyoto Treaty. They signed the treaty knowing for a fact that it would not be ratified on this end. We know it takes a supermajority to ratify a treaty in the Senate. We had a resolution that was passed at that time called the Byrd- Hagel resolution. It said that we would not ratify any agreement, such as Kyoto or anything like that, that didn't do two things--that were either harmful to the economy or didn't treat all countries the same. In other words, we have to treat the reductions in China the same as they would be in the United States. Of course the Kyoto Treaty didn't do that. They knew at the time it was not going to be ratified. In fact, they were not even going to submit it for ratification to this body, and that is exactly what did happen. Let's look at what is happening in China right now. China is doing pretty well. Between 2005 and 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal- fired powerplants per week. That is two powerplants a week. In 7 years, China added more coal capacity to its fleet than existed in the entire United States. This is not going to be slowing down in the years to come. By their own admission, they will be increasing between now and 2030. China is expected to bring a new coal-fired powerplant online every 10 days to give its economy the electricity it demands. So China is now the largest consumer and importer of coal in the world. It is kind of interesting. We are going through the shale revolution in this country. Wonderful things are happening here. If we did not have the resistance from the White House, we could be totally independent from any other nation for the production of energy. China, on the other hand, doesn't have the shale or the oil or the gas. They don't have the coal, but they can import the coal, and that is exact what they are doing, and they will continue to do that. Stop and think. If you don't like the arguments, just use logic. Why would China ever agree unilaterally to reduce its emissions when that is the only way it can produce electricity? I have talked to them before. I talk to people who smile and laugh at us and say: Wait a minute. You say you believe us when we say we are going to reduce our emissions? We applaud the United States. We want the United States to reduce its emissions. If they do that, the manufacturing base has to leave the United States and come to China. So it is to their advantage to increase their emissions, and that is exactly what will happen. We will talking about this a lot. I will chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. I chaired that several years ago when the Republicans were in the majority, and the Republicans are a majority again. We will look at these things logically, and we will conduct ourselves in a way that will not give the United States of America the largest single tax increase in history. Way back in the beginning, in 2001 and that timeframe, a lot of us thought there was actually some truth to the global warming issue, and a lot of people are trying to resurrect that now. However, at that time people didn't know what the cost was going to be. Shortly after that, it was the MIT, Charles River Associates, and the Wharton School that came out with an approximation of what it would cost in the way of a tax increase for the American people if we were to adopt the global warming provisions they wanted to adopt, which was between $300 and $400 billion a year. If you follow that statement with a statement not from me and not from anyone else on the floor of the Senate but from Lisa Jackson, who was the Director of the EPA and was appointed by President Obama--I asked her this question on the record: Let's say that we go ahead and pass one of these resolutions. The resolutions have been offered since 2002. The first one was offered by McCain and Lieberman and the last one by my friend Senator Markey, who was then in the House. I said: If we pass any of these--the largest increase in history-- would this have the effect of reducing greenhouse gases? Her answer--Lisa Jackson, Director of the EPA, said: No, it would not. She said the problem is in China, India, and Mexico, and that would not affect the overall world emissions of CO2. So for those who really believe there is going to be something that comes before us in the form of a treaty--as our President has said will happen in Paris 13 months from now--keep in mind that it is something that will not happen, the same as it was not going to happen in Copenhagen. The American people are not ready. They have studied this issue. They know the science is not there, and what they want to do is to avoid any kind of a negative effect on our economy, and that is exactly what I think will happen. I see my good friend is here, and I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my honor to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Marine Cpl Thomas A. Blair of Wagoner, OK who lost his life on March 24, 2003, from injuries sustained during a lengthy battle with insurgents while serving his Nation in Nasiriyah, Iraq. The son of Alfred Jr. and Nancy Hinton Blair, Tommy was born July 7, 1978, in Wagoner, OK. After graduating from Broken Arrow High School, he entered the Marine Corps in 1997 and was assigned to the 2nd Low Altitude Air Defense Battalion, Marine Air Control Group-28, 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, Cherry Point, NC. Tommy was posthumously awarded the Navy-Marine Corps Commendation Medal for helping pull nine wounded marines into an armored vehicle before it was hit by at least four enemy rocket-propelled grenades and then a missile fired from an American attack plane. He was among 18 marines killed that day in fighting around Nasiriyah. Tommy was laid to rest in Ozark Memorial Park Cemetery in Joplin, MO, and is survived by his father Alfred Jr., mother Nancy, and brother Alfred III. ``He was a young man that would give the shirt off his back if someone needed it,'' recalled his older brother, Marine SSG Alfred Blair, III. ``He lived life to the fullest and enjoyed every minute of every day. In his first letter home to our mom, he said he was doing what he had been trained to do and was proud to be doing it for his country.'' Today we remember Marine CPL Thomas A. Blair, the first known native Oklahoman to lose his life in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was a young man who loved his family and country and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom. Captain John J. Boria Mr. President, I also pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Air Force Capt. John J. Boria of Broken Arrow, OK, who died on September 6, 2004, after injuries sustained in a all-terrain vehicle accident while serving his nation in Doha, Qatar. Javy, as he was known by his family and friends was born on August 12, 1975. After graduating from Union High School in Tulsa, OK, in 1993, I nominated this bright young man to attend the U.S. Air Force Academy. He spent a year at the Academy's Prep School before entering the U.S. Air Force Academy, where he graduated in 1998. Upon completing flight training, he was assigned as an instructor and KC-135 pilot at the 911th Refueling Squadron at Grand Forks Air Force Base, ND, and was deployed to Qatar to work in the Combined Air Operations Center in June 2004. Funeral services were held on September 14, 2004, at Broken Arrow Assembly of God Church, with internment at the U.S. Air Force Academy Cemetery in Colorado Springs, CO. Javy is survived by his parents John and Wanda and brother Joe. His favorite Bible verse in John 15 states, depending on the translation, that ``no greater love has a man than he lay down his life for his friends,'' his mother said. When discussing becoming an organ donor with his mother during his junior year at the Academy, Javy said, ``I want to be a donor too. If I die and part of me could be used, it could give somebody else a chance to live the life that I won't have.'' Today we remember Air Force Capt. John J. Boria, a young man who loved his family and country and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom. Chief Warrant Officer Travis W. Grogan Mr. President, I now pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Army CWO Travis W. Grogan, who died on November 27, 2004, after the aircraft he was a passenger in crashed in Bamian, Afghanistan. Born an only child on January 12, 1973, Travis grew up just outside Oklahoma City, OK, and graduated from Moore High School. Descending from a long line of servicemen, with relatives who served in Korea, World War I, and the Civil War, he initially enlisted in the Navy, where he served for 9 years as a search-and-rescue swimmer. Later, he became interested in flying and transferred to the Army to become a helicopter pilot with the 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, Light, Schofield Barracks, HI. He had been in Afghanistan since April 2004. ``He died for our freedoms here in America,'' Barbara Grogan said of her only son. ``This was important to him, and it should be important to everyone in America. Our freedoms are worth fighting for.'' Travis is survived by his wife Tracy; daughter Ashley; son Austin; parents, Barbara and Lewis; and grandmother, Wilma North. Funeral services were held on December 9, 2004, at the First Baptist Church in Moore, OK, with burial conducted at Ft Sill National Cemetery in Elgin, OK. ``He knew why he was in Afghanistan. He was very proud of being able to serve his country,'' said his grandmother. ``If they had found him wounded, he would have said, Doctor me up; I'm going back'.'' Today we remember Army CWO Travis W. Grogan, a young man who loved his family and country and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom. Specialist Jared D. Hartley Mr. President, it is my honor also to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Army SPC Jared D. Hartley, of Newkirk, OK, who died on July 15, 2005, of injuries sustained after an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle in Taji, Iraq. Jared was born January 2, 1983, and enlisted in June 2002. After basic training he was assigned to 125th Forward Support Battalion, 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, based at Fort Riley, KS. Jared was a 2002 graduate of Newkirk High School, where he played football and basketball. He joined the Army shortly after graduating high school and deployed for a 13-month tour in Iraq. ``When he came back, he was going to get out of the military, but they told him they needed him,'' his brother Alex Hartley said. ``He said, `No problem, I'll stay in as long as you need me'.'' He returned for his second tour in March. Alex said his brother was committed to the military's mission in Iraq and pleased with the positive response he received from the Iraqi people. ``He said people he talked to were glad they were there. Protecting our country and helping people--he felt good about his mission.'' Jared was buried at Newkirk Cemetery and is survived by his parents, Doug and Kathie, and his brother Alex. Today we remember Army SPC Jared D. Hartley, a young man who loved his family and country and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom. Lieutenant Colonel Daniel E. Holland Mr. President, I wish to remember the life and sacrifice of Army LTC Daniel E. Holland, of San Antonio, TX, who died on May 8, 2006, of injuries sustained when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device while he served his Nation in Baghdad, Iraq. Daniel was a veterinarian assigned to South Plains District Veterinary Command at Ft Hood, TX, attached to the 352nd Civil Affairs Command at Fort Bragg, NC. Daniel was born in Munich, Germany, on April 5, 1963, the youngest of 10 children. His father retired from military service in Marlow, OK, where Daniel graduated from high school in 1981. Selected to give the commencement address at his high school graduation, he went on to attend Oklahoma State University on an ROTC scholarship, transferring after 3 years into OSU's College of Veterinary Medicine. His dreams were realized when he was commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Army in 1984. He and Sheryl Patton were married in August 1985 in Stillwater, OK. Burial services with full military honors were held at Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery on May 31, 2006. Daniel is survived by his wife Sheryl; son Garrett; daughter Rachel; parents, Col (Ret.) and Mrs. Herbert S. Holland, Jr.; parents-in-law, Bancker and Lana Cade; brothers and sisters (and their spouses), Col (Ret.) Robert F. Holland (Carol), Mark M. Holland (Josie), Patricia Nixon (Thomas), David W. Holland (MaryAnn), Mary K. Ralya (Steven), Maj (Ret.) John R. Holland (Rita), Claire Nieswiadomy (Michael), Catherine Ochoa (Joseph), and Elizabeth Blute (Peter); sister-in-law, Kellie Robinson; and many beloved nieces and nephews. Today we remember Army LTC Daniel E. Holland, a man who loved his family and country and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom. Private First Class Daniel R. Parker Mr. President, it is my honor also to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Army PFC Daniel R. Parker, who died on August 12, 2003 from injuries sustained when he was thrown from his vehicle after the driver swerved to avoid an oncoming vehicle while serving his Nation in Mosul, Iraq. Dan was born August 17, 1984, in Oklahoma City and later moved to Lake Elsinore, CA. An active member of ROTC in high school in Lake Elsinore, CA, he followed in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, enlisting in the Army at the age of 17, just 2 weeks after graduating from Lake Elsinore High School. His first assignment after completing training at Ft Sill, OK was B Battery, 2nd Battalion, 44th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, Air Assault, Fort Campbell, KY. Deploying for the first time in March 2003, Dan was part of the team sent to the villa where two sons of Saddam Hussein were hiding on July 23, 2003. After the gunfight that killed Odai and Qusai Hussein, Dan's photo was taken by media and he was on the cover of the Los Angeles Times standing in front of the building, holding his gun. Dan was laid to rest in Riverside National Cemetery in Riverside, CA, and is survived by his parents, Billy and Sherri Parker; three brothers, Dustin, Dalton, and Dallas; and a sister, Danielle. Just before Dan deployed, his father drove to Nashville, TN, to spend time with him. ``We drove around Nashville, went out to Opryland, drove down Music Row. I told him no one has a guarantee on the number of years you got. We don't know what the number is, but the important thing is every day you do what you're supposed to do,'' said his father. ``Not one time, ever, did I think that he wasn't going to walk through that door back home, but that's OK. I'm not disappointed in the 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years that he didn't have. I'm excited about the 18 he did have. He was able to touch so many people's lives,'' Billy Parker said. Today we remember Army PFC Daniel R. Parker, a young man who loved his family and country and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom. Private First Class Joshua F. Powers Mr. President, I wish to remember the life and sacrifice of Army PFC Joshua F. Powers, of Skiatook, OK who died on February 24, 2006, of noncombat related injuries while serving his nation in Baghdad, Iraq. As the youngest of three boys, Joshua was born February 11, 1985 and enlisted in July 2005. After basic training he was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, KY. He had been in Iraq for just over two weeks. Josh was buried at Osage Garden Cemetery, Skiatook, OK where Army personnel honored him with a 21-gun salute and played ``Taps''. He is survived by his mother Patricia; father Ernest; and brothers Michael and Jonathan. At the funeral service, an elder at Sperry's Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, C.H. Whiteman, said Joshua was doing what he thought was right. ``If it weren't for young men like him, we couldn't enjoy the kind of life we have in America,'' he said. Today we remember Army PFC Joshua F. Powers, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom. Specialist Bryan L. Quinton Mr. President, I also wish to remember the life and sacrifice of Army SPC Bryan L. Quinton, of Sand Springs, OK, who died on May 4, 2006, of injuries sustained when a rocket propelled grenade struck near his vehicle while he served his nation in Baghdad, Iraq. Born June 29, 1981 to Timothy and Kristi Quinton in Tulsa, OK, Bryan enlisted in the United States Army on January 15, 2004 and completed basic training and advanced individual training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO. He served in Alpha Company, 2nd Engineer Battalion, 2nd Infantry Division, Camp Giant, Korea before being reassigned to Bravo Company, 5th Engineer Battalion, Ft Leonard Wood, MO. On the day he died, Bryan, like he had done so many times before, insisted on being in the ``point''--the lead vehicle in a 12-vehicle convoy checking for bombs. ``Let me make it safe for everyone else,'' he was quoted as saying. No one would travel those highways until he and his comrades gave the ``all-clear signal,'' said BG Todd Semonite, commander of the engineer school at Fort Leonard Wood, MO. Everyone looked to him for their own personal safety. Funeral services were held on May 17, 2006 at First United Methodist Church in Sapulpa, OK. The road leading into the Green Hill Memorial Gardens Cemetery was bordered on both sides by scores of American flags, snapping in the breeze. Nearly 100 motorcyclists, many of them veterans from previous wars, stood at attention along the flag-lined road as the funeral procession glided past them. As eight Army pallbearers pulled the silver-colored casket from the hearse, a bagpiper in the distance softly played ``Amazing Grace.'' His wife Cyndi was given the folded flag that draped the coffin as her husband was honored by a 21-gun salute and the playing of taps. Bryan is survived by his wife Cyndi; daughter Pyper; son Connor; parents Tim and Kristy Quinton; brother Garth; brother Brent and his wife Alison; nephew Clay Quinton; grandmother Barbara Weaver; and grandfather Grady Quinton. ``My heart died when my husband did, but I know he would want us to think about all the crazy stunts he pulled and all the laughter,'' Cyndi said. ``God, you are very lucky to have him! Heaven, just get ready to laugh!'' Today we remember Army SPC Bryan L. Quinton, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom. Specialist Stephen M. Scott Mr. President, it is my honor to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Army SPC Stephen M. Scott of Lawton, OK, who died on August 23, 2003 from non-combat injuries sustained while serving his nation near Fallujah, Iraq. Born in San Antonio, Stephen moved several times before settling in Lawton, OK. He met his wife Marie in a psychology class before graduating from Eisenhower High School in Lawton and the couple married on July 4, 2002. Stephen joined the Oklahoma National Guard in 2001 and he and Marie chose to go on active duty a year later. Stephen was a cook assigned to 2nd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and Marie worked community relations for the 14th Public Affairs Detachment in Fort Carson, CO. He deployed to Iraq in June 2002. While she was aware of the risk involved in her husband's deployment, Marie never thought her office would be handling a news release announcing his death. ``Especially not Stephen,'' she said. ``He was amazing. I'm so sad, but sometimes I can't help but smile. He was so goofy he would make you laugh. He was very spiritual. He was very strong. We had a lot of plans.'' Today we remember Army SPC Stephen M. Scott, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom. Sergeant Danton K. Seitsinger Mr. President, it is my honor also to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Army SGT Danton K. Seitsinger of Oklahoma City, OK, who died on January 29, 2004 when a weapons cache detonated west of Ghanzi, Afghanistan. Kyle was born on October 4, 1974 and graduated from Wentworth Military Academy in Lexington, MO, in May 1993. He enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps on December 7, 1993 and spent his 6 years guarding U.S. embassies in Brasilia, Moscow and the consulate in Rio de Janeiro. After separating from the Marine Corps in 2000, he attended Oklahoma Christian University and enlisted with the 486th Civil Affairs Battalion, Army Reserve, Broken Arrow, OK. While at Oklahoma Christian University, Kyle worked for the student newspaper, serving as an editor for 2 years. In 2002, he was selected as one of 16 student journalists to participate in the Summer Institute in Journalism sponsored by the Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities. His assignments included interviews with the Colombian president as well as U.S. Representatives Ernest Istook and J.C. Watts. In 2003, Kyle spent 6 months in Costa Rica in a program designed to immerse the learner in the Spanish language. While serving in Brasilia, he ``adopted'' two young poor girls and urged his family to send them gifts. He wasted no time, rising early to explore the many cities he visited. It is as though he knew he needed a faster pace to complete his life. Just 12 months short of his graduation with a dual major in journalism and Spanish, Kyle was called to active duty in November 2003 and deployed to Afghanistan. Kyle is survived by his father Dan; mother Jo; and two sisters, Karla Seitsinger and Penny Owen Cockerell. He is buried in Headrick Cemetery in Headrick, OK. Today we remember Army SGT Danton K. Seitsinger, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom. Staff Sergeant Steven W. White Mr. President, I wish to remember the life and sacrifice of Army SSG Steven W. White of Lawton, OK who died on August 13, 2003 from injuries sustained when his M113 armored personnel carrier hit an anti-tank mine while he served his nation in Tikrit, Iraq. Steven was born November 6, 1973 and graduated from Fruitvale High School in Fruitvale, TX. A 9 year Army veteran, he re-enlisted in February 2003 for 6 more years and had been in Iraq for about 4 months. He was a truck mechanic assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 4th Battalion, 42nd Field Artillery Regiment, based at Fort Hood, TX. Steven was laid to rest in Haven of Memories Cemetery in Canton, TX. He is survived by his wife Laniece and four children ranging in age from 12 years to 16 months. ``He would always want to come home and visit with classmates and see his family,'' said his wife. ``He was a simple man. It didn't take much to please him.'' Today we remember Army SSG Steven W. White, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom. Lance Corporal Hatak Keyu Yearby Mr. President, I also remember the life and sacrifice of Marine Corps LCPL Hatak Keyu Yearby, of Overbrook, OK who died on May 14, 2006, of injuries sustained from an improvised explosive device while serving his nation in Al Anbar province of Iraq. Hatak was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Base Kaneohe Bay, HI. Hatak was born on March 11, 1985 in Overbrook, OK and graduated from Marietta High School in 2003 where he was remembered as a quiet, well- mannered young man who was a good student and person. A proud native American, he grew up attending powwows, where he performed and competed as a traditional Choctaw dancer. Good at his craft, he earned second place at the Trail of Tears Powwow in September 2003 and second-place at the Citizen Potawatomi Nation Intertribal Powwow in October 2004. Wearing two long braids much of his life, he woke one morning and told his mother he had to cut his hair because of a dream. He then joined the Marines in May 2005, married Lindsey Michelle in February 2006 and went to Iraq the following month. About 1,000 people attended a funeral service meant to celebrate the life of the 21-year-old newlywed. Burial services were conducted at the Yearby Family Cemetery in Overbrook. OK. Hatak is survived by his wife Lindsey; his parents, Justin and Mary Yearby; and two sisters, Shema Yearby and Samarrah Bell. Today we remember Marine Corps LCPL Hatak Keyu Yearby, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me say first of all to leave that chart up, because it shows very clearly that I might have the biggest dog in this fight. I do not know. But I will say that Cushing, OK, has more pipelines coming through, throughout the United States, than any other city in America. That is where they all come through. A few minutes ago the Senator from Wyoming was talking about what the President said less than a year ago, that he was going to be cooperating, we are going to do this thing, it will be the best thing for America. He has not done it. But I will tell you what is worse than that. This right here: because of this pipeline, the hub we have in Cushing, OK--the President went to Cushing, OK; this was about a year ago--over 2 years ago he did--he went there to affirm to the American people that he is going to do all he can to make sure this pipeline becomes a reality. Read this, I ask my friend from North Dakota. It says: I am directing my administration to make this project a priority, to go ahead and get it done. He has made this--I am not going to use the L word because it sounds disrespectful, and I lose credibility when I do that. He is saying something that is not true. He moved from that, and he has done everything since that time to destroy the pipeline. That was when they were talking about the southern leg. Well, obviously the southern leg is not a problem because the southern leg does not cross an international border, so the President couldn't stop that even if he wanted to. So he was taking credit for that, but he is certainly underestimating the people of Oklahoma. In fact, nobody showed up when he was there. So that portion between Canada and Cushing is where the problem began. I am going to throw out something very briefly. I also did this yesterday on the floor, but I think it is important. There is a new surge of opposition to this that wasn't there before this happened. Tom Steyer is a very fine person, I am sure--I don't know him--but Tom Steyer has put up $100 million--his words, not mine-- $50 million of his own money, to do two things. One is to resurrect global warming, which is dead. If we read the polls today, people have caught on. It is now No. 14 out of 15 of the environmental concerns, according to all the polling data. So he is trying to bring that up again. The second thing he is trying to do is stop the Keystone Pipeline. I say to my friend from North Dakota, and I don't want to sound disrespectful, but $50 million of that is his own money, and he has that out there right now. I am going to quote him: It is true that we expect to be heavily involved in the midterm elections. Fifty million of his own money. We are looking at a bunch of . . . races. . . . My guess is that we'll end up being involved in 8 or even more races. The Keystone Pipeline would create 42,000 jobs and tens of thousands more. If you look at my State of Oklahoma, about one-third of all those jobs are in the State of Oklahoma. Keystone is just the tip of the iceberg. When we look at this chart, we can see all of the domestic energy resources that are being developed around the county right now. We are going through a shale revolution, and the only thing getting in its way is the Federal Government. Look at this next chart. I can remember back when people considered the only oil States to be west of the Mississippi, the Western United States. But with the Marcellus coming through, you could argue--and I have seen the argument in the State of Pennsylvania, for example--it provides the second-most jobs in that State. Yet they need to be aware that this is what is happening in the United States. If we look at this map, it shows what we could do if we also had the Federal lands included in that. In fact, one of the shocking things we hear when we talk about the Federal lands is that in the past 6 years-- and that is since President Obama has been there, and he has done everything he could to retard the progress of oil and gas since he came to office. The production on State lands is up 61 percent--that is in 6 years, up 61 percent--and natural gas is up 33 percent. However, on Federal lands--land the President can affect--oil production is down 6 percent. How can production be up 61 percent on State lands and down 6 percent on Federal lands? I think that shows the commitment that is there. ICF International is a well-respected consulting firm. It is not Republican or Democratic. They recently released a report that says U.S. companies will need to invest $641 billion over the next 20 years in infrastructure to keep up with growing oil and gas production. What does that mean for jobs? According to the analysis, spending on these new pipelines alone will create 432,000 new jobs. It goes on and on talking about this. I asked the same question: How could it be--6 years ago I thought that this was a piece of cake, that this was going to be done. What is the argument against it? There are people who fight against fossil fuels. That is alive and well. But they know they are going to be producing it anyway, and if it goes to China--and there are already discussions; that is public record--if it gets to China, they are going to have to go through the refining process, and they don't have any restrictions on emissions in China. So the argument is that if they do it, there are going to be more emissions--if they find that to be so offensive--than if we do it here in the United States where we have the capability to produce and have the jobs here. When I go back to Oklahoma, people say: What are the arguments against it? I try to explain the argument they are using, but they don't buy it. Of course, I am in Oklahoma talking to normal people. Anyway, good luck. We are going to do all we can do to make this a reality. We are going to win this eventually, but I am afraid we have the opposition of this administration, and unless we get that turned around, we will have to wait for another President.

Mr. INHOFE. It is also about technology. All of the environmentalists or extreme environmentalists who are trying to stop or fighting this war against fossil fuels, they ought to be rejoicing that we have this technology now. When we talk about the number of wells, it it is now past 1 million wells that have been drilled using hydraulic fracturing. By their own admission, there has never been one documented case of groundwater contamination. So the answer is that there is no reason not to do it. This is our opportunity to be independent. We could be independent in a matter of weeks if we had the opportunity to export. It is not just private land, it is private and State land. All of the increase we have had, the 63 percent we talk about, is all private and State land. How is it possible that increase could take place on State land while on Federal land it goes down 6 percent? That tells the whole story.

Mr. INHOFE. I have often said and many of the people who are very conscious about the environment--as I am and others--have said this is the answer. I remember years ago when I was very young, I worked in the oilfields. I can remember there were small wells all over and, of course, at that time there wasn't an effort. Now they have cleaned things up, and nothing is greater in terms of the technology that has come along for the environment than what we have experienced. When we think about what is happening all over the world--I am glad the Senator mentioned this--with ISIS and all of these problems we have right now, I believe we are facing a greater threat right now militarily than we have before. And that is where a lot of our energy is coming from, and it doesn't have to. A good friend of the Senator and a good friend of mine named Harold Hamm--he is from Oklahoma, but he does a lot of work up there--I asked him a question in relation to the President repeatedly saying: Well, if we were to go ahead and develop this on Federal lands, it would take 10 years before that would reach the economy. I was going to be on an unfriendly TV show, and I called up Harold Hamm and I said: Harold, I am going to ask you a question, and be careful in the way you answer it because I am going to use your name and your answer on nationwide TV. If you were set up someplace like New Mexico on Federal land that had not been touched before, how long would it take that first barrel of oil to reach the economy? Without hesitating, he said: Seventy days. I said: Seventy days? Well, that is 10 weeks, not 10 years. Then he went on to say what would happen each week for those 10 weeks. I have never been refuted since we used that. In addition to all the arguments we are using, just think about what our oil independence, our energy independence could be in this country. It is all there for the taking. This is the key element to make that a reality.

Mr. INHOFE. My friend is correct. It was 1948 in Duncan, OK.