Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. I have been listening to the discussion. I agree wholeheartedly with everything that has been said. The amendment we are going to be voting on is part of three different amendments. I had one of them, as do my two colleagues. One thing that hasn't been said is the part I put in where I constructed a provision to prohibit transferring of detainees for emergency medical treatment, which is just another way of getting them there.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 more minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. The other thing is, when you transfer someone here for incarceration purposes, is it not true these are not criminals, these are terrorists, and what terrorists do for a living is train other people to be terrorists? To commingle them in our prison system is something that would be of great danger to this country. That is something my colleagues would agree is one of the major reasons we want to keep them from the United States.

Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry: The Chair has said the time on our side has expired. Of course, I know----

Mr. INHOFE. I know the chairman wants to use some time here too. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his remarks, if all time has not been consumed, I be given a few minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that at 4:00 there might be a unanimous consent which will lead us to a vote at 5:00. Is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it seems we are going to have an opportunity a little later on to discuss this tonight. In the capacity of the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, I have to say that I can't imagine having a chairman with whom I cooperate and agree with on almost every issue like Chairman Levin. I really appreciate the work we have done together. We both recognize this is the most important piece of legislation each year, and we both recognize that, for 51 consecutive years, we have had this legislation. Nothing has come up to obstruct it. We also realize Republicans would prefer to have more opportunities to have amendments, and Chairman Levin has been very helpful in helping us to get that. The area on which I don't agree is in the area of Gitmo and how it should be used. Every time I go to Gitmo, I shake my head and I say: Why in the world would we not use this resource? We don't have another resource like it. We heard the Senator from Georgia make the statement that he asked the chairman: If we don't have Gitmo to send these people, where are we going to send them? I believe it was Secretary of Defense Panetta who said: We don't know. There is not another place. We have used it successfully since 1904. I often have said, and said yesterday, that we don't have many good deals in government. This is one that is. Since 1904, our rent on that territory has been $4,000 a year. I don't think anyone can come up with a better deal, and besides Castro doesn't collect it about half the time. It is argued that we can use it for interrogation. The information we received which led to Osama bin Laden's demise was received from interrogation which took place at Gitmo. When we talk about the treatment of people, the one thing that I discover every time I go down there is one of the chief problems they have in Gitmo is obesity because they are eating better than they have ever eaten at any other time in their lives. A primary care provider is there for every 450 detainees. They have never had that kind of treatment at any other time in their lives. The detainees receive age- appropriate colon cancer screening, TB screening, annual dental procedures, physical therapy, and all these things. The idea that we would not be able to bring them to the United States for some more serious personal care I can't buy because we have the U.S. Naval Hospital at Guantanamo Bay. I have been there. They have approximately 250 personnel there who support the base's population of over 6,000. When I look at this and I think of the options they have and this obsession the President seems to have to bring these terrorists into the United States, I have to share this one story. I know there is going to be a request here in just a moment. I can remember back 4\1/2\ years ago when this President first came in office--I am going from memory now--he had 17 places in the United States where he could put these terrorists. One happened to be in my State of Oklahoma, Fort Sill. He went down to look at the facility. The major who was in charge of it told me she had several tours of duty at Guantanamo. She said: Go back and tell those people in Washington we do not need to be spreading these terrorists throughout the continental United States when we have that great facility. She said she had been there twice and it is state- of-the-art. I have a great fear, and that is that once we get a different administration here that realizes the value of Guantanamo Bay, it will be too late to go back and get it again. That is the reason we have been holding on to it with white knuckles. The amendment we are going to be voting on in another hour or so, whenever it is set in, is going to be an amendment that will allow us to continue to use what I consider to be one of the most valuable assets we have in the system. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. On behalf of Senator Ayotte, myself, and others, I call up amendment No. 2255 and ask the clerk to report by number.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, during this pause, if someone comes down to talk about the two amendments that will be voted on at 5 o'clock, I will be happy to defer to them. But I think it is important that we understand we are finally making some headway in getting into this Defense authorization bill. It seems as if every year for 51 years now we have been able to get it through. While other bills become controversial, get to a point where they cannot go any further, that does not happen with the Defense authorization bill. It is one that has to take place. As the Republican ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, let me say, as I have said before, I thank my friend and colleague the chairman Carl Levin for his leadership in marking up this bill. It has always been difficult. In most cases we agree with each other. We happen to be looking at an amendment now where we disagree. But I always consider the NDAA bill as the most important piece of legislation in Congress every year. It contains authorizations that support our men and women serving in harm's way, all the way in Afghanistan and around the world. It supports the training of our servicemembers and maintenance and modernization of their equipment. It authorizes research and development; that is, R&D efforts that will ensure that we maintain technological superiority over our enemies and can defeat the threats of tomorrow. Most important, it provides for the pay and benefits for the brave men and women who have made their sacrifices and are putting their lives at risk for our benefit. However, it is important to note this year--and this has not happened before, in my memory--the bill provides all of these vitally important efforts only as the reduced spending levels would allow. In an era increasingly defined by bipartisan gridlock, the NDAA is one of the rare occasions where Members of both parties can come together. This enduring commitment was exemplified again this year by the overwhelming bipartisan support we had for the bill that came out of our committee--bipartisan support. We want, of course, to have that same bipartisan support here on the floor. Hopefully we will be able to get this done by the end of this week. Consideration of this year's NDAA comes at a time in our national security when we face more volatile and dangerous times than we ever have in the history of this country. Chaos and violence are on the rise in the Middle East and north Africa. Al Qaeda is growing and establishing new safe havens from which to plan and launch attacks against the United States. We have rogue nations, such as Iran and North Korea. It is not the way it was in the old days--I have often said the good old days--of the Cold War where we had an enemy and that enemy was predictable. We knew that enemy. Remember, we used to have this thing called mutual assured destruction. That meant something then, but it doesn't mean anything now because our potential enemies out there want to be destroyed. They have a different mentality than they used to. Iran and North Korea are developing their nuclear capability and delivery systems. Our intelligence has told us that Iran will have a weapon and a delivery system. All the way back in 2007 they said they would have it by 2015. That is a year and a half from right now. I tell the Chair that they are going to have that capability. The threats are much more serious to us now. When I say this is the first time we have faced the crisis we are facing now, it is not just because the enemy is out there. I am talking about an enemy who will have the capability of sending a weapon over and delivering it to the United States, but at the same time over the last 5 years of this administration the military has already endured a $487 billion cut. That is $487 billion out of the defense budget. That is before sequestration. Now we have sequestration--an outcome once thought to be so egregious, I can remember that as recently as less than a year ago, we thought: We are not going to have this. After $487 billion being pulled out of the military, we cannot also have sequestration, which will be the $\1/2\ trillion that will come out in the next period of time. So we didn't think it would happen, but it did happen. We are now into what, our seventh or eighth month of sequestration. In total, our military men and women stand to endure over a $1 trillion slash from their budget. These cuts are forcing a dramatic decline in military readiness and capabilities. I talked to General Odierno yesterday. He is Chief of Staff of the Army. He recently said that his forces are at the--I am going to quote now--``lowest readiness levels I have seen within our Army since I've been serving for the last 37 years'' and that only two brigades are ready for combat. That is our U.S. Army. We have never had that confession made. It is a level of desperation where they are willing to come out and talk of it. We cannot sustain another $\1/2\ trillion in cuts. Admiral Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, said that ``because of fiscal limitations and the situation we're in, we don't have another strike group trained and ready to respond on short notice in case of emergencies. We're tapped out.'' That is the CNO of the Navy. Our top military leaders now warn of being unable to protect America's interests around the world. Keep in mind, Admiral Winnefeld is the No. 2 person in line. He is the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Admiral Winnefeld, who has been there nearly 40 years, stated earlier this year that ``there could be, for the first time in my career, instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and we will have to say we cannot.'' General Dempsey, the No. 1 guy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned that continued national security cuts will ``severely limit our ability to implement our defense strategy. It will put the nation at greater risk of coercion, and it will break faith with men and women in uniform.'' This is why I am so troubled by the disastrous path we are on. In the face of mounting threats to America, we are crippling the very people who are vital to our security--the men and women in uniform. To be clear, our military was facing readiness shortfalls even before sequestration took effect. Nearly 12 years of sustained combat operations have really worn down our forces and their equipment. In order to meet the spending caps mandated by sequestration, the military services are being forced to starve the accounts necessary to repair and reset their forces. Rather than rebuilding the ability of our military to defend the country, we are digging ourselves deeper into a hole. The longer we allow military readiness and capabilities to decline, the more money and time it will take to rebuild. We already know this is the case based on what happened in fiscal year 2013. For example, General Welsh, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, said that because of the first round of sequestration cuts he was ``forced to ground 33 squadrons''--he's talking about fighter squadrons--``including 13 combat-coded squadrons and an additional seven squadrons were reduced to basic `takeoff and land' training. It will now cost a minimum of 10 percent more flying hours to fully retrain the grounded squadrons . . . '' What he is saying is that when it was mandated that he take down 33 squadrons--which happened around April--then in July, 3 months later, they said, you can start working the squadrons again--he is saying that it costs more to retrain and bring these people back up in these proficiencies than it saved during that 3-month period of time. He specifically said that it will now cost a minimum of 10 percent more flying hours to fully retrain the grounded squadrons than it would have to simply keep them trained all along. We heard that from several other top people as well. I talked to General Amos yesterday. He is with the Marine Corps. He said he has approximately $800 million in critical military construction funding that they will be unable to execute under sequestration--assuming they go through with sequestration. By the way, I have not given up on stopping the military sequestration that is damaging our ability to defend ourselves. General Amos said that the military construction funding will be unable to execute under sequestration and will need to be deferred. Further, it will cost over $6.5 billion to buy back orders of the V- 22s, joint strike fighters, Hughes, and Cobras. Those are four platforms we would have to bring back at the additional cost of $6.5 billion that we otherwise would not have spent. On Monday Admiral Greenert told me that under the current budget environment he will be forced to defer much-needed ship maintenance, costing a 15- to 20-percent increase in total costs. In other words, the things they are doing now to meet these line-by- line mandates of reductions are not saving money but costing money. Under sequestration, we will lose one Virginia-class submarine, one littoral combat ship, one afloat forward staging base, development of an Ohio-class replacement submarine program. They will all be delayed, which again will result in an increased price. So not only is sequestration gutting our military capabilities, it ends up costing American taxpayers more than it will save. We are falling victim to the misguided belief that as the wars of today wind down, we can afford to gut investments in our Nation's defenses. It is irresponsible and makes America less safe. I remember going through the same thing back in the 1990s when the chant at that time was the cold war is over, so we no longer need that strong of a defense. We heard it from both sides, and now we are going through the same thing. History reminds us we cannot dictate when and where the next conflict is going to arise. Instead, if we allow the continued dismantling of our military, we will be less safe and less prepared to defend our country. If our military men and women are called upon, their ability to accomplish the mission will be undermined, and tragically, more will lose their lives unnecessarily. We had the top military people in our Armed Services Committee, and I asked them about this issue. They talked about the loss of readiness-- risk equals lives. When you take on more risks, you lose more American lives. General Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, testified that if he is tasked to respond to a contingency in the current budget environment: We would have fewer forces, arriving less trained, arriving later to the fight. This would delay the build-up of combat power, allow the enemy more time to build up their defenses, and likely prolong combat operations altogether. This is a formula for more U.S. casualties. Such an outcome would be immoral and a dereliction of duty. If we expect the men and women in our military to go in harm's way to protect America, we have an obligation to provide them with the training, technology, and capabilities that is required to decisively overwhelm any adversary at any time and return safely to home and their loved ones. I can remember when they used to use a different term than they use today. Today they call it nature of military operations. It used to be defending America on how many fronts. Since World War II, there were always two fronts, and now we are down to where it would be hard to do it on one front, and that is why this bill is so important and why protecting the readiness of our military men and women remains my top priority. However, something has to be done to mitigate any devastating impact of readiness, so we must find long-term solutions. Every day that goes by without action will only increase the damage. I do have an amendment that would phase sequester in a way that would allow our senior military leaders to enact reforms without disproportionately degrading our military so we can continue to train and prepare our military women and men. My good friend the Senator from Alabama and I are joining forces. We have an amendment that is going to allow some degree of latitude and flexibility. So while we are living under the same budget constraints we are under today, they can make some decisions where it is not just an online reduction. I have just finished talking about how much more that will end up costing us. I see now we have someone else who has come to the floor to be heard. I want to repeat how much I appreciate the chairman of the committee Carl Levin for his cooperation with our side. He is trying to get this to become a reality and get this bill passed hopefully this week. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not object, but specifically we have a request by the prime author of this amendment to be under consideration at 5 o'clock to have 5 minutes. So I assume the thrust of the Senator's UC request is to give her 5 minutes, even if it happens to fall starting at 5 o'clock.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, will the Senator amend his request and add the following language: following the disposition of the McCaskill-Ayotte amendment, all pending amendments be withdrawn and the Republican manager or his designee be recognized to offer the next amendment in order, followed by an amendment offered by the majority side, and that the two sides continue offering amendments in alternating fashion until all amendments are disposed of.

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend floor privileges to MAJ Richard Anderson, our Army fellow, for the remainder of this calendar year.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the majority leader should go ahead. My remarks will be longer.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 10 minutes might be extended by about 10 more minutes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me start off, before the leader leaves the floor--and I was hoping to do this before the Chaplain of the Senate, Dr. Barry Black, left. I had a horrible loss eight days ago, losing a son. It was so touching to me--and I thank Barry Black, who included a good bit of some things about my son and about me in his opening prayer. Also, the comments that were made, the very gentle comments, and very helpful, that were made by the majority leader. So, through the Chair, I wish to thank Harry Reid very much for the comments he made.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have something coming up that we are going to be talking about this week, and I am a little disturbed because I don't know exactly when it is going to be coming up, and I don't know how many objections there are going to be. I just know there are some people who want to delay, since it is a must-pass bill, the National Defense Authorization Act. We have passed it every year for, I think, 51 years. We have never failed to pass it. This is not going to be the first year that we fail to pass it. But I am hoping our Members will recognize how significant this is. First of all, as the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the committee, Senator Levin, for his leadership and for his cooperation, which we enjoyed during the committee markup of this bill. We got it through the committee in pretty fast order. People realized there are some things that had to be taken up on the floor--three very controversial issues. Fine. This is where it should be taken up. It will be taken up. There will be amendments I will strongly oppose and some I will support. But I have always considered the National Defense Authorization Act to be the most important piece of legislation Congress considers each year. This bill contains crucial authorizations that support our men and women in harm's way in Afghanistan and around the world. It supports training of our servicemembers and maintenance and modernization of their equipment to ensure they are prepared to overwhelm any adversary and return home safely to their loved ones. But--and this is a big but--it does so only as the reduced defense spending will allow. It authorizes research and development efforts that will ensure we maintain technological superiority over our enemies and can successfully defeat the threats of tomorrow. But, again, it does so only--this is different; this has never happened before--when we are facing a reduction in our military spending. It is so unacceptably low that it has caused our leaders in all core services, which I will read in just a moment, to talk about how this is life-threatening. But, most importantly, one thing we will continue to do is provide for the pay and the benefits of the brave men and women who are in harm's way to defend this Nation. In an era increasingly defined by partisan gridlock, the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--is one of the rare occasions where Members of both parties can come together out of a shared commitment to our military men and women. This enduring commitment was exemplified this year again by the overwhelming bipartisan majority that supported the passage of the NDAA from the committee in June. I look forward to continuing this tradition and this cooperation until we get this bill passed. Consideration of this year's NDAA comes at a pivotal moment for our national security. The global security environment we face is more volatile and dangerous than any other time in my memory or, I suggest, in the history of the country. Yet our ability to protect the country against these growing threats is at serious risk. After losing $487 billion--that just came out of the defense budget through the first 4\1/2\, 5 years of this administration--we now are looking at sequestration. Sequestration is an outcome thought to be so egregious and irresponsible that it would never be allowed to happen. None of us believed it would happen, that we would--after already losing $487 billion from our defense system--have to be facing sequestration. I never can say ``sequestration'' without reminding people why it is only 18 percent of our budget goes to defending America. Yet they have been forced to endure 50 percent of the cuts. It is wrong. But, nonetheless, that is what has been happening over the last--it has been in effect for 8 months. Its drastic across-the-board cuts are exacerbating the effects of an already declining national security budget. As a result, the military is experiencing a dramatic decline in readiness and capabilities. I have a chart in the Chamber. General Odierno, the Chief of Staff of the Army, recently said that his forces are at the--I am quoting now--``lowest readiness levels I've seen within our Army since I've been serving for the last 37 years'' and that only two brigades are ready for combat--only two brigades. This is General Odierno. The reason I wanted this chart put up is because it tells us where we are today. The part shown in orange, which is the huge cuts coming from sequestration, is far greater than the rest of it. That is readiness. That is what we are talking about. We do hear a lot about the cost of personnel and all of that, but that is shown in the lower colored blue. So you are not talking about if you are able to do away with those actually coming up with any major reductions. The part shown in yellow is force structure. Now we are talking about, as General Odierno said, being down to only two brigades that are ready for combat. That is because of what has already been happening in the last 8 months in the force structure. The modernization is shown in green on the chart. Modernization is always the first to be cut when force cuts come in because they figure that is something you don't feel the pain of today. But I want you to concentrate on the part shown in orange because that is where it really would hurt us. So we had General Odierno saying his forces were at the lowest readiness levels he has seen in his 37 years in the U.S. Army. I was in the Army many years ago, and I can remember back then when it always had priority over everything. Defending America seemed to be the thing. Admiral Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, said: . . . because of fiscal limitations and the situation we're in we don't have another strike group trained and ready to respond on short notice in case of a contingency. We're tapped out. That is our Navy. Our top military leaders now warn of being unable to protect American interests around the world. Admiral Winnefeld--he is the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the next-to-the-highest military person-- said earlier this year: ``There could be, for the first time in my career, instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and we will have to say we cannot.'' General Dempsey, the No. 1 military person, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned that continued national security cuts will--and I am again quoting--``severely limit our ability to implement our defense strategy. It will put the nation at greater risk of coercion, and it will break faith with the men and women in uniform.'' That is why I am so troubled by this disastrous path we are on. In the face of mounting threats to America, prolonged budgetary uncertainties and the mindless sequestration cuts are crippling the people who are vital to our security, our men and women in the military. To be clear, our military was facing readiness shortfalls even before sequestration took effect. Sequestration has only been in effect for 8 months. We never dreamed it would, after all the cuts we have gotten out of it from, quite frankly, this administration. So the equipment, the problems we have--rather than rebuilding the ability of our military to defend the country, we are digging ourselves deeper into a hole. The longer we allow military readiness and capabilities to decline, the more money and time it will take to rebuild. We are falling victim to the misguided belief that as the wars of today wind down, we can afford to gut investments in our Nation's defense. This is an irresponsible and dangerous course. I remember back during the middle of the 1990s. They talked about a peace dividend at that time. I can remember them saying: Well, the Cold War is over. We no longer need that strong of a military. Now, in this day and age, it is so much more serious than it has been in the past. Our top military leaders agree. In testimony before the Armed Services Committee last week, General Amos--he is the Commandant of the Marine Corps--testified that if he is asked to respond to a contingency in the current budget environment--I am quoting--``we will have fewer forces arriving less-trained, arriving later to the fight. This would delay the buildup of combat power, allow the enemy more time to build its defenses, and would likely prolong combat operations altogether. This a formula for more American casualties.'' That is the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Such an outcome would be immoral and a dereliction of duty. If we expect the men and women of our military to go into harm's way to protect America, we have an obligation to provide them with the training, technology, and capabilities required to decisively overwhelm any adversary at any time and return safely home to their loved ones. Under this sequestration, we cannot do it. That is what we are talking about right here when I say we are talking about our obligation to provide the training, technology, and capabilities. That is shown in all that orange on the chart. That means that is what we are not going to do. This is why ending sequestration and protecting the readiness of our military men and women remains my top priority. However, something must be done now to mitigate the devastating impacts to readiness until we can find a long-term solution. Again, I am just talking a little bit about the significance of having our Defense authorization bill come to the floor, get it started, start working on amendments. This is what is important. But in order to address the shortfalls we have, I have an amendment that would phase sequester in a way that would allow our senior military leaders to enact reforms without disproportionately degrading our ability to train and prepare our military men and women to protect this country. Let me say quickly, one of my closest friends in this Chamber is one of the Senators from Alabama, Jeff Sessions. Jeff Sessions, as we speak, is on a plane on his way back from California, so he cannot be here. Jeff Sessions has come up with an amendment. He is on the Budget Committee. He is a real budget hawk, and he still is willing to increase the military by 1 percent with a proposed amendment he might have. When Jeff Sessions gets back, I am going to talk to him about going together on his amendment so we can maybe merge the two amendments. My amendment seeks to leverage what General Odierno refers to as ``ramping,'' a rephasing of the sequestration cuts that reduces the impact in fiscal year 2014 and 2015 to a more manageable level and shifts the remainder of the required cuts across the remaining years. So we are talking about that you would not feel it as much in these first 2 years, and yet we would make up for it, and that is why it is budget neutral. The Congressional Budget Office has told me this amendment will not score. That is very important to a lot of people. Let me be real clear: I remain committed to ending sequestration of our military men and women. My amendment does not fix sequestration nor will it impede my continued push for fixing sequestration. We are going to continue to do that. It is immoral that we are not doing it. However, the damage being done to our military is so egregious and reckless under the current sequester mechanism that I have no choice but to take this step to avoid an even greater readiness catastrophe that would seriously damage our national security. I talked just a few minutes ago to General Odierno. He is the Commander, the top person in the U.S. Army. I made a couple of notes here. I want to make sure I do not misquote him because he said if we can do what we are trying to do with this amendment--in other words, backload some of this stuff--it would actually save money 3 or 4 years from now because if you start cutting right now across the board, as would be mandated by sequestering, then you are going to be cutting in areas where it is going to cost you more to come back and do that. So I think you will find most of the military is very anxious to do that. Again, I am not going to offer this until we have a chance to talk to Senator Sessions and hopefully come up with something that will be sellable to this body. In addition to my concerns about sequestration, this bill contains several provisions that I find deeply problematic. In particular, I strongly oppose the sections that would loosen restrictions on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay into the United States or to countries such as Yemen that remain vulnerable to Al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates. I have to ad-lib here a little bit because I cannot remember how many years I have been trying to save one of the greatest assets this country has, and that is Guantanamo Bay. I say to my good friend, the Presiding Officer, this is one of the few good deals we have because we have had Guantanamo Bay since 1904, and it has cost us--I think the total is $4,000 a year--and Castro forgets to collect about every other year. So it is one of the few good deals we have out there. It is the only place you can put these combatants where they are in a position where they can be interrogated and we can save American lives, and I do not know why this President, President Obama, has this obsession to turn these people out of Guantanamo Bay back into the United States. He first did this his first year--4 years ago. He had a plan. He had located, I think it was, 17 places in America where he could send these terrorists. One of them happened to be in my State of Oklahoma at Fort Sill. I will always remember that. I went down to Fort Sill, I say to the Presiding Officer, because I found out we have a small prison down there. And the major, a female who runs that prison, said to me: I can't understand what is wrong with you people in Washington. You have that perfectly good facility down there that will save American lives, and people are treated better than they have ever been treated before. One of the major problems we have down there is obesity because they are eating so much. So it is not a matter of not being treated fairly. Well, for some reason this President has had a--and one of the problems with turning these people back in to America into our system is that a terrorist is not a criminal. A terrorist teaches others. They are in the business of teaching other people to be terrorists. You put them in our prison system and they are going to be working on the people who are there. That is why I have such strong feelings about the closing of Guantanamo--or the President trying to do that. We have stopped him from doing that for 4\1/2\ years now. We will continue. However, they are trying to make it easier for them to take people out of Guantanamo Bay and send them to my State of Oklahoma and throughout America. Hopefully we can defeat that part of this bill. While I am pleased the bill fully funds the budget request for missile defense and includes a provision that would establish a radar site on the east coast, I remain concerned that we are vulnerable to a growing ballistic missile threat from the Middle East. Let me comment here. I was upset. The first budget that President Obama had, I knew--and again, when you say ``liberal'' and ``conservative'' that is not name calling. ``Liberal'' simply means you want government to have more involvement in our lives, and he is a liberal person. And most liberals do not think we need a military, to start with. I always remember his first budget. I went over to Afghanistan so I could be there when he announced his budget, knowing if I was doing it from there with tanks going back and forth, I would get some attention on it. Sure enough, it worked. In that first budget, the President, in his budget, did away with our only fifth-generation fighter, the F-22; did away with our lift capacity, the C-17; did away with our future combat system, which had been the first advance in ground capability in probably 50 years. But I think the worst of everything was, he did away with the site that we were building in Poland and the Czech Republic to be a ground- based interceptor that would take care of something coming from that direction into the United States. You see, we have 33 ground-based interceptors. They are all located on the west coast. Our intelligence has told us since 2007 that Iran is going to have the capability of a weapon and a delivery system--by weapon, I am talking about a nuclear weapon--and a delivery system by 2015. We are talking about in less than a year and a half from now. He is going to have that capability. So we were building that for the purpose of being able to catch something coming from that direction. Well, he took that out, and we stopped that. There are other problems with that too because I remember when we were trying to sell Poland and the Czech Republic on the idea. They said: Are you sure now? If we agree and we make Russia angry at us by agreeing to have a ground-based interceptor in Poland and the radar in the Czech Republic, are you sure that some President is not going to come along and pull the rug out from under us? I said: I am absolutely positive. That is exactly what happened. I only mention that because the radar site on the east coast certainly would not be effective by the time they are going to have that capability. Nonetheless, we are addressing it. I am pleased that under Chairman Levin's leadership the committee was able to reach a compromise during the markup to address the scourge of sexual assault in the military. The Senate bill includes 16 provisions that are specifically targeted to improving the tools the Department, the services, and the commanders have at their disposal for fighting sexual assault. It includes an additional 12 provisions to make important improvements to the military justice system and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is a comprehensive, targeted legislative initiative that would address that. That is going to be controversial. I understand that. I think a lot of us served in the military. It happens that I was in the military court many years before most of you guys were born. At that time the one thing I learned--and this was way back then--was that the commander's influence in discipline is necessary. We are all going to keep that in mind as we look at some of these amendments. I look forward to bringing this to the floor as soon as we can, getting these controversial issues out of the way. I am hoping I will get favorable consideration on my amendment that is going to make it much less devastating to the military. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me first say to my good friend the leader that I wholeheartedly agree that arguably the two most significant amendments and most controversial amendments that have to be addressed would be on Guantanamo and then, of course, the Gillibrand amendment on sexual assault. I think we probably have different views and positions, but I think we agree that these need to be addressed immediately. My wish has been that we could do that and line up some of the other amendments but at the same time put ourselves in a position where we could have open amendments on our side. There is a great demand in our conference to have open amendments. I would like to get to the point where we could do that and have them somehow regulated so that they be relative to the subject matter of the bill, S. 1197. So that would be my concern, and for that reason I would object.

Mr. INHOFE. Would the leader yield?

Mr. INHOFE. I hope the leader is aware that I have just as strong feelings about these amendments. It is a starting place. And the leader said we need to be talking about it. I came down today and talked about both of these amendments at some length. While I say we may not be in agreement with the amendments, they need to be debated. Historically, every year since I have been here, I say through the Chair, we have had a lot of amendments. We have always been able to get it through--50, 51 years-- Mr. REID. It was 52, I think.

Mr. INHOFE. Fifty-two, and we are going to do it this time and I hope satisfy some of the concerns in our caucus at the same time. I thank the leader for his comments, and I want him to know we are in agreement on getting to these amendments.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while not many people know about the Federal Housing Finance Agency, it has become one of the most powerful and important government agencies. Following the financial crisis and massive bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and all the big banks, the Federal Government took a primary position in the mortgage market. Right now, 48 percent of all outstanding U.S. mortgages and 77 percent of those issued last year were guaranteed by the Federal Government. This is a problem in and of itself, but the FHFA is the agency that oversees all of them. Mel Watts is the guy President Obama has nominated to lead the agency. I know Mel from my time both in the House and the Senate, and I am deeply concerned that he will push the Federal Government further into the mortgage business, instead of moving us away from it. He has shown his colors during his time here in Washington, and he is not the right guy to lead the agency. I am opposed to his nomination and urge my colleagues to oppose him.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, earlier this month, I expressed my opposition to S. 1569, which allowed our debt limit to increase through February 7, 2014. Today, the Senate considers S.J. Res. 26, which would reject the suspension in the debt limit and immediately halt any new debt issuances by the United States. I support this resolution. My position remains unchanged from earlier this month. Our national debt is topping $17 trillion and has nearly doubled since the beginning of the Obama administration. If we allow the Nation to continue on its current path, it will only lead to economic destruction. Allowing the debt to continue increasing without any commonsense solutions to rein in the federal government would be irresponsible and reckless. The recent increase in the debt limit is President Obama's sixth since coming to office. In that time, no significant action has been taken to reduce the long term trajectory of the debt. If we continue to do nothing to rein in spending, the national debt will skyrocket to $25 trillion in the next decade. Even the President agrees with these numbers. We cannot allow this to happen, which is why I support the resolution prohibiting a continued suspension of the debt limit.