Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate Armed Services Committee is going to hold a hearing on the pending legislation regarding sexual assault in the military. Lately, we have been bombarded, we have been inundated with news reports about sexual assault in the military in our Nation. We can't lose sight of the fact that we have the finest military in the world. The presence of sexual predators in our force does not take away from the overwhelming good that is done around the world by our members in uniform, but the presence of these sexual predators in the ranks needs to be addressed, and that is what the military is doing now with or without our interference. Last year's NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--signed into law in January of this year, included 10 new provisions dealing with sexual assault that commanders have barely had time to begin implementing, let alone to assess the effectiveness of them. Yet some want to provide still more changes in the law this year. These commanders need time to act. We can't keep piling new demands on our commanders until they have had time to meet the previous demands. That is what the hearing tomorrow is really all about. We are going to be talking about more demands along these lines. Today, sexual assault has not been eliminated, but we are working on it. The battle is not lost. More needs to be done. We understand that, and more is going to be done. But we have to preserve the leadership tools that make our forces the finest in the world. One such tool has been to give commanders authority to identify and correct problems firmly and fairly and dispose of disciplinary offenses that destroy morale and readiness. That is why I oppose the proposals to eliminate the role of the commander in this process. To take the commander out of the process would invite failure. These commanders have to make decisions to send our brave troops into battle. How ludicrous is it that we would say to our commanders: You have to make a decision to send one of our kids into battle where they may end up losing their lives; however, you can't participate in the justice system of the troops. It doesn't make any sense at all. As we consider the many proposals to combat sexual assault in the military, we can't lose sight of the importance to do three things. The three things are protect, prevent, and preserve. We have to protect the critical role of the commander in driving cultural changes and accountability. We have to prevent case disposition authority from being transferred outside the chain of command. Those of us who have been in the service know what that is. Thirdly, we have to preserve the integrity of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as an integrated, functional system of justice. First, we have to protect the critical role of the commander. The military is a hierarchy. The most junior recruit quickly learns there is always someone above him in the military organization. I have been there. I understand that. The need to follow the chain of command has been instilled in our troops. That is what they do. It is not a social system; this is a chain of command. Our military is both an organization of leaders and of followers who are in training to become leaders. In peacetime or in war, leaders establish clear expectations and insist on meeting objectives. Every job in the military is important, and every job needs to be done correctly because lives depend on it. The security of our Nation also depends on it. To ensure that the tough jobs get done, the military has a justice system that sets the expectation that decisions have consequences and, I might add, bad decisions have consequences also. Today there are four major bills that have been introduced to address perceived deficiencies in how the armed services address sexual assault. I think these will very likely be discussed--maybe not all four of them, but some of them are going to be discussed in tomorrow's hearing. I believe that before we make significant, substantive, and procedural changes to the law, including the UCMJ, we need the benefit of adequate review. We need to think before we act. We have to prevent case disposition authority from being transferred outside the chain of command. It is a terrible idea to remove the authority of commanders to dispose of the military justice offenses. If commanders will be held responsible for abolishing sexual assault, then they must have the tools they need. Some propose establishing colonel-level JAGs--judge advocate generals--instead of commanders as disposition authorities who would decide what cases should go to courts-martial. The awesome authority of a commander is the foundation for discipline within the organization. The most junior servicemember in the organization knows, under the current law, their commander has the ability to decide if misconduct should be disposed of through administrative measures, by nonjudicial punishment, or by a court-martial. Others within the command watch how the commander deals with misconduct. All of this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. People are watching. Those individuals who are going to be under the control and command and jurisdiction of a commander have to know how they are doing it. If the commander is not allowed to exercise that authority, it will destroy discipline within the command. When discipline declines, the military's ability to deflect threats declines with it. Another proposal would create two separate disciplinary systems: one in which commanders retain limited ability to dispose of minor, uniquely military offenses; another where a judge advocate, far removed from the commander, decides what offenses go to trial by court-martial. Now, how can two systems possibly be more efficient and effective than one system in the hands of commanders who are fully vested in the wellness and the readiness of their commands? Another proposal would revoke designation of certain senior officers who are currently authorized by Federal law to convene general courts- martial. This has broad implications beyond military justice. This would require the services to revise literally hundreds of service regulations. Another proposal that I think is worthy of careful review would establish a special victims counsel. The proposal would assign an attorney to the victim of sexual assault to provide advice throughout the process, from initial complaint of sexual assault through final disposition. The Air Force has already developed a pilot program. We are doing it now. So I think the suggestion is good, but it is simply what we are currently doing. Wouldn't it be better to wait and get the results of what the Air Force is doing in their program to determine whether this is something we want to continue? I am willing to consider appropriate changes to the UCMJ in a thoughtful bipartisan approach that is consistent with the longstanding traditions of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. In the fiscal year 2013 NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--we created an independent panel to review the UCMJ and judicial proceedings of sexual assault cases. The panel is tasked with assessing the response systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate sexual assault and related offenses and to recommend how to improve effectiveness. The commission has only just begun, and we must allow it the opportunity to do what it was created to do. So we established this. It was just last January when we established this, and they are busy doing what we have asked them to do. Sexual assault cannot be abolished by legislation alone. While we should not wait to provide additional tools that could make a difference immediately, we have to be deliberate in making fundamental changes that could undermine the UCMJ. I said we should do three things, and this is the third thing. The third thing is to preserve the integrity of the UCMJ as an integrated, functional system of justice. Since 1951, the UCMJ has backed up commanders' authority and their best leadership skills with the force of law. The UCMJ is a deployable justice system that has proved to be effective throughout our Nation's conflicts. Some believe military justice under the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial is an informal, undisciplined system. Nothing could be further from the truth. The UCMJ is a highly developed and codified legal system. The Rules of Court Martial are the military counterpart to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and provide detailed and structured procedural rules. The Military Rules of Evidence are based on the Federal Rules of Evidence. The UCMJ has been at the forefront of changes in the civil criminal justice system. In fact, it has been ahead of the civil system. They are doing things in advance of what the civil system actually does. A rights warning statement similar to the now-familiar Miranda warnings was required by article 31 of the UCMJ a decade and a half before the Supreme Court decision of Miranda v. Arizona. The UCMJ was offering these protections long before the civil courts did--the same thing with article 38(b). It continued the 1948 Articles of War guarantee of qualified defense counsel--in other words, you get a defense counsel--to be provided to all accused and at earlier stages than required in civilian jurisdictions. So the military was providing counsel long before the civil system was. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court only guaranteed counsel to the poorest criminal defendants in 1963. Again, UCMJ was way ahead of the game. Our Nation has 238 years of investment in our military justice system, a system of Federal law, rules of procedure and evidence, and case history interpreting those rules that form the foundation for one of the most comprehensive and sophisticated justice systems the world has ever known. The UCMJ is not static and unchanging. It has continuously been updated. Article 146 of the UCMJ requires an annual comprehensive update. The Joint Service Committee reviews recommendations to modify the UCMJ on a regular basis. Some remain committed to yet another round of changes to the law and, in fact, the recently passed fiscal year 2013 NDAA included some 10 legislative changes addressing sexual assault in the military. The services need adequate time to implement recent legal changes that give them the tools to fight these assaults. Stop and think about it. Just last January we gave 10 new rules for them to absorb and put into play. They have not had time to do that yet. Yet we are talking about having a meeting and putting together something that would be maybe even contradicting what we have already told them to do. Some would criticize our commanders and the entire military justice system because of a recent case in which a court-martial conviction was set aside. If we take time to look at the statistics, we will see commanders have only set aside findings of guilty in about 1 percent of the cases. The Marine commanders only set aside findings in 7 out of 1,768 cases from 2010 to 2012. That is 0.4 percent of the cases--less than 1 percent. The Air Force commanders only set aside findings in 40 of 3,713 cases over 5 years. That is 1 percent. The Army commanders set aside findings in only 68 of 4,603 cases since 2008. The Navy says its commanders only set aside findings in 4 of the 16,056 cases they have tried from 2002 to 2012. That is 0.0001 percent in a 10-year period. Clearly, the commanders have been doing a good job. The Defense Legal Policy Board released a subcommittee report on military justice in combat zones just last week. This Defense Legal Policy Board was put together and they have experts to study this matter. We all agreed this was a good move. They came out with their report last week. This is not something that might have happened 2 or 3 years ago. It happened just last week. The subcommittee began its work on July 30, 2012, to assess the application of military justice in combat zones in Afghanistan and Iraq. This report states, since the beginning of 2001, the Army conducted over 800 courts-martial in deployed environments, the Navy and Marine Corps conducted 8 courts-martial in Afghanistan and 34 in Iraq, and the Air Force conducted 3 courts-martial in Iraq and 3 in Afghanistan. The main theme of the Defense Legal Policy Board's subcommittee hearings and their 208-page report is the need for the joint commander to have a central role in the administration of justice in deployed theaters of operations. This is the opposite of what some people are saying now. They are saying take the commander out of it. I am going to read this quote. This report came out just 1 week ago. While good order and discipline is important and essential in any military environment, it is especially vital in the deployed environment. The military justice system is the definitive commanders' tool to preserve good order and discipline, and nowhere--I repeat--nowhere is this more important than in a combat zone. A breakdown of good order and discipline while deployed can have a devastating effect on mission effectiveness. Continuing to quote the report that came out last week: The Joint Commander is ultimately responsible for the conduct of his forces. As such the Subcommittee has determined that the Joint Commander MUST have the authority and apparatus necessary to preserve good order and discipline through the military justice system. Let me repeat the last line. As such the Subcommittee-- The experts who were looking at this and came out with the report last week-- has determined that the Joint Commander MUST have the authority and apparatus necessary to preserve good order and discipline through the military justice system. The services can do better, and they will. But the record clearly demonstrates these commanders take their responsibility very seriously, and we should continue to let them lead the men and women of our Armed Forces into battle, bring them home safely, and to use all the tools in the military justice system to enforce their authority. At the very least, let's give the commanders a chance to implement the changes we ordered them to make as recently as last January before we go imposing more systems on them. I know it is popular to do this and say we have all these sexual harassments and all that, but these figures speak for themselves. These are facts, and I think we cannot expect our people--our commanders in the field, the ones who are responsible for the lives and deaths of the troops they send into harm's way--to continue to spend all of their time making these changes and not even have time to make the changes we ordered them to do last January. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask that I be recorded as voting no on this amendment.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in recent years the farm bill has changed and become more about welfare than providing a safety net for America's agriculture producers. Because this is so frustrating to me, I offered an amendment that would have restored the integrity of the farm bill. It would have cut the food stamp program by about $250 billion over ten years and converted it into a discretionary block grant. I am disappointed the Senate rejected my amendment by a vote of 36-60. But the crop insurance program remains the heart of the farm bill. Many of my colleagues believe it is appropriate to reduce the program's effectiveness by imposing means testing and other limitations on participation. These restrictions are counterproductive and result in crop insurance becoming more expensive for family farmers. I agree there are many issues that should be addressed to make the farm bill more about farming, but I am opposed to efforts to limit the effectiveness of the crop insurance program. Vote Explanation

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up Senate amendment No. 960 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE. I have no objection.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the gentlelady. We will be prepared to vote on the amendment at noon today. I find it kind of interesting that when I go back to Oklahoma--I know this is offensive to some people--I am back where normal people are. I was giving a speech, I say to the gentlelady who is managing this bill. Ironically, it was Duncan, OK, where they had the first hydraulic fracturing in 1949. I was there talking to them, and this was Democrats and Republicans. When they asked about the farm bill, I said: What farm bill, because 80 percent of the farm bill is not a farm bill, it is a welfare bill. We are talking about the food stamp program. This is a shocker to people. They don't understand this. Why would they call this a farm bill if 80 percent of it is talking about the food stamp program? It is now at $800 billion over 10 years. In the first 5 years, enrollment in the food stamp program has grown by 70 percent. It has gone from 28 million families to 47 million families, and that is almost doubling in a period of 4 years. I don't say this critically. There are some people who are very liberal and feel government should have a greater involvement in our lives, and certainly that is what this system is all about. We sort of weigh these things and see. I cannot think of anyone who could rationally say that this program of food stamps could justify being increased by 100 percent in a period of 4 years. It reminds me of a time many years ago when most of us had gone through elementary school. At that time we heard about Alexis De Tocquevile, a guy who came to this country. He looked at the wealth of America, and in the last paragraph of the last chapter of his book, he says: Once the people of this country finally vote themselves money out of the public trust, the system will fail. What he talked about there is that it gets to the point where 50 percent of the people are on the receiving end of government. I know we all remember that, and maybe a lot of people think that times have changed, but we have to stop somewhere. I think this amendment is the most important amendment on the farm bill because it actually turns this into a farm bill. I would think that people who are as concerned with agriculture as I am--my State of Oklahoma is a big agriculture State, and I am very concerned about agriculture. I cannot find anyone in my State who says this should be part of a program that would be a charity bill and could be voted on on its own merits and not thrown in with the farm bill. So over the same time period in the last 4 years, this has grown. It has increased by 100 percent. The cost has gone from $37 billion to $75 billion. That is a 100-percent increase in one program. Enrollment in the program has even increased as the employment rate has declined. In 2010, when the average unemployment rate was 9.6 percent across the country, enrollment was 40.3 million people or families. In 2012, when the unemployment rate was 8 percent, which is 1.5 percent lower than it was in 2010, enrollment had increased to 46 million people. Unfortunately, as the farm bill is written, it only makes a 4-percent cut in the program over 10 years, which is a cut of less than 0.5 percent. I think those who say: Wait a minute, we are cutting that program--when it is cut by 0.5 percent, that is not really a cut. The amendment is very straightforward and very simple. It converts the program into a block grant so that the States will have all the authority they need to ensure the program prevents the impoverished from going hungry. The funding provided is sufficient to provide benefits to the same number of participants as were enrolled in the mid-2000s. Money would be divided among the States proportionately based on the number of individuals who are living below the Federal poverty line. It would have to be fair. It is not going to go according to population, it is not going to go according to size or wealth, but to those who are living below the poverty line. The new program would give States the ability to keep the money they received for 5 years so they can build flexibility into their programs which will allow their programs to shrink and grow as the economy changes. After 5 years, any unused money would return to the Treasury for deficit reduction. While the amendment is careful to give States maximum control over the design and implementation of their own programs--which is what we want to happen--it does require them to include work requirements, mandatory drug testing, and verification of citizenship prior to qualifying anyone to participate in the program. If we go out in the street in any of the towns of any of the States in this country and ask people if it is unreasonable to require people to have work requirements--certainly the last time when President Clinton was in office, we enacted some major reforms that included work requirements, and most of the Democrats were very supportive of that. Certainly people should not be concerned about mandatory drug testing and verification of citizenship. The citizenship issue is something we hear quite often. Further, States would not be allowed to authorize users to purchase alcohol, tobacco, dog food, and items like that. In total, I expect this amendment to save some $300 billion over 10 years relative to the current funding baseline. I feel very strongly about this. This is one of those issues people are talking about all over the country. I know when my wife comes back and she talks about how people who are perfectly capable of working are buying items such as beer, among other things, with their food stamps-- this is something that offends Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives alike throughout America. That amendment is going to come up at noon, 15 minutes from now, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment and turn the farm bill into a farm bill instead of a charity bill. If no one else wants to speak, I would like to make one comment about what happened in Oklahoma. I came back yesterday from my State of Oklahoma. We have all seen on the media the disaster and the heart-wrenching things happening in Moore, OK. I remember so well that 14 years ago, in 1999, another tornado came through. If we look at it, it was on the same path as this tornado which came through 2 days ago, and it was just about the same devastation. I stood there and recalled what I saw in 1999. It breaks my heart when we see these people. They were trying to match missing parents with missing kids. Think about that. We had two schools. When we looked at the rubbish, we felt that all the kids could have been killed in there. It was hard to imagine that anyone could have survived. Yet some did survive. The early reports of the deaths were a lot higher, and the deaths are very important, but that is not the only thing. There are people in the hospitals right now who are trying--one of the hospitals had to evacuate every bed in that hospital when they saw it coming, and it is a miracle that not one person--not one of the people who was in that hospital--was killed. No one can understand how that could have happened. We watched this going on and we saw parents--I have 20 kids and grandkids and I can't imagine what it would be like to go through something like that. I have to say the Federal Government, the State government, the county government, the city of Oklahoma City, the city of Moore, and all the private sector have joined in together. I have never seen any effort, including the 1999 effort, that drew people together the way this has. We have seen companies represented by people who are builders and developers who have heavy equipment and trucks and things such as that and they are donating them to this cause to help these people. I want everyone to pray for these people, for the families, and for us to pull together and make this thing survivable. I know Oklahoma is in the tornado belt. Everybody reminds me of that all the time, and it is true. I remember being closely involved, either at the time of or right after, in almost every tornado in the last 25 or 30 years. A little town called Picher, OK, had a tiny tornado, but it wiped out everything. That is the thing that is characteristic about tornadoes: No one survived, with one exception. They are now talking about accelerating the number of safe rooms and tornado shelters. This is a program that started in 1999, and I can't tell my colleagues--we are trying to evaluate right now how many more people in Oklahoma are alive today because they were taking advantage of that program and I am sure many more will as well. I know others wish to speak on this bill, but I want to say that we in Oklahoma appreciate the love and the help on all government levels as well as the private sector levels and ask sincerely for the prayers of everyone within earshot. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, if I could quickly respond, I recall the Senator from Michigan speaking about her family background in Oklahoma. The only thing I disagree with is we have always had these. Statistics show they are not any more intense; they are not showing that they are getting more intense, and worse, they are just bad. The storm shelters the Senator from Michigan is speaking about, you drive through Oklahoma in the rural areas, everybody has them. We have dug them, because we have been using them for many years. The major difference here is in the major cities; they don't have them as we do. I would say 95 percent of people in the rural areas have them, but in the city, maybe half of 1 percent, so that will be getting some attention from us. I thank the Senator from Michigan for her thoughts.

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

Mr. INHOFE. In listening to the comments of the Senator from Michigan in opposition to this amendment, this occurred to me: Does the Senator from Michigan see that there is anything wrong with the fact that this program has increased by 100 percent in the last 4 years? And, secondly, does the Senator from Michigan see nothing objectionable about projecting this for another 4 years to be another 100-percent increase in costs?

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, if I may ask my colleague one last question. The Senator from Michigan believes it is going to be going down, but it did not go down when the unemployment rate went down between the 2 years of 2010 and 2011. What would be different about this time?

Mr. INHOFE. One last question. Even though I disagree with the answer of the Senator from Michigan for the second question, the first question is whether the Senator from Michigan finds it objectionable that it increased by 100 percent over the past 4 years from 2010?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding that a colloquy is in order between Senator Blumenthal and Senator Lee, but I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of that I be recognized and that following my remarks the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, be recognized.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to amend my unanimous consent request to include the 3-minute remarks of the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. INHOFE. That would be before the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask the Chair if I am correct when I say after comments by the Senator from Virginia, the senior Senator from Texas will be recognized?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, I think we, all of us, late in the week, are on a timeline. I have a very significant piece of legislation, S. 965, called the Iran Sanctions Implementation Act. I spent a long time on the floor yesterday talking about this. It occurred to me it is a little bit complicated. The longer we talk about it the more complicated it gets. I have shortened it. Let me make a couple of brief comments about where we are today in relationship to Iran and some of the other countries in the Middle East, and a solution to which everyone can agree to the problem that is there. First of all, 70 percent of Iran's revenues come from their export of oil. What we have done successfully is had some modest means of reducing that, so we have actually cut their amount of exports in half over the last 4 or 5 years from 2.5 million barrels of oil a day to 1.25 million barrels of oil a day. That amounts to 70 percent of the resources, the revenue that Iran has. What do they do with their revenue? First of all, we recognize something that people do not like to talk about; that is, our own intelligence says, and has said since 2007, by 2015 Iran will have a weapon and the delivery system for that weapon. Our concern, of course, is that one of the things that happened in Barack Obama's first budget 4 years ago was, in addition to other things regarding the military, they did away with the ground-based interceptor in Poland which was designed specifically to take care of a missile coming from the east and, of course, what we had there was the threat from Iran. That is a threat. The second thing they have, besides their nuclear buildup, is they are helping all the terrorist operations throughout the Middle East. We know they are very significant in assisting Asad in his barbaric slaughter of over 70,000 of the Syrian people. They are able to do this because Iran earns $3 billion a month in oil revenue, 70 percent of their revenue. If Iran didn't have access to this money, its ability to influence the region would be either stopped or significantly curtailed. In other words, Iran cannot pose this threat without their oil revenues. U.S. production is now 7 million barrels a day, which is 40 percent higher--put the chart up, please--40 percent higher than in 2008. When we look at the map, we can see back in the old days the oil belt was the western part of the United States. Look at it now. It has all changed. We have the Marcellus up there in Pennsylvania, which is now the second largest employer in Pennsylvania. It is scattered throughout. The reason for this surge is because the use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has allowed us to reach reserves, reach production we otherwise could not do. Here is the interesting thing: We have grown by 40 percent in our production, and all 100 percent of it is on State or private land. None of it is on Federal land. In fact, during this boom we are in the middle of right now that is so productive to the economy of most of the States, none of that came from the Federal Government. In fact, we had a reduction during this time in production from Federal lands. The Institute for Energy Research recently issued a report stating that if we enacted policies that allowed aggressive development of all this off-limits land that is there right now, it would generate $14 trillion in economic activity, create 2.5 million jobs, and reduce the deficit by $2.7 billion. Most of all, we could become totally independent from having to import our energy from any other country. This bill says if the President would, at his discretion--it would require the President to find some area where we can just increase our production from Federal lands 1.25 million barrels a day. That is just a small, minuscule part of all the production we could have. For example, in just this area, that would exceed 1.25 million barrels a day or this up here, in Alaska, or even offshore. The Senator from Virginia is going to be speaking next. They have actually voted to go ahead and explore this off their shores. Any of these places would do that. Why do we say 1.25 million barrels a day? That is what Iran exports. This is what would happen: If we were able to do that, that would be 1.25 million barrels a day that we in the United States would no longer have to import, which would open that up to those who are importing from Iran, and it would completely dry up 70 percent of their revenue. Of course, the rewards of that would be great for our country. We are looking at one of these rare situations where everything is good, everything that would come from this is beneficial. We could dry up their revenues that they are using right now to enhance their nuclear capability and to perform all these atrocious acts in the Middle East. At the same time, we would be able to lessen our dependence and provide all of the benefits that come from the use of this. Eventually, we would like to be at a situation where we can do not just 1.25 million barrels a day but maybe 10 times that and become totally independent. In the meantime, we are only talking about one very small amount that we would be telling the President of the United States he is going to have to allow us to explore so we can stop Iran from doing the things they are doing today. I thank those who have allowed me to have a little bit of time today, and I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Reed is speaking next. I would like to ask that I be recognized as in morning business at the conclusion of his remarks.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is very rare that we have an opportunity to do something that is in the benefit of our country in terms of our protection. It doesn't cost anything. If anything, it makes money, and it is something I am going to share. It is a bill I introduced today, which is S. 965. Let me give a little background to let you know why we are introducing this bill and why the Iran Sanctions Implementation Act of 2013 is significant. First of all, it is imperative that we know, because most people don't understand this, that Iran's source of revenue comes from oil exports. This is something that one of our fine Senators has had as one of his efforts, to come up with something that is going to effectively embargo the country of Iran. We have a lot of countries, for example, that we don't import anything from, but they do have a very large supply of oil. To date, Iran is exporting about 1.25 million barrels of oil. That amounts to somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million a day or about $3 billion a month. The influence of Iran is something throughout the Middle East, and it ranges from Yemen all the way to Sudan, to Hamas, to Hezbollah, to Lebanon, and, of course, to Syria. One of the concerns I have had for a long period of time is that Iran--one of the things the President did that I think we are going to live to regret is 4 years ago he did away with our ground-based interceptor in Poland. And when this happened, that was set up to knock down missiles that might be coming from the east into the United States. We have 44 ground-based interceptors on the west coast, and I am comfortable we can knock down anything coming from that way, but from the east, we don't. It would take maybe one shot--it would have to be a fortunate one--from the west coast. Anyway, the reason I bring this up and why it is pertinent to the legislation we are introducing right now is that our intelligence has shown us since 2007 that Iran is going to have the bomb--the weapon, the nuclear capability--and the delivery system to send something from Iran by 2015. If we had stayed with our effort to have the radar in the Czech Republic and the ground-based interceptor in Poland, we would be well prepared to protect ourselves. However, that is not the case. So I look at Iran--and a lot of people don't agree with this; I may be the only one who will say this--as the greatest threat we have in the Middle East. We all talk about Syria and the problems taking place in Syria-- the 70,000 people who have been the victims of Assad's barbaric slaughter of his own people--but we know that Iran--the Iranian security and intelligence services--is propping up the Assad regime by advising and assisting the Syrian military forces, providing essential, lethal military supplies and progovernment military. I am going to read something now that I just received to quantify how much Iran is doing to assist Syria. This was in the Economist magazine. It said: Iran reportedly sent $9 billion to Assad to see it through sanctions on Syria. In other words, several countries, including us, had sanctions on Syria, and this is one reason we were sending money over there. That tells us our sanctions on Iran are not nearly as tight as they should be. And that was in the Economist. So it is very serious. Lebanese Hezbollah, Iran's proxy, is participating in a direct combat role aligned with Iranian strategic interests in Syria, and we know Syria provides crucial access to Iranian proxies that include Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic jihad. Iran is continuing an extensive, expensive, and integrated effort to maintain Syria as a base for fomenting future regional instability. Iran is all in in Syria, as evidenced by the frequent presence on the ground in Syria of Iranian force commander Major General Qassem Suleimani. Suleimani is on the U.S. Treasury and U.S. Security Council's watch lists for alleged involvement in terrorist activity and proliferation of nuclear missile technology. So this is how serious that situation is over there. A subordinate of Suleimani, Brigadier General Hassan Shateri, was a senior Iranian commander who was killed in the Damascus countryside. The death of Iranian generals on Syrian soil is a strong indication of Iran's commitment to the regime. Further, we know Iran has supplied Syria with ballistic missiles and chemical weapons, and the Assad regime in Syria, which is presently the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East, is being propped up by Iran. Iran is able to do this because it earns $3 billion a month in oil revenue. Now, if Iran--and this is a key point--did not have access to this money, its ability to influence the region would be significantly curtailed. In other words, they cannot pose a threat without their oil revenues. So the reason we have the threat from and the problems we have in Syria is because of the money that is being sent to Syria, and the source of that money is oil revenue, and it shows that the effort we have made in Iran is not really enough because they have access to that many resources. Fortunately, the international community has generally recognized this. Last year Senator Kirk of Illinois led the Senate in the consideration of sanctions against Iran's oil trade. At that time Iran exported 2\1/2\ million barrels of oil a day, and Senator Kirk sought an outright global embargo against Iranian oil. During the debate, however, many members of the international community stated they would not be able to wean themselves off of Iranian oil quickly enough to comply with the sanctions without causing a significant shock to oil prices and, in turn, their economies. So these are countries that would like to have complied with sanctions against Iran, but they felt it was not in their best interests to do so. So the sanctions were amended to require the international community to significantly reduce its reliance on Iranian oil. That legislation passed through the Senate, and Iran's oil exports have since fallen by about half. So instead of the 2\1/2\ million barrels a day going out, it is down to 1\1/4\ million--about half. This is a significant reduction, but with the Iranian regime intent on harming the United States and our allies, we have to do all we can to tighten sanctions and more fully isolate them. Our Nation doesn't import oil from Iran, and we haven't for a number of years. We embargoed them a long time ago. But despite our abundant untapped natural resources, we remain the largest oil importer in the world, and so we have a strong role to play in making the Iran oil embargo as effective as possible. Natural gas has always been a major U.S. energy resource, but it was just a few years ago that the energy industry believed the United States was on the verge of becoming a major natural gas importer. Permits were issued and facilities were under construction to handle the massive amounts of natural gas we were expecting to import to meet the domestic energy demand. Then came the development of two critical technologies. One is horizontal drilling, and the other is, of course, something we have known about for a long time--hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing was actually developed in the State of Oklahoma--in Duncan, OK, where I will actually be this coming weekend-- way back in 1949. By the way, it is very safe. There has never been a confirmed case of groundwater contamination using hydraulic fracturing. But when all this came about, all of a sudden we had a huge boom here in the United States. This is all on private land. I want to make that very clear. Because the oil and gas industry developed and perfected these methods, which are environmentally safe, we are now able to economically reach oil and natural gas in places we never thought would be possible, and production has skyrocketed. Harold Hamm, who I think arguably is the most successful independent oil operator in America today, is from Oklahoma. He happens to be up in North Dakota right now, but he has been at the forefront of these technologies and has used them to unlock the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota. And that is where he is actually at this time. Before these practices were used there, oil development was expected to remain just a memory of the past, but with these technologies, he has turned North Dakota into one of the greatest economic success stories in the Nation. The change has been remarkable, and it occurred nearly overnight. North Dakota has grown its oil production by 300 percent, to 660,000 barrels of oil a day in just 4 years. The unemployment rate in North Dakota is 3.3 percent. Normally, we say 4 percent unemployment is full employment. Well, they are actually below full employment. His biggest problem right now is finding people to work. A driver in the oilfields makes $100,000 a year. This is what is happening in North Dakota. The promise of shale oil and gas development has spread well beyond North Dakota in recent years. It is happening in my State of Oklahoma, in Pennsylvania. Let's put this chart up here. That is significant. I can remember until recently people were thinking everything has to be in the oil belt. All the oil production has to be west of the Mississippi. But look at it now. This is in the lower 48 States. The shale plays that are taking place now are in places, yes, of course, where we would expect it, in Oklahoma, but look up here. That is in Pennsylvania. That is up there at Marcellus. And we have opportunities all over. So it is completely all over the country, not just in the western part of the United States. Where oil and gas activities have historically been isolated to just a few regions of the country, such as Oklahoma and Texas, they are now all over the country. Because of these great domestic resources, I believe we can achieve domestic independence in a matter of months. The use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling has caused domestic energy production to soar over the last few years. Production is now over 7 million barrels a day--40 percent higher than it was in 2008. But, as the Congressional Research Service recently confirmed, all of this production is on State and private land--none of it on Federal land. In fact, on Federal land, in spite of the boom that has been taking place, production has actually been reduced because of President Obama's war on fossil fuels. Production has actually been reduced on Federal lands, and that is kind of embarrassing because we can see on the second chart that a significant amount of our Nation's oil and gas resources are on Federal land, which are all but completely off limits. This chart shows the Federal lands. They are not producing on any of these Federal lands, but look at the potential that is there and what we could do. It is incredible to look at. You can look at all of this land in the Montana west, in Alaska, offshore. The yellow land is the Bureau of Land Management land, the orange is the Fish and Wildlife land, the light green is the Forest Service land, the dark green is the National Park Service, and the light blue is the Department of Defense. All of the Outer Continental Shelf is managed by the Federal Government, and oil is under many of these places, but the vast majority of it is locked up by the Obama administration and no one can get to it. We know the resources are there. They are massive. Everyone has agreed it is there. The Institute of Energy Research recently issued a report based on the most recent, though outdated, government data about these off-limit lands and showed that if we enacted policies that allowed aggressive development of these Federal resources, the process would generate $14.4 trillion in economic activity and would create 2\1/2\ million jobs and reduce the deficit by $2.7 trillion, all over the next 40 years. Why is this land locked up? One answer is because of President Obama. He has allowed his alliance with the environmental left to run roughshod over issues as important as encouraging stability in the Middle East through a full isolation of Iran. If the President would lead, the United States, acting independently, without any assistance from any other nation, could singlehandedly offset all of Iran's oil exports by simply expanding our own domestic production on Federal lands. This is why I have introduced this Iran Sanctions Implementation Act of 2013. My bill would require the President to establish Iranian oil replacement zones on Federal lands so that the production from these zones will reach the 1\1/4\ million barrels of oil a day. This amount, 1.25 million barrels a day, is what Iran is exporting at the current time. Here is the point. The reason we are talking about coming up with a very small amount is, if the President wants to continue his war on fossil fuels, that is fine, if he doesn't want to develop our potential public lands. But if he could take a very small amount, such as 1.25 million barrels of oil a day--and do it anywhere, give him the discretion as to where he wants to do this--it could be here if he wants to do it out in the West, or ANWR up in Alaska, it could be over there or offshore on the east coast. By the way, that is off the shore of Virginia, and Virginia wants to be able to develop that land. This is enough oil to fully offset all current Iranian oil exports. If the President unlocks our energy potential and allows the production of an additional 1.25 million barrels a day in the United States, we would reduce our imports by the same amount. If we are not importing this oil to the United States, then other nations--these are the nations that are currently importing it from Iran--would be able to import it from those places where we no longer would have to. There are friendly countries--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait--where we are actually importing oil. But they would be able to sell their oil to the other countries, our friends, such as Japan and other countries. What we are saying is we have an opportunity here. When you look at these areas, you can see why it should be pretty easy for the administration to allow us to open one of these areas. The first one would be ANWR, this right up in Alaska. You can see four potential areas, the first being ANWR. The U.S. Geological Survey reported, in a 1998 study, the latest comprehensive study of its kind, that the oil reserves there are up to 16 million barrels of oil per day. Imagine what we are talking about there. We are only talking about coming with 1.25 million barrels to offset the amount other countries are importing from Iran, to stop them from doing it. It doesn't require the President to make this area an Iranian oil replacement zone, but it would allow him to do it. This would provide enough oil to offset Iranian oil exports for about 12,000 days or about 35 years. The second is the Rocky Mountain West--parts of Wyoming, parts of Utah, and parts of Colorado. In 2005 the RAND Corporation estimated that oil shale reserves in this area could be as high as 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. The third is the Utica shale in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania--I hear a lot about the Marcellus up there. We are talking about oil now. We are not talking about natural gas. We are talking about oil. But USGS estimated in 2011 that the reserves in this region are up to 940 million barrels of unconventional oil. The fourth area is the Outer Continental Shelf. I mentioned North Carolina and Virginia. Their legislatures have all encouraged their production. They have a lot they can benefit from. Of course nationally--in national security we have a lot to benefit from, too. With all those areas, if we stop the flow of oil from Iran, then we can stop the machine that finances Iran's nuclear weapons program. Many say that getting oil from the Rocky Mountains, Alaska, Outer Continental Shelf, will take years. By then Iran will not be a problem. But it doesn't take years to get it out. I mentioned a while ago Harold Hamm, the person who is the biggest independent in the country. I called him up because I was going to be on a major television show one night and I knew they were going to challenge me. The President has always said it doesn't do any good to open up public lands because if you do that it could take 10 years before that could reach the economy. I asked him, I said: Harold Hamm, make sure you give me an accurate response to what I am going to ask you because I am going to use your name on national TV. Make sure you are accurate. If you had a rig set up right now, off limits on public land, in New Mexico, how long would it take you to lift the first barrel of oil and get it into the economy? He said, without a flinch: Seventy days. I said: Seventy days? We are talking about 10 weeks, not 10 years. So he described what would happen each day. You could do it in 10 weeks. We are talking about all of this could take place in 10 weeks. By the way, I have to say no one has challenged me on this ever since I used his name and his speculation a few weeks ago. I know this is a little bit complicated, but there is another reason. The reason I think the President would be willing to do something like this is we are not asking him to lift the restrictions on all of the public land. It would be great if he did that. Just think, we would be totally independent of any other country for our ability to develop our own energy. But we are saying find a zone where we can actually pick up an additional 1.25 million barrels a day. We can take that away from where we are currently importing it from friendly countries and allow them to export it to nations that are currently buying oil from Iran. I think we have made it very clear that if you want to do something that is going to have the effect of stability in the Middle East, you have to get rid of Iran. As I said before, Iran is a direct threat to the United States once they reach what our intelligence says is going to be a nuclear capability and a delivery capability by 2015. Over and above that, today we could stop them because 70 percent of their revenue comes from oil exports. We could stop the exports altogether with this legislation. That is something I certainly hope the President will look at. We are not asking for hundreds and hundreds of millions of barrels a day to be released from our Federal sources. We are asking only for 1.5 million barrels a day. On top of that, we don't have any obligation with this legislation to go any further. This would be something he could do that would provide stability in the Middle East and would keep Iran from funding the terrorist activity that is currently taking place by Asad in Syria. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to three American heroes who recently lost their lives while defending the United States overseas in support of the war on terror. Army SSG Rex Schad, of Edmond, OK, died on March 11, 2013. The 26- year-old squad leader was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment, 1st Armor Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, out of Fort Stewart, GA. Rex was killed in Jalrez District, Afghanistan, after a member of the Afghan security forces opened fire on Rex and his fellow soldiers. Also killed was Army CPT Andrew Pedersen-Keel. Family and friends of Rex said that he took the idea of serving seriously and understood that it could require him to make the ultimate sacrifice for his country. He also had many family members serve in various branches of the military including his mother, brother, an uncle, and his grandfather. Rex is survived by his mother, Ms. Colleen Whipple, of Edmond, OK. Air Force SSgt Daniel Fannin, of Morehead, KY, died on April 28, 2013, in the crash of an MC-12 aircraft near Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan. Also killed in the incident were Capt. Brandon L. Cyr, Capt. Reid K. Nishizuka, and SSgt Richard A. Dickson. Daniel, who had just turned 30 three weeks prior, was assigned to the Air Force's 552nd Operations Support Squadron at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City. In addition to being a 12-year veteran of the Air Force, Daniel also lived for several years in Oklahoma with his wife Sonya of Oklahoma City. As his family recently said, Daniel died just as he lived-- serving God and others. He died honorably serving his country so that we may continue to enjoy the freedoms that many of us take for granted. Army PFC Charles P. McClure, of Stratford, OK, died on May 2, 2013, serving our Nation at Camp Buehring, Kuwait. Private First Class McClure was assigned to 4th Battalion, 42nd Field Artillery Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division out of Fort Carson, CO. Charles was killed in a vehicular accident. He was 21 years old and was on his first tour overseas. Also killed in the accident was his battle buddy, 25-year-old SPC Trinidad Santiago, Jr. Army 1LT Brandon Landrum of Lawton, OK, was a 26-year-old husband, father of two children, Army officer, and graduate of Cameron University. He was among five soldiers who died on May 4, 2013, after they were attacked by an enemy IED in Maiwand, Afghanistan. Brandon and his soldiers were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 36th Infantry, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, at Fort Bliss, TX. Brandon enlisted in the Army in 2005 and deployed to Iraq 3 years later. Upon receiving his commission in May 2011, he graduated the Infantry Basic Officer Leaders Course and Airborne School. First Lieutenant Landrum is survived by his wife, one son, and one daughter. Our soldiers and airmen demonstrated courage and honor by volunteering for service in the Army and Air Force. While the deaths of these brave men are tragic, their lives encourage all of us to demonstrate courage and honor commensurate with their sacrifice. The fact that these men died alongside their fellow warriors is a reminder for us to stick by our men and women in uniform who continue to fight the enemies of our country. God bless them, and God bless their families.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to mention a couple of things. First of all, the Senator from Arkansas and I have a very significant amendment, and one we will want to talk about. In fact, it is an amendment we had during the discussion on the amendments for the budget bill at something like 4 o'clock in the morning. At that time we were able to get it passed without a dissenting vote, so it is one we should be able to get through. I will yield to the Senator from Arkansas in a moment, but before doing that I want to mention we have a set-aside amendment I am very concerned with. I certainly think the Senator in the Chair, as well as the Senator from Arkansas will both be very appreciative of this and supportive of it since they have a lot of small communities in their States, as I do in my State of Oklahoma. It uses the threshold of 25,000 people--any community that has 25,000 people or less--in order to take advantage of this set-aside money that would come within the WRDA bill. Now, here is the problem we have. A lot of the small communities in my State of Oklahoma--and I would suggest the States of West Virginia and Arkansas are in the same situation--are not large enough to have an engineer or someone who is going to be able to put grants together. So we take 10 percent of the total amount and put it in there as a set- aside for these small communities. This is a formula we have used before. We used the 25,000 benchmark before in the Transportation bill, in the WRDA bill, and in the farm bill, so it is one that is fairly well-accepted, and it provides a pot of money--it doesn't cost us; it is not scored--from the overall money to be reserved for the small communities, such as my communities in the State of Oklahoma. I understand we are not to call up amendments right now, and that is fine with me, but that is one we will be offering. As I said, in just a moment I will be yielding to the Senator from Arkansas. In the meantime, I would call on the memories of those in this body back to when we had our all-night session about a month ago and the amendments that were there on the budget bill. One of the amendments we passed was an amendment that would allow the SPCC to have farms exempt from the SPCC--the Spill Prevention Containment Control Act--so that the farms in my State of Oklahoma and throughout America would not be treated as refiners. Spill prevention is a very expensive process. It is one that would require double containers for farms. This is a good example. This happens to be a container on one of the farms in my State of Oklahoma, where you have a total amount of gallons of fuel from gas or oil or other fuels. If they are less than 10,000 gallons, they would be exempt. If they are less than 42,000 gallons, they would allow them to not do it through a professional engineer but do it just within their own resources--in other words, set their own standards. This is my State of Oklahoma. This happens to be the well-discussed pipeline that goes through Cushing, OK. This is one of the central points where oil comes in and then goes out. It comes from the north and goes back down to Texas. But these are containers that should be subject to the jurisdiction that is prescribed for refiners for the containment of oil and gas. That is what that is about. This is not what that is about. This is just a typical farmer. I have talked to farmers, and after that amendment passed--and the occupier of the Chair will remember this because he was a very strong supporter of this particular amendment--we had phones ringing off the hook from the American Farm Bureau and all the others saying this is something that is reasonable. But here is the problem. That would have expired on May 30, and all we did with that amendment was extend that exemption to the end of the fiscal year. So if that passed without one dissenting vote, and if it is that popular, why not go ahead and have the same type of exemption put permanently in our statutes. That is what our plan is--to do that with the Pryor-Inhofe amendment. Our amendment is supported by the American Farm Bureau, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Wheat Growers Association, the National Cotton Council, the American Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers, and USA Rice. So almost everyone having to do with agriculture is very supportive. It doesn't totally exempt all farmers because it establishes three categories: one with farms where, if you add the aggregate and it is less than 10,000 gallons, they would be exempt; if they are in the next level up, between 10,000 and 42,000 gallons, they would be required to maintain a self-certified spill plan; and anything greater than 42,000 would have the total requirement, which means they would have to hire an engineer and go through all this expense. I see the prime sponsor of this amendment is on the Senate floor, so I yield to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. I think some people might have an objection to this amendment if they thought there were some bad actors out there who, in the past, have violated or done something, in which case they would still have to comply as if they had over 42,000 in storage. This was called to my attention, and I think in the drafting of this amendment the Senator took care of that problem, I do believe. We discussed this, I remember, the last time at 4 o'clock in the morning when we had the amendment for the budget bill, and at that time we made it very clear. The SPCC was designed for refiners. It was designed for the big operations, such as that big operation we had a picture of from Oklahoma. It doesn't affect them. They still should be and do have to comply. But the literally thousands of farms that are out there that are just trying and barely getting by, they are the ones we are speaking of. I know the Senator from Arkansas has them as well as we do in Oklahoma, and before the Senator moves to another amendment I just wanted to be sure that part of the amendment was included in this discussion because that would offset some of the opposition that might be there to this amendment.