Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask that at the conclusion of the remarks by the Senators from Arkansas and Missouri, that I be recognized as if in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, point of order.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, by unanimous consent, I was to be recognized after the conclusion of the remarks of the Senators from Missouri and Arkansas. I wish to ask when that would be, because this is going on and on.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not object to that, but I would ask the Senator from Arkansas if he has any objection to that. I want to be sure to get in the queue sometime here.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, my good friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, and I had an amendment that we put forth several weeks ago back in the time when we did not know for sure whether sequestration was going to become a reality. We have some comments to make about that. I will be yielding to the Senator from Pennsylvania in a moment, but I first want to make an observation here, that anytime a bureaucracy is forced to cut, they will find the one thing the people of America want most and that is what they will cut. There is no better example of this than the FAA. I went around with them for quite some time on the pilots bill of rights last summer. We were able to get something done. But I know they are a very powerful agency. There is no question about that. To give you an example of that, the FAA began furloughing traffic controllers--and others too--on April 21. This is what is interesting, and you have to pay attention to this. The cuts that were going to come to the FAA through sequestration amounted to 5 percent of the FAA's budget to bring it down to 2010 levels. The FAA operations budget has grown by 109 percent since 1996. That has more than doubled since 1996. On April 22, the first day after furlough took effect, over 400 flights were cancelled and nearly 7,000 flights were delayed. That, my good friends, is a way of making people miserable to bring them around to their way of thinking that somehow there is not enough fat in a bureaucracy that has more than doubled in the last 15 years that they have to take these drastic steps. The FAA has the flexibility to reduce the costs, but they have not attempted to do that. As I said, very clearly, in 1996, the FAA's operating budget was $4.6 billion. In 2012, the operation budget was $9.7 billion. I don't know off the top of my head of another bureaucracy that has grown that much in that period of time. The FAA operations budget has increased by $5.1 billion over 14 years. That is 109 percent. The furloughs of the air traffic controllers are expected to save only $200 million. I wish I had a chart here to show you what a small percentage that $200 million is of the increase of $5.1 billion over 14 years. I think it is very important that we talk about that in light of some of the things we are trying to do with sequestration. That was the FAA. Unfortunately, it is our defense system that has been taking all the hits. Here we have the defense at 18 percent of the budget and they are taking 50 percent of the hits. This is after the President through his programs has knocked down spending levels by $487 billion over this 10- year period, and sequestration would be another $\1/2\ trillion--which in the mind and the statements of the Secretary of the Defense at that time, Secretary Panetta, would be devastating, to use his words. So that is where we are right now. When the majority leader last night introduced an amendment that would transfer the overseas contingency operations funds from the fiscal years of 2014, 2015, and 2016 to offset the sequester impacts in the current year, I think this is not implementable because he uses future appropriations to offset current year spending. It is also dangerous to continue to hollow out our military. A couple days ago I talked about how we are comparable today in the hollow force we are approaching to what we were in the 1970s and the 1990s. Now it could actually be worse. In one of the hearings we had, one of the chiefs of the military made the statement that this would not be just as bad--it would be worse. That is what we are faced with right now. I think we need to look very carefully and make sure we do not allow our warfighters--every time you cut their money out of the OCO account, that increases risk. Increasing risk increases lives lost. That is how serious this is. Now back to our amendment we put together some time ago. This was back before March 1, which was when the realization appeared that sequestration was going to be a reality, and it was this: If the whole purpose of sequestration is to save money out of the budget, and if you come along with something that says: We will live with the top line that is dictated by sequestration but we would ask that the chiefs of the services be allowed to make those decisions as to where the cuts would be. I had occasion to call all five service chiefs, and it has been reaffirmed in the last 2 weeks by them in public hearings that if they could take this top line that would be so devastating to their service--and this was the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force. If they could determine where some of that was, would it be less devastating, No. 1? No. 2, would you be able to do it? The answer was yes and yes. I think the Senator from Pennsylvania and I had a very good idea, and we are here today to talk about that. With that, I yield for my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, Madam President, let me say, I certainly sympathize with the tragedy that took place and those who lost family members. Having 20 kids and grandkids myself, I am probably in a better position to sympathize with that than many others are. I have to say I think somewhat of a disservice is being done to some of these families. It is almost akin to saying we are looking at legislation that would have prevented that from happening--and that is not the case--or we are looking at legislation that would preclude something such as this happening again. I listened to my colleagues on the right side, on the Republican side, and on the left, the Democratic side, and they all have good ideas and they all are sincere in wanting to do something and maybe I am looking at it too simplistically. Because I look at the second amendment, I look at what historically has been our privilege in exercising our right to keep and bear arms--I mean since the very beginning--then I see and I have lived through, on the State and on the Federal level, all kinds of efforts of people to think: We can do something about gun violence, and let's do it by background checks, let's check everybody out there, let's do it, and let's approach the gun shows. Let's talk about all these things that could be done. We could restrict the number of the cartridges and the magazines and all these things, but it is all predicated on one assumption, which I cannot buy. That assumption is that somehow we think that the criminal element will single out this one law to comply with. Let's look at the facts. When we look at what they are trying to do, anything that is up that we are going to be voting on in the next 2 or 3 weeks--however long it takes--is going to, in some way, restrict the number of firearms. I think we would all agree with that. Whose firearms will they restrict? They would restrict the firearms of law- abiding citizens. That means the ratio between guns owned by the criminal element versus the law-abiding citizen is going to change. When they talk about the background checks, I cannot imagine anyone being so naive as not to know that if the criminal element is going to get a gun, they are going to get a gun. Sure, they would kind of like to have some of these restrictions. They would like to have that background check because that eliminates the numbers of guns in circulation. So the criminal element is the only one who is not affected. I was asked a question not long ago about this. It was on a national TV show. I was actually down at the border at the time, the Mexican border. They asked the question: Why is America so wrong? He talked about a poll that was taken where the results were 90 to 3. The question that was asked was: Do you believe we ought to have stronger background checks? I said: Fine. If you were to ask that same question--90 percent of the people, by the way, answered: Yes, we need to have stronger background checks. But if you asked the question: Do you believe we should have stronger background checks on the law-abiding citizens and not the criminal element, then I can assure you, it would be like 99 to nothing the other way. That is the thing. That is the one thing people just overlook. We can pass all the laws we want, and the criminal element is going to sit back and smile. Is anyone naive enough not to think, not to believe that regardless of background checks, a criminal element can find someone who can go and get a gun, make $100, and they have a gun. But the ratio changes and not in a healthy way. In a way I think it is a disservice to an awful lot of people who have had tragedies in their lives to believe we are doing something that is truly going to change that when, in fact, I do not believe it is. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I would respond to my good friend and say I will take the 8.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Alabama very much. We have been very much involved--not just myself but the Senator from Alabama and others--in this whole sequestration thing. The longer we have these hearings on this, the more we come to the realization we are not sure a lot of the things we are doing in these cuts are actually going to have the effect of cutting. If they did, our concern would be the fact that defense, which consumes 18 percent of the budget, would be getting 50 percent of the cuts, and that is over and above what this President has already done, projecting out in 10 more years at $487 billion in cuts. This sequestration is projected to be--the way it was drafted in the Obama sequestration--an additional $\1/2\ trillion. I remember when the previous Secretary of Defense was there and he used the word ``devastating.'' It was devastating. One thing that has not been observed is the possibility that some of the things that are on there and are designed to be done will actually cost more money. Let me share, if I may, some quotes by some of the military. First of all, Department of Defense Comptroller Hale said--and this is very significant: We would also be forced to disrupt as many as 2,500 investment programs, driving up costs at the very same time we are trying to hold them down. In other words, he says that particular part of this could actually cost more than the cuts. General Odierno said this at one of our hearings: The Army agrees that the hidden costs of sequestration may actually nullify any savings anticipated to be gained through sequestration. There again, it could actually cost us money, not save us money. Admiral Ferguson said the same thing. I like his statement. He said: Much like an automobile owner who chooses to skip a series of oil changes today to realize near-term savings . . . eventually his decision will result in the need for a costly engine overhaul later, the downstream cost of cancelled maintenance . . . And that is what is going to have to be done under sequestration-- . . . is both reduced operational availability and much higher depot-level type repairs in the future. This is something that was understood by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and myself when Senator Levin and I jointly signed a letter to the budget people saying we have a problem; that sequestration could cost more, and we recommended that in those areas where it costs more, then we would add $16 million--that would be one- third--to the OCO account so that could be used in the event--only in the event--we find we are spending more money on that. As I say, I did give a copy of this letter as a reminder to the chairman of the committee, Senator Levin. So all we are doing is what we requested be done some time ago. Most likely, it is not going to cost anything and it is not scored. This is the OCO account, and it is increasing it $16 million more, to $66 million. It is interesting that in the budget that came over from the House it was $95 million, so this is considerably less than that. I think this is a good thing to do, and I honestly believe it will enjoy enough support that we will be able to get it with a voice vote. I can't imagine anyone being against it. Because what we are saying is, in an area where it is costing more, we will have something to cover that rather than it coming out of the defense budget. I will not take a long time on this other one. I don't have the assurance yet that we are going to have a vote on it, but I think it is very important. There are a lot of us here, and I daresay a majority of us in the Senate, who are looking at this United Nations arms trade treaty and thinking: Why in the world would somebody want to cede to the United Nations, or to any multinational group, the power to make determinations as to with whom we trade arms? We may have an ally out there that maybe the United Nations doesn't agree with and they would be able to keep us, through a treaty, from trading arms with our allies--an ally such as Israel, as an example. So I have an amendment--amendment No. 139--that I will try to get a vote on because I think we should. This may end up being the only vote that is addressing this real hot issue of guns right now, and that is all we have heard about in the last few weeks. I am going to tell you the actual wording of this so we are not hiding anything. If you are for gun control, you won't like this. If you are for the multinationalists being in a position to determine with whom we trade, you are not going to like this. And to show you what this is, I will read the new language in the bill. It says: . . . upholding Second Amendment rights . . . preventing the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Treaty.

Mr. INHOFE. I am going to try hard and encourage our leadership to allow a vote on this very significant amendment. And I would say, if we could pull out maybe 3 or 4 amendments of all the 200 or 300 amendments, this would have to be one that most people would consider to be a very significant amendment. With that, I would only mention one other thing. I am not going to bring this up, but I do have an amendment--amendment No. 282. A lot of people in States such as Alabama and Oklahoma recognize that our banks were not the problem. We didn't have problems in my State of Oklahoma. So when we talked about State banks and community banks, we were in a position to take care of our own needs and we should not be a part of it. So this amendment--and then I will close--merely says we are going to come forth with legislation. We are going to draw a distinction, not just on Dodd-Frank and that type of legislation, but between community and State banks and Federal banks. The latter is where the problem is, so let's not try to correct something or fix something that doesn't need fixing. Before I yield the floor, let me ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from Senator Carl Levin and myself dated March 1.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. The Senator from Alabama talked about Senators who have been waiting for a long time. It happens that I was among the very first to put all of mine in--I was ready to go--and cut it down to two votes. I am still waiting. I will not wait beyond the next time; I am serving notice. At this time, I do not object.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I wish to ask one question of the author. First of all, this does not authorize the EPA to regulate in any way. This sets the standards. Is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I support this amendment. I suggest we voice vote it.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, people at home are going out of business every day--I think everybody knows that--from the overregulation that is out there. A lot of people talk about the problem with the taxes. I contend that the imposition of these regulations is even worse than the taxes. And this regulation does one thing: It stops the EPA from having the jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon. Madam President, I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, did I have 30 seconds?

Mr. INHOFE. They have been trying to regulate carbon now legislatively for 10 years and have been unable to do it. I actually had a bill up where we got 50 votes, but it took a 60-vote threshold to make it happen. So we know the votes are here and the people are concerned about the regulation. I would only leave you with a quote from Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT, who said that regulating carbon is the bureaucrat's dream. ``If you regulate carbon, you regulate life.''

Mr. INHOFE. I suggest you vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think I had 5 seconds remaining.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, it is understood that we are having a side-by-side that would be on there. No objection.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think this is a good amendment. I want to make it very clear that this has nothing to do with my amendment No. 139, which comes up next. This is merely talking about negotiating treaties. Mine is about opposing second amendment rights. I have no objection to taking this by voice vote.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to make sure that everyone understands what the United Nations trade treaty is. The trade treaty is a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms. I want to very briefly read this so nobody over there or over here misunderstands what this amendment does. This is right out of the amendment. Uphold the second amendment rights, that is one thing. And secondly, prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations arms trade treaties. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, the idea that we would have to go to the international body to decide whether we would trade arms with Israel is pretty disgusting. I want to make sure everyone understands. This is the first time--probably the last time this year that we are going to have a chance, an opportunity to vote for our second amendment rights. I think my colleagues should take advantage of it.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my friend Senator Leahy from Vermont in introducing, the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2013. As I stated when we introduced this bill in the 112th Congress, our bill seeks to identify and eliminate unhealthy and unsafe prison conditions found in developing countries like Haiti and on the African continent where millions suffer inhumane conditions as well as to address the dysfunctions in their legal systems. The introduction of this bill comes at an appropriate time because Jon Hammer, the imprisoned U.S. Marine being held in the Cedes Prison in Matamoras, Mexico was freed this past December 21st. Corporal Hammer, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, was arrested in August and charged with a Federal weapons felony--facing up to 15 years in prison, for carrying an antique gun into Mexico on his way to Costa Rica for a hunting trip, despite, as I understand it, having a required permit and attempting to declare the gun. During the past 90 days, he faced the same harsh conditions that our bill is trying to address. Namely, Hammer was housed in an overcrowded and unsanitary prison, beaten by fellow inmates who were members of the murderous Mexican drug cartels, threatened with death in an extortion attempt by these inmates and chained to a bed. I had been involved in seeking Jon's release for several weeks, and I was heartened when he was released. His treatment, however, serves as an excellent example of the deficiencies found everyday in foreign prisons worldwide from Africa to no further away than our southern border. Our bill focuses on eliminating excessive pre-trial detention and dysfunctional justice systems which frequently result in prisoners and other detainees spending years in unhealthy prison conditions before their cases are even adjudicated. Tragically, inadequate, misplaced or lost records often result in the incarcerated being held indefinitely because their cases have never been heard. Unbelievably, such poor recordkeeping has kept many in prison long after their sentences have been served. Our bill also encourages these nations to provide humane and sanitary prison conditions so that prisoners can be released in good health, and thus stem one of the causes of the spread of HIV and tuberculosis among the general public. Our bill calls upon the Department of State to submit to Congress an annual report for five years that describes inhuman prison conditions at least 30 countries receiving U.S. foreign assistance. It gives the Secretary of State and Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development the discretion to restructure, reprogram or reduce U.S. foreign assistance to these countries based upon whether they are making ``significant efforts'' to eliminate inhuman conditions in their prisons and other detention facilities. The goals of this bill are noble, but it will take close monitoring and hard work by our U.S. Foreign Service personnel on the ground overseas to fulfill this work. That is why our bill directs the Secretary of State to provide training to these embassy and consulate personnel so that they can effectively investigate and assess prison conditions in foreign prisons as well as assist these foreign governments to adopt substantive prison reforms. The Secretary is also directed to designate and task a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State within the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor with the responsibility for gathering the information for the annual report and make recommendations to the Secretary based off its conclusions. I have made 128 African country visits over the past 16 years, and I believe that given the chance, the majority of Africa's leaders will welcome the opportunity to interact with our embassy and consulate personnel and adopt the best practices for achieving the elimination of unhealthy and unsafe conditions in their prisons and other detention facilities. It is also my hope that our neighbors to the south will adopt safe and sanitary prisons conditions and correct the dysfunctions in their justice systems so that another U.S. citizen does not have to spend 90 days in prison for a paperwork error. The task at hand reminds me of the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 25:39:40 when he said, `` `When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' '' We are all our brothers' keepers.