Jim Inhofe

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.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, as a cosponsor of the amendment, I am glad the Senator is getting around to the merits. Yes, it is a great injustice the Senator is going through right now, not getting his amendment heard. I have to say, though, as probably the only active commercial pilot in here, I jumped on this bill because a lot of people don't realize that the contract towers are just as in need of control as the noncontract towers. The Senator is aware that the University of Oklahoma in northern Oklahoma is contracted out. I have gone in there before where they are using all three runways at the same time. It is a huge issue. But what I want to ask the Senator is, why is it that when the bureaucracy is opposed to something they, No. 1, won't tell you about it; No. 2, they go whispering to the President; No. 3, they go whispering to other people around here? I went through this same thing, I suggest to my friend from Kansas, when I passed the Pilot's Bill of Rights. I had 67 cosponsors in the Senate, and they wouldn't bring it up. For an entire year they never would bring it up, and we had to rule XIV it on the floor. That is what is wrong. When we have something everybody is for, it is a good thing, but somehow--in this case, I know what it is: the same thing that happened to me. I got mine passed. It took me a year to do it. Best of luck to the Senator from Kansas. I would only say to him that this is a time to stay in there and fight for this because this is a great example to use. Everything that is being cut in government right now--all of these people who had to wait in line to get in here, there is no reason to do that. Everything people really want and the things that are popular, this is what they cut. So the Senator from Kansas is a victim of that. Just hang in there and try to make it happen.

Mr. INHOFE. I know something about this being the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. We went through this. Is the Senator aware that in one purchase the administration--now, I am talking about the White House--forced the Navy to buy 450,000 gallons of fuel at $29 a gallon? You can buy it on the open market for $3 a gallon. Secondly, I think the Senator does know this because I heard him mention the Department of Energy, when we formed the Department of Energy, they were supposed to do all this stuff. But I would have to make one observation. We have a President, an administration, that has been cutting dramatically, and we are all concerned about what has happened to our military, our ability to defend ourselves. They do it in three ways. No. 1, they cut; No. 2, they delay; but, No. 3--and this is what we are getting to now--they take the agenda, and in this case this green agenda, and put it not where it should be but under the defense budget. So for every dollar that goes to the green energy programs, the Senator and I would like-- since I am cosponsoring the Senator's amendment--every dollar is something we cannot spend for our fighters in the field.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 72 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am perfectly willing and I know some of the Democratic sponsors of the bill, Senator Hagan and others, would be in agreement to go ahead and accept this by voice vote. What this does is reverse the decision from the Department of Defense that took away some of the abilities our troops, when they are brought into service, have in terms of subsidizing their tuition. So this would return it to the way it was before. I have to say quickly and briefly, this is something I have talked about to our troops in the field. Many of them were so alarmed that it was even suggested they would take away the very thing that caused them to enlist in the first place. I think this is one that is going to enjoy wide bipartisan support for a voice vote, and I ask for its adoption.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 7 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we have been listening to our good friend from Kansas concerning this contract air traffic control tower amendment. I think there is no better example to use when talking about a bureaucracy taking something that everybody wants, that is very inexpensive, and using that to try to force people to do something that should never have happened. In terms of the contract air traffic control towers, this is not just a rural issue. This is something that can happen all around. It happens that I have six in my State of Oklahoma and up in Kansas I believe they have five, but the fact is this is a major safety issue. We have a huge, bloated bureaucracy in the FAA. Yet we are saying we have to close a handful of towers and let people be uncontrolled. I know a little about that; it is what I did for a living. It is totally outrageous. So we have an amendment, Senator Moran and I, to redirect the money within the FAA budget. There would be no additional cost. It would rescind $23.8 million from FAA facilities and equipment. Now, I ask, are facilities and equipment more important than actually having an active control tower in these congested areas? Also, it would take $26.2 million from FAA research and development. Well, I can assure you this is more significant, and no one looking at this would rationally say it is not. So I encourage my good friend from Kansas to pursue this. Similar to this is something that I, along with several Democrats-- the primary one being Kay Hagan--am concerned about, and that is what has happened in terms of a decision that was made by the Secretary of Defense to take out the tuition assistance. This is a very small amount of money for our troops who are over there serving now. This is kind of interesting because I was a product of the draft. My service was not voluntary when I was in, and I thought a total voluntary force would not be effective. As I found out, it was. Well, one of the main reasons people do sign up--a lot of people say: Yes, I want to serve my country. A lot say: Yes, I want a career in the Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force. However, they also want to advance themselves. They want an education, and in many cases, the only way they can get one is to have this tuition assistance program. I can recall being over in the mess halls in Afghanistan and actually out in the field in Afghanistan where we have some 200,000 Army troops there now who are participating in this program. This is not an expensive program. All we want to do is make sure we give what was taken away from those individuals who are trying to better themselves, trying to better their lives, perhaps work toward a career in the military. Stop and think about the amount of money that could come out of, say, some of the green initiatives. How many people know that our Navy was forced to pay $29 a gallon for 450,000 gallons of fuel when you can buy it on the market for $3? All these things. Do we have any business having a biorefinery built by the Federal Government? These are all things in this budget, and any one of them would be far more than the assistance we are giving our troops for their tuition. We are circulating a letter that draws attention to this, and we have Democrats and Republicans--just about even--saying: Mr. Secretary of Defense, go ahead and rescind that. We have a lot of waste we need to get rid of, but this is not waste. Our troops' preparation for the future is not a waste of our taxpayer money. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have a modification at the desk to amendment No. 29.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. This is something we are all familiar with. There is a spill prevention or an SPCC----

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized at the end of the Senator's remarks.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we have been discussing and debating ObamaCare for 3 years--several years anyway. I have not heard the argument before where they say you have the same government-run plan. That is not true. That is not true at all. I have worked in the corporate world and been on the leadership part where we were making decisions and offered our employees the benefits of different companies. It could be Aetna, Blue Cross-Blue Shield or anybody else. We could make that determination as to what we wanted and then we paid for it. I don't think that argument has ever been used, to my memory. I wasn't coming down to talk about that, but I will, since I am a cosponsor of the Cruz amendment. I think anything you are able to do to get rid of ObamaCare is in our interests. Right now, the attorney general in the State of Oklahoma is Scott Pruitt. I spoke with him this morning. He has a lawsuit with an amended complaint challenging the implementation of ObamaCare. Scott Pruitt is arguing the IRS is attempting to redefine ObamaCare's mandate tax in order to hike taxes on Oklahoma employees. That is what is happening right now in my State of Oklahoma. I don't know how the polling goes. I would only say this: I sense an air of anxiety with a lot of these people trying to support ObamaCare right now, because people have caught on. People in the State of Oklahoma have caught on. In Oklahoma, we would have to spend an additional $400 million over the next 10 years on Medicaid in order to cover those who already qualify and will be forced into the program--this government program we are talking about--due to ObamaCare and the mandate. This money will be diverted from schools and from roads and other needs, public safety, in the State of Oklahoma. Our research shows that premiums in Oklahoma could increase anywhere from 65 to 100 percent due to the coverage mandates required by ObamaCare. It is as if we are having this debate all over again, but they are bringing up things now I have never heard of. I want to mention one thing, and that is there is a friend of mine in Oklahoma whose name is David Green. David Green several years ago started with one store, a thing called Hobby Lobby--1 store in the State of Oklahoma--and now he has 500 stores in 41 States and he has, I don't know, I think it is over 50,000 employees. He is now facing a new type of intimidation he has never faced in his life, and it is the intimidation of saying because of David Green's religious convictions against providing his employees with abortion-inducing drugs his company now faces fines amounting to $1.3 million a day. All those pro-abortionists out there like this. This is wonderful. But he is someone who has hired thousands of people in 41 States in this country and is now providing all these benefits for Americans, and all he is saying is his religious convictions don't allow him to participate in abortion-inducing drugs. So he is under the threat right now, if you do the math, of a $1.3-million-a-day fine. And I guess I am more sensitive to this than I should be because I have known him from the very beginning. I want to speak briefly, because I know I have a couple of colleagues who wish to speak. Does the Senator wish to make a UC to get in line?

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I just wanted to ask whether the Senator wanted to lock himself in with a unanimous consent request while I finish on another subject.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I do cosponsor this amendment, and I will be voting for it at 2 p.m. today. But there is another one that will come up, amendment No. 28, and it could be coming up in a very short time this afternoon, and I was afraid I wouldn't have a chance to make a couple of comments about it. I am cosponsoring this amendment by Senator Paul, and it withholds funding to go to Egypt until Egypt's President Morsi declares he intends to abide by the Camp David peace accords, which have kept the peace between Egypt and Israel for over 30 years. If you talk to any of your Israeli friends, they will tell you this is significant, and I appreciate the fact he recognizes that. In fact, the bill I had introduced back in--well, I actually introduced it earlier, but reintroduced it on January 25 of this year--S. 207--calls for the suspension of the shipment of F-16s and other military equipment and services to Egypt until Morsi agrees to continue to uphold Egypt's commitment under the 1979 Camp David peace accords. A lot of people don't realize they have been our friend, and if you ask any of your Israeli friends, they will tell you they are. It happens that this President is a Muslim Brotherhood president. He is not like the ones we have had in Egypt before. People who think of other countries having the same kind of system we have, they do not. Right now the military is a military we trained. There is a Major General Elkeshky, who happens to be here now and who is a friend of mine, and he was trained at Fort Sill in Oklahoma. The majority of the middle-grade officers in Egypt have been trained in the United States. They are our friends. And that is what we are getting at here. So I made that qualification when I said we want to reduce the things we are doing, and I was talking about military equipment--the F-16s-- way back in January, until they make that commitment. I think that is a very reasonable commitment. The amendment that will be coming up, amendment No. 28, will be by Senator Paul and myself and it will talk about support for Egypt and go into other areas of support over and above military equipment, saying that until such time as they agree with what they have agreed to over the last 30 years or so--that they will continue to be our friends-- then we want to withhold this. It is the only leverage we have. I said this back in January, that the only leverage we have, in order to encourage them to come with us, is to say we are going to withhold some things, and that is what we are doing. So when that amendment comes up--of course, I still have my bill, S. 207, and it is essentially the same as the Paul-Inhofe amendment. It is not necessary to have them both in terms of a vote, but I think on one we will have to have a vote, but it should tie in to what their behavior has been in the past, what it should be in the future, so that we don't have a Muslim Brotherhood guy running a country and we don't know how our equipment is going to be used. Our F-16s and other equipment, our tanks, have been used to participate in the defense of our friends in the Middle East, primarily Israel and of ourselves. I am hoping we will get to that when we have a chance to have a vote on it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, I would not object to a 60-vote threshold in order to get things to move along. I would say my good friend from California has seen this bill several times before, and several months ago we actually had a vote on it, but I have no objection.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside to consider----

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment for consideration of my amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. No, I have the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. This is a bill that for years and years has come up. It was originally designed for refineries that have very large amounts of storage, of oil, of propane, of all that type of material, and it was designed for them to have the necessary safeguards in place. Then, later on, there became a gray area. I ask the question because it has never been answered: Should they now be able to apply this to farms? Farms may have perhaps a little bit of propane over here and over here, someplace else, something else. It might add up to the 1,320 gallons at one time. If that is the case, then they would be under the same requirements as we currently have for refiners. I am talking about them having to do volumes and volumes of paperwork. They would have to purchase new double-lined containers and build berms around their storage facilities. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars, and this could be an average-sized farm. The EPA has not done enough outreach to farmers to help them get into compliance. When this came up before, we introduced this same amendment that would give them time, with the assurance at that time that they would do this. In fact, I recall personally visiting with Lisa Jackson and she had every intention to go ahead and make these notifications. So the EPA shouldn't be allowed to enforce the rule against farmers at this time. What this amendment does is asks for an extension to give them time. I plan on talking to the new Director of the EPA about this very issue. This is not just exempting farmers. This is giving more time, in this case, until the end of this fiscal year. So I would like to be able to pass this. I do urge its adoption and ask for the yeas and nays.