Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I am sorry, I could not hear the Senator.

Mr. INHOFE. No. We are asking for a vote sometime tomorrow.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. I want to correct and make sure it is clear the understanding of what this is. This is something that is in existence today, and it is going to be temporarily holding this until the EPA will study to see what kind of hardship this is going to be to all the Senator's farmers and my farmers. This is not the bill that--I actually have a bill that would exclude farmers from this. This is not that bill. This merely extends that deadline to give them time to do what they had agreed they were going to do in terms of the EPA studying this issue. I wanted to make sure that clarification was on the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes. Let me make one comment for clarification.

Mr. INHOFE. We will have the opportunity to look at this closer, as the Senator from California suggests, tomorrow. We have talked about this in the past. This is extending that May 30 date to the end of the fiscal year. As you know, everything that would be an amendment adopted on this would expire at the end of the fiscal year. So it is just an extension of that time. Because by their own admission, the EPA has not had time to listen to the concerns of the farmers. And I am talking about farmers in both of your States there as well as my State of Oklahoma. As far as making the determination as to where the oil might go, I think we all know that would be a very difficult thing to do. There has been an effort for quite some time to take the word ``navigable'' out, which would open it to anywhere. So I think perhaps tomorrow we will have time to get into this. I really wanted to get it in the queue. I have done that, and we will have a chance tomorrow. I thank the Senator.

Mr. INHOFE. Look, I would conclude by saying, yes, that would be my intent, but not with this legislation. This amendment does not do that. I actually do have a bill that I have up that would permanently exempt farmers in certain categories from being under the jurisdiction of these limitations. But that is not what this is at this time. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Wicker for being an original supporter of S. 484, a bill aiming to improve EPA's lead paint rule. He has been a tremendous help throughout the long effort we have had to address this onerous and frustrating regulation. He and I firmly believe that this rule can be implemented in a way that both protects the health of children and pregnant women without unnecessarily raising the cost of construction projects when there exists only a negligible risk of harm. That is what our bill aims to do, and I want to thank him for being in lockstep with us from the beginning.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, since being elected, President Obama has been talking about the virtues of our Nation's potential to achieve domestic energy independence. In his State of the Union Message just a short time ago he said: ``After years of talking about it, we are finally poised to control our own energy future.'' This is something I have been saying now for years. We already have control over our energy future. The problem is we have an administration that has not allowed us to exploit our own capabilities in terms of developing the natural resources we have. In fact, we are the only country in the world that doesn't develop its own resources. In fact, in each of the President's budgets he has proposed to kill certain tax provisions specific to the oil and gas industry. Even though he says these are subsidies for the oil and gas industry, that is not the case. I would like to mention these because no one ever talks about the fact that he has specific provisions in his own budget. I will mention just three of them. Intangible drilling costs--called IDCs. This is a provision that simply allows producers to deduct from their revenue the cost of drilling. You pay taxes on net revenue. So this is net of the expenses it takes to develop the revenue. Every business is allowed to deduct ordinary and necessary business expenses, and IDCs are exactly that for the oil and gas industry. In other words, the cost of drilling should be deducted because a lot of times they drill and don't produce anything. So this is something everyone else has and we should be having also in the oil industry. If the President gets rid of these, the tax increase would be $13.9 billion over the 10-year period we have been talking about. This is interesting because that is not a tax that would be paid by them. It would go into the increased cost of energy. But we stopped that. We stopped that provision from becoming a reality, even though it was in the President's budget. The second is called percentage depletion. Percentage depletion is simply a way the Tax Code has allowed oil and gas producers to account for the reduction in the value of their reserves. Let's say they are fortunate and they produced oil that is going to be income that will go to them. As that is depleted, the value of that has been depleted also. Percentage depletion has been on the books as long as we have had the industry. If the President were successful in doing away with the percentage depletion, that would mean about an $11.5 billion tax increase on the energy we use in this country. The last one I will mention--and there are actually two more--is called section 199. Section 199 is the manufacturer's tax deduction. It allows all manufacturers, including farmers, filmmakers, and the rest of them to take a small deduction in their taxes because they create products here in America. The President has always proposed canceling this out but only for the oil and gas industry and not for anybody else. Everybody else would have that same advantage. Again, if the President were successful in doing this, it would increase the cost of energy by $11.6 billion over that 10-year period. The President's proposal to increase these taxes would prevent the industry from reaching its true potential, despite the fact of what we have out there and what we could do and how we could get it done today real quickly. A recent CRS--Congressional Research Service--report stated that the United States has the largest combined resources in oil, natural gas, and coal of any country in the world. We have more than Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada combined. Yet we are the only Nation, as I said, in the world that doesn't allow ourselves to exploit our own resources. Fortunately, oil and gas activities have increased over the past years. As much as the President may want to claim credit for this, he has no standing to do so because, as I mentioned, the tax provisions he has proposed in his budget have been very negative toward oil and gas. Last year we hit a 15-year high in oil production, producing an average of 6.4 million barrels a day, which was 800,000 barrels per day more than in 2011. This increase is staggering and it is the result of the amazing advancements in oil and gas production technologies--things such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. These are things that have helped us get the oil and gas out of tight formations. Nearly all of this increase has occurred on State and private lands. CRS confirmed 1 year ago that ``about 96 percent of the increase [in oil and gas production] since 2007 took place on non-Federal lands.'' That is critical, because as I have said twice already, we are the only country that doesn't develop its own resources. This means that is beyond the reach of the President's hands. In other words, he can't stop the private land production but he can the public land. Adding to that--and this was just released yesterday, which is why I wanted to make this point today--the oil production on all Federal lands, including onshore and offshore, declined last year for the second year in a row, falling from 632 million barrels in 2011 to right at 600 million barrels in 2012. So the 800,000 barrels-per-day increase we saw last year took place solely on private lands, none of it on public lands. During this boom time we are having right now, on that which the President has control over--the Federal lands--we have actually had a reduction. This makes sense, given what we know about oil and gas permitting on Federal lands. It still take 300 days to get a permit to drill. This is something you can't talk about too much because they would always say: In a certain case, you need to do it faster. In my State of Oklahoma, you can get it done in hours. In North Dakota, you can get permitting done in an average of about 10 days. But no, it is 300 days on Federal lands. I have a friend named Harold Hamm. He is arguably the most successful independent producer in America today. He is from Enid, OK. He does most of his production in North Dakota right now. I saw just a moment ago the Senator from North Dakota, and he can be very proud of the fact that in North Dakota Harold Hamm has one huge problem: He can't find people to work. They have full employment up there. This is what the potential is for this entire country. This chart shows all the potential, and I call to the Chair's attention this Northeastern part of the United States--Pennsylvania and New York. It didn't use to be the case that they had all that potential, but they do now, and it is spread evenly throughout the country with all the great new discoveries that are out there. Anyway, one of the arguments the President has had when I have said over and over again for the last 4 years that we need to open our public lands for drilling, and if we were able to do that, good things would happen in terms of the market, the price of gas at the pump, is that if we do that--if we allow the drilling for gas and oil on public lands--it would be 10 years before we would feel that at the pump--10 years. So I called Harold Hamm. He is a guy who I think everyone would agree could be considered the most knowledgeable person in this area, about 6 months ago I called him and said to him: I am going to be on a national TV show--I should tell you what it is, but I will not--and the President has been saying it will take 10 years before that oil will reach the pumps and so I would like to ask you a question. I said: When you answer, I am going to use your name live on national TV tonight, so make sure you are accurate. So I asked him: If you had a rig set up in New Mexico and you were able to lift the restrictions we have on public lands, how long would it take that oil and gas to hit the market? He said, without hesitating, 70 days. I said: Be sure you are right. I am going to use your name, and he proceeded to tell me what would happen each day for the first barrel of oil to actually reach the pumps and have an effect. Anyway, no one has argued with that yet because it is pretty well documented. So by the time you have one Federal drilling permit completed, Harold Hamm could have four separate wells up and running, providing more jobs and cheaper gasoline for all Americans. Fortunately, the President does not control the permitting process on State and private lands, and because of this the industry has had the opportunity to unlock tremendous natural gas resources. Not 5 years ago, many believed the United States faced a significant shortage of natural gas. Wellhead prices at that time were trading as high as $11 per thousand cubic feet--$11 per thousand cubic feet--and investors were racing to build liquefied natural gas import facilities. We were going to import liquefied natural gas. As you know, natural gas has to be liquefied to have some bulk before you are able to trade it internationally. Anyway, they were racing to try to get this done so we would be able to import from foreign countries to meet U.S. demand with foreign supplies. The shale gas revolution changed all this. Our expected natural gas reserves are well over 2 quadrillion cubic feet, which is enough gas to supply our domestic needs in the United States for 90 years. That is right here in this country. Many industry observers believe this estimate is discounted to the Nation's true potential. This dramatic shift in natural gas markets has pushed prices down to below $4 per thousand cubic feet, putting the United States in a unique position to bolster both wealth creation and our foreign policy might by beginning natural gas exports. So we would be going from importing liquefied natural gas to exporting natural gas. Right now there are currently 15 permits to export LNG pending before Secretary Chu at the Department of Energy. The Natural Gas Act requires the Department to ``issue such [a permit] upon application, unless . . . it will not be consistent with the public interest.'' What could be inconsistent with this for the public interest? This would be cheaper gas for us and give us total independence in a matter of weeks. Congress, when it wrote the Natural Gas Act, understood that the export of American products is good for the Nation. It supports domestic industry, creates jobs, and transfers wealth from overseas back to the United States. It is all good for us. A recent report commissioned by DOE to assist it in making its determination agreed with this. They stated: . . . across the scenarios [examined by the study], the U.S. economic welfare consistently increases as the volume of natural gas exports increases. So that is the opportunity that is out there. Some in this body have raised concerns about allowing liquefied natural gas exports to move forward. They are concerned mainly that production would not be able to keep up with the rising consumption and exports and that the follow-on effects will be harmful to domestic industries. I can appreciate where these Members are coming from, but I want to point out something that many may be overlooking. The Energy Information Agency, the EIA, releases an annual outlook for U.S. energy markets. In their most recent one, which came out just a few weeks ago, they estimated that between now and 2040, production of natural gas would increase by 40 percent, which will more than offset the expected 20 percent increase in consumption. So our consumption is going to increase. People say: How can we ever become independent. Our production will increase at twice the consumption level. Today, natural gas is trading near an all-time low, and because of this many producers have completely abandoned new natural gas production projects. In 2008, when natural gas was trading at nearly $11 per thousand cubic feet, there were over 1,600 active drilling rigs. Today, that figure is down to 428. That is a 73-percent reduction. The rigs are still out there. They are still set up. They are just not operating. Overnight, you can have them operating again. The industry is not moving forward with projects because it does not have the demand and certainty it needs to do so. Without demand certainty, it is impossible to accurately forecast whether the massive investments required to develop a project can be recouped. This stalls both job and wealth creation, keeping our unemployment rates and deficits higher than they should be. Today the natural gas market is in a demand-limited scenario, and it will remain there for the foreseeable future. Supply is truly so abundant and readily available that as soon as more demand comes online producers are able to tap reserves and meet the market's needs. The consulting firm Deloitte agrees. In its report, it stated ``producers can develop more reserves in anticipation of demand growth.'' They added that future LNG exports will have limited disruptions to natural gas markets because they ``will likely be backed by long-term supply contracts, as well as long-term contracts with buyers. There will be ample notice and time in advance of the exports to make supplies available.'' This should be of great encouragement to domestic energy consumers. In fact, the NERA Consulting Report concluded that across the board, industries would not be hurt by LNG exports, stating that ``no sector analyzed . . . would experience reductions in employment more rapid than normal turnover.'' The petrochemical industry is one that has been vocal in opposition to LNG exports, but the leftwing think tank, the Brookings Institute, stated in its LNG report that ``exports can be seen as providing a benefit to the petrochemical industry'' because it is primarily a user of natural gas liquids and not the dry liquids used to make LNG. I can appreciate the fact that many people are worried about the cost of energy going up in this country. I am too. But those who are concerned that exports will be the cause of this have misplaced concerns. Rather, they should be focusing their attention on the cumulative effect of adverse government policies negatively affecting energy sources. Government regulations, largely those coming out of the EPA, are perhaps the greatest threat to this Nation achieving domestic energy independence. We have gone from 1,600 rigs out there that were operating down to 428 rigs. Further, when considering the potential benefits of LNG exports, we can't dismiss the impact trade has had on other sectors of our economy. Agriculture is a prime example. The Federal Government works diligently to open and maintain international market access for U.S. agricultural producers. This was highlighted very recently by the announcement that Japan would ease its restrictions on U.S beef imports. Certainly, this is meaningful to my State and the States of others who are in this Chamber right now. This has been a major goal of the current and previous administrations for years, and Japan's decision was hailed by the administration and many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Everyone knows it is a great deal because when you sell products abroad, you both generate wealth at home and expand the size of the market, thereby increasing opportunities for expansion. The Federal Government should adopt the same perspective with LNG exports. LNG exports will create jobs across the country, bring more wealth to our Nation from abroad, and grow our economy--all at the same time. Meanwhile, we will be providing needed fuel for our allies-- Japan, Korea, NATO, and Thailand--who will consequently be able to reduce their reliance on the Middle East. So it is something that is good for everybody. It is good for our country; it is good for our economy. And all you have to do is, if you want to see that, look up to North Dakota. As I mentioned, a great independent producer, Harold Hamm from Oklahoma, is up there right now, and his biggest problem is they are fully employed. We have a similar situation in my State of Oklahoma. We have expanded our production to the point where we are not feeling some of the grief you hear in the discussions from the other people on this floor. So I would encourage us to look at this export to keep this market, to get those other 1,600 wells working. This is something that can certainly happen.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead Exposure Reduction Amendments Act of 2013. In April 2010, an EPA rule governing work done in homes constructed before 1978 took effect. The aim of this rule is to protect at-risk populations, defined as pregnant women and children under the age of six, from harmful lead paint dust particles that may be generated during home construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling work. While lead paint was generally discontinued from in-home use in the 1960s and 1970s, the rule applies to all homes built before 1978 and requires all contractors to be certified by the EPA and be supervised by an EPA certified renovator while following rigorous and costly safe lead work practices. Some of these requirements include sealing off the area where the renovation is occurring; removing all objects from the work area; covering any porous work areas with smooth, cleanable areas; using special tools that have emission exhaust controls; vacuuming all items, including people's clothes, who leave the work space; and generally cleaning the work area to ensure there is no dust following completion of the job. I believe everyone in this chamber stands strongly behind the intent of the rule, which is to protect children and pregnant women from the harmful effects of lead. With 20 kids and grandkids, I appreciate the importance of the rule, and the potential it has to further decrease lead exposure. But this rule does add significant cost to the completion of renovation jobs and adds significant regulatory hurdles to many small business owners in situations where it may not at all be necessary. Fortunately, the original rule included an opt-out provision for homeowners who did not have any at-risk individuals living in their homes. Provided the contractor made them aware of the potential lead- paint risks, the homeowner could give the contractor permission to carry out the job without following the EPA's lead safe work practices. This makes sense because the health issues caused by renovation work in homes with lead paint are minor for adults and older children who are not members of the at-risk population. But in July 2010, just three months after the rule took effect, the EPA removed this opt-out provision. By doing this, EPA more than doubled the number of homes requiring safe work practices and increased the economy-wide cost of compliance by well more than $336 million by EPA's own estimate, which is significantly less than reality. Further, EPA has failed to meet the requirements of its own rule because there are no commercially available lead paint test kits. Test kits would allow contractors to see whether work spaces include any lead paint, and if none is detected then the contractor would not have to follow lead safe work practices, which makes sense. Unfortunately, the test kits that are currently available produce 60-percent false positives, requiring many homeowners to pay significantly more for home remodeling work, even though there may not be any lead to protect them from. The bill I'm introducing today is simple. It would first require the EPA to restore the opt-out provision. If homeowners have no residents who are at-risk to lead paint contamination, then they should be able to waive the regulatory requirement. The bill will also suspend the rule for homes built after 1960 if the EPA does not develop workable test kits, unless those homes include members of the at-risk population. The bill would also provide a de minimis exemption for first-time paperwork violations against contractors. The EPA has focused its enforcement efforts on these violations despite the fact that the contractors may be appropriately following safe lead practices. Finally, the bill prohibits EPA from expanding this regulation to commercial and public buildings until it has completed a study to determine the risk of such practices. EPA is in the process of writing these regulations even though it has not yet completed the corresponding study. If there is no risk, why would EPA issue regulations? They would be a solution in search of a problem. EPA needs to do its due diligence and determine whether there would be any meaningful health benefits from extending this rule to other areas. In closing, I want to reiterate my dedication to the cause of protecting the health of vulnerable populations, and particularly pregnant women and children. But it is important for EPA's regulations to be pursued in a way that make sense, and that is what my bill intends to do. This is an ongoing goal of mine as a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead Exposure Reduction Amendments Act of 2013. In April 2010, an EPA rule governing work done in homes constructed before 1978 took effect. The aim of this rule is to protect at-risk populations, defined as pregnant women and children under the age of six, from harmful lead paint dust particles that may be generated during home construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling work. While lead paint was generally discontinued from in-home use in the 1960s and 1970s, the rule applies to all homes built before 1978 and requires all contractors to be certified by the EPA and be supervised by an EPA certified renovator while following rigorous and costly safe lead work practices. Some of these requirements include sealing off the area where the renovation is occurring; removing all objects from the work area; covering any porous work areas with smooth, cleanable areas; using special tools that have emission exhaust controls; vacuuming all items, including people's clothes, who leave the work space; and generally cleaning the work area to ensure there is no dust following completion of the job. I believe everyone in this chamber stands strongly behind the intent of the rule, which is to protect children and pregnant women from the harmful effects of lead. With 20 kids and grandkids, I appreciate the importance of the rule, and the potential it has to further decrease lead exposure. But this rule does add significant cost to the completion of renovation jobs and adds significant regulatory hurdles to many small business owners in situations where it may not at all be necessary. Fortunately, the original rule included an opt-out provision for homeowners who did not have any at-risk individuals living in their homes. Provided the contractor made them aware of the potential lead- paint risks, the homeowner could give the contractor permission to carry out the job without following the EPA's lead safe work practices. This makes sense because the health issues caused by renovation work in homes with lead paint are minor for adults and older children who are not members of the at-risk population. But in July 2010, just three months after the rule took effect, the EPA removed this opt-out provision. By doing this, EPA more than doubled the number of homes requiring safe work practices and increased the economy-wide cost of compliance by well more than $336 million by EPA's own estimate, which is significantly less than reality. Further, EPA has failed to meet the requirements of its own rule because there are no commercially available lead paint test kits. Test kits would allow contractors to see whether work spaces include any lead paint, and if none is detected then the contractor would not have to follow lead safe work practices, which makes sense. Unfortunately, the test kits that are currently available produce 60-percent false positives, requiring many homeowners to pay significantly more for home remodeling work, even though there may not be any lead to protect them from. The bill I'm introducing today is simple. It would first require the EPA to restore the opt-out provision. If homeowners have no residents who are at-risk to lead paint contamination, then they should be able to waive the regulatory requirement. The bill will also suspend the rule for homes built after 1960 if the EPA does not develop workable test kits, unless those homes include members of the at-risk population. The bill would also provide a de minimis exemption for first-time paperwork violations against contractors. The EPA has focused its enforcement efforts on these violations despite the fact that the contractors may be appropriately following safe lead practices. Finally, the bill prohibits EPA from expanding this regulation to commercial and public buildings until it has completed a study to determine the risk of such practices. EPA is in the process of writing these regulations even though it has not yet completed the corresponding study. If there is no risk, why would EPA issue regulations? They would be a solution in search of a problem. EPA needs to do its due diligence and determine whether there would be any meaningful health benefits from extending this rule to other areas. In closing, I want to reiterate my dedication to the cause of protecting the health of vulnerable populations, and particularly pregnant women and children. But it is important for EPA's regulations to be pursued in a way that make sense, and that is what my bill intends to do. This is an ongoing goal of mine as a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I would like to introduce a piece of legislation that I believe is of great importance to the unity of the American people--the English Language Unity Act of 2013. That English Language Unity Act of 2013 recognizes the practical reality of the role of English as our national language and makes English the official language of the United States government, a status in law it has not had before, and calls on government to preserve and enhance the role of English as the official language. Let me be clear, nothing in the bill prohibits the use of a language other than English. The bill specifically exempts certain actions from requiring English, such as actions necessary for national security, trade, and protecting the public health and safety. The English Language Unity Act is an attempt to legislate a common sense language policy that a nation of immigrants needs one national language. Our Nation was settled by a group of people with a common vision. As our population has grown, our cultural diversity has grown as well. This diversity is part of what makes our nation great. However, we must be able to communicate with one another so that we can appreciate our differences. When members of our society cannot speak a common language, misunderstandings arise. Furthermore, the individuals who do not speak the language of the majority miss out on many opportunities to advance in society and achieve the American Dream. The English Language Unity Act of 2013 requires the establishment of a uniform language requirement for naturalization and requires that all naturalization ceremonies be conducted in English. I want to empower new immigrants coming to our nation by helping them understand and become successful in their new home. I believe that one of the most important ways immigrants can achieve success is by learning English. There is enormous popular support for English as the official language according to polling that has taken place over the last few years. A large majority of Americans support making English the official language of the United States. There is also widespread and bipartisan support for this legislation, and I hope that you will join me this Congress in supporting the English Language Unity Act of 2013. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I would like to introduce a piece of legislation that I believe is of great importance to the unity of the American people--the English Language Unity Act of 2013. That English Language Unity Act of 2013 recognizes the practical reality of the role of English as our national language and makes English the official language of the United States government, a status in law it has not had before, and calls on government to preserve and enhance the role of English as the official language. Let me be clear, nothing in the bill prohibits the use of a language other than English. The bill specifically exempts certain actions from requiring English, such as actions necessary for national security, trade, and protecting the public health and safety. The English Language Unity Act is an attempt to legislate a common sense language policy that a nation of immigrants needs one national language. Our Nation was settled by a group of people with a common vision. As our population has grown, our cultural diversity has grown as well. This diversity is part of what makes our nation great. However, we must be able to communicate with one another so that we can appreciate our differences. When members of our society cannot speak a common language, misunderstandings arise. Furthermore, the individuals who do not speak the language of the majority miss out on many opportunities to advance in society and achieve the American Dream. The English Language Unity Act of 2013 requires the establishment of a uniform language requirement for naturalization and requires that all naturalization ceremonies be conducted in English. I want to empower new immigrants coming to our nation by helping them understand and become successful in their new home. I believe that one of the most important ways immigrants can achieve success is by learning English. There is enormous popular support for English as the official language according to polling that has taken place over the last few years. A large majority of Americans support making English the official language of the United States. There is also widespread and bipartisan support for this legislation, and I hope that you will join me this Congress in supporting the English Language Unity Act of 2013. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, I don't need to be in this lineup. I will be talking later on. I only wanted to ask one question of Senator Ayotte when she has the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator yield for a question before she starts?

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, of course. The question is this--and I know the Senator already knows this, but others may not know, and I want to make sure they are aware. I am in support of the Senator's bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill and have been since way back when the Senator first started with Jon Kyl a long time ago.

Mr. INHOFE. I agree with what was said by both the Senator from Arizona and the Senator South Carolina. In fact, it was my request that Senator Ayotte's measure be the Republican alternative. So I just wanted to make sure everyone knew that. I think it is a good idea.

Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate that. Prior to the time we propounded the unanimous consent request, I was talking about my frustration about what has been happening fiscally in this Senate during the last 4 years and the mere fact that under this administration we have increased deficits by $5.3 trillion. Now we are trying to come up with something far less than that in a period of 10 years. To me, people look at that and say: What is this all about? But that is not the reason I bring this up. I bring this up because the amount of money that has come out of the military is actually a reduction. If you look at the increase in the spending in the last 4 years, it has all come out of defense accounts, so it is defense that has taken the hits on this. Government has expanded approximately 30 percent across the board. At the same time our military has been reduced in terms of our budget for defense accounts. Anyway, when this came up a few weeks ago, I thought it was not going to happen. I thought we were going to have something come up and change this whole idea of having to make these reductions. So what I did at that time was draft a bill. The bill merely said if we are stuck with sequestration, let's allow the chiefs--speaking of the military--to reevaluate everything that is included so they can look and see where we can take cuts and it will not be as devastating. In fact, I called each one of the five service chiefs and I said: Would it be less devastating if you were able to take the same amount of money out but take it out selectively, out of accounts where it would be not as significant? They said: Yes, it would. I said: Would you be able to prepare for this in the next 4 years? The answer is yes. That is where we are today. They said they are able to do that. The frustrating fact is this President--I am getting criticized on both sides. People are saying you are giving too much to the President. We are not because we have safeguards in here, which I will explain in a minute. But at the same time, the President comes out and says he will issue a veto threat against this bill. What does this do? It gives flexibility for the President. I am going to read something. This is a statement that President Obama said on February 19, 2013. He said: Now, if Congress allows this meat-cleaver approach to take place, it will jeopardize our military readiness; it will eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research. It won't consider whether we are cutting some bloated program that has outlived its usefulness, or a vital service that Americans depend on every single day. It doesn't make those distinctions. He goes on to say that he wants that flexibility. This is the President asking for it on February 19, 2013. Here we come along with a bill that gives him that flexibility with certain restrictions so that he can't pick and choose areas that we find are against the policy that has been set. I will give an example. We had the National Defense Authorization Act. It was one that took months and months to put together. It took a long time to put together, and we made evaluations, with a limited budget, on what we could do. All this does is say if we have to make some changes from the across- the-board cut, let's make them consistent with the National Defense Authorization Act. In other words, all those weeks and months of work by the Senate Armed Services Committee and, I might say, the House Armed Services Committee would not be in vain. Those cuts would be consistent with the intent, to make sure the President would do this. A lot of people say we can't trust the President; he is going to put more cuts in places where it would not be in keeping with what the Senate Armed Services Committee wants. But we have a provision called a congressional disapproval mechanism. That means if the President doesn't do what the intent of this legislation is, then we can go ahead and disapprove it. We have those two safeguards. One is they have to follow the criteria that is consistent with the Senate Armed Services Committee, the national defense authorization bill, which is the House and the Senate. To be sure we will be able to do that it has the disapproval mechanism. People do not realize the costs of this. If you take the same amount of money that we are talking about in sequestration and allow the service chiefs to massage this and make changes, give them flexibility to go after programs that are not as significant as some that might otherwise be cut--the bill allows the President to listen to the advice of his military leadership and offset some of the devastating impacts of sequestration. If the sequester is allowed to take place and the congressional resolution is not fixed, the Department of Defense stands to waste billions of dollars through the cancellation of contracts. People don't think about this. We make commitments backed by the United Sates of America that we are going to do certain things. A lot of these are contracts such that if they are terminated it could cost quite a bit of money. The termination of multiyear contracts is something that we would be concerned about. Providing the Department of Defense flexibility to determine how these cuts will be implemented will let us take this into consideration. At this point, I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania how much time he would like for his concluding remarks.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I thank my friend from Utah for his comments. I think it is important, since we have two votes coming up starting in less than 30 minutes, that we talk a little bit about the background, where we are today and what we are going to be faced with in these votes and what the options are. Back about 5 weeks ago, when it looked as though sequestration was going to kick in, there was concern. I understand there is a lot of concern on the domestic side and on the defense side, but my concern is mainly on the defense side. I am the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I am concerned about what has been happening under this administration in the last 4 years, the disarming of America and the devastation that has taken place already. A lot of people do not realize, under this administration we are now projecting cuts already to hit $487 billion in defense. If sequestration should come in, it would raise that to $1 trillion, and $1 trillion over that period of time is, in fact, devastating. The Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, came out immediately and said: This cannot happen; we cannot adequately defend America if we allow this to take place. He was talking about sequestration. Sequestration, I think people kind of lose sight of what it is. It is the equal cutting all the way across all of these accounts in order to come up with a savings, which I think is kind of interesting. Here we are talking about all this anguish we are going through right now just for $1.2 trillion, when you stop and realize in the President's own budget, over 4 years he has a $5.3 trillion increase. So we are talking about 10 years to come up with $1.2 trillion when he was accountable for $5.3 trillion in 4 years. That is not even believable. When I say it back in my State of Oklahoma they shake their heads and think there must be some miscommunication, it cannot be right. The problem has been, in this administration, over the past 4 years all the cuts have come from the military. They have not come from anywhere else. It is an oversimplification, but you can make the statement that they are cutting--I will yield to my friend from Utah because I understand he has a unanimous consent request. I will be happy to do that, but I ask unanimous consent the floor be returned to me.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. I asked unanimous consent I be recognized after the two of you went through this. Can I inquire as to about how much longer it will be? I am the author of the bill that is coming up in just a few minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate that. It is my understanding, responding to my friend, that the other author of this bill, Senator Toomey, wants to be heard for 2 minutes prior to the vote. I would like to be heard for a few minutes of time.

Mr. INHOFE. Right after his time, yes.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I appreciate that very much. He has been a great partner. I have given a background of what went on 5 weeks ago and our discussions with the service chiefs. I was hoping this day would not come and that we would not be faced with the continued devastation of our military, but the time is here. Tomorrow is the 1st of the month. The Senator from Pennsylvania and I have come up with a bill that will be voted on, and it will minimize the damage and still preserve the cuts that are mandated and are out there. One of the problems we have not talked about is the continuing resolution. When I was talking to the different service chiefs, one was General Odierno, who is in the Army. He said that just as devastating as how the CR is set up, this corrects that problem at the same time. We have something that is not going to cost any more money. Believe me, a lot of my closest friends--for instance, in the House of Representatives--think it is a good thing that we are making these mandatory cuts. They cannot argue with that, but we can at least minimize the damage in these cuts. I will read something that shocked me when I saw the President had issued--I am not sure if it is a veto message. I am told it was a veto message. Here we have a bill that gives him flexibility with the restrictions we talked about. Yet he says he is now going to veto it. It is worth reading this again, and we need to make sure we get this in the Record. This is his quote on February 19, 2013. This is the President speaking. Now, if Congress allows this meat-cleaver approach to take place, it will jeopardize our military readiness; it will eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research. It won't consider whether we're cutting some bloated program that has outlived its usefulness, or a vital service that Americans depend on every single day. It doesn't make those distinctions. We are now giving him a vehicle that makes those distinctions so we have that flexibility. It has the safeguards to take care of the problems that have been brought up. I think it is not a good solution, but right now it is the only solution. With that, I yield the floor.