Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me say that most everything the Senator from Illinois has talked about I agree with. We have been talking about this bill for a long time. I join Senator Rockefeller in encouraging anyone, Democrats particularly, to bring any amendment down they want. Procedurally, I don't think I can get my two amendments in the queue until that happens. For the moment, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, the Senator from Illinois was talking about our friend, our beloved Ronald Reagan. I thought I would make a couple of comments that might surprise a few people. I was not from Oklahoma originally. I was actually born in Iowa. When I was a very small child, Ronald Reagan was the sports announcer for WHO radio. My father was a claims adjuster. They officed in the same room--not the same building but the same room. They played the pinball machine together. I can remember at that time they never said Ronald Reagan; they said Dutch Reagan. That was his name. That was his name as a sports announcer too. He would actually come by and we referred to him as Uncle Dutch. That was in Des Moines. That was back during the Depression and shortly after. When my family moved to Oklahoma, we didn't have a lot of money. So we never went to movies. At that time they didn't have TV. The only time we would ever see a movie is if Dutch Reagan had a movie. I went down once to Atoka, OK, which was probably roundtrip driving about 4 hours. We went down to see a Dutch Reagan movie. Later on, I became the mayor of Tulsa. During that time Reagan was in his first term. He had me do all of his domestic work. I was debating Democratic mayors from all over the country on the policies that Ronald Reagan had initiated and tried to perpetuate, and they were all very successful, I might add. Now, in retrospect, a lot of people on the other side of the fence realize they were. Saying this was a personal relationship, I look beyond what everyone knows about Ronald Reagan, what his persona was, and I can say he was such a warm and personable person. It never occurred to me--I thought of him as one of the family until the time he started running for political office. It is kind of interesting because his first election, of course, was running for office out in California. At that time, we still did not have a lot of money, but my father--I think that was the first race he got involved with financially, and Ronald Reagan never forgot it. I can remember when I came to Congress he was in his second term, and he would always comment: There is young Congressman Inhofe. His daddy was one of my first financial contributors. So anyway, I will just say this: When you lose somebody like him, you do not just lose a leader that in retrospect looks good to everyone, but you lose someone who is very warm and loving. Here is a guy who, in the Oval Office, would never ever walk in without a coat and tie on. This is the way he distinguished the office, and this is the way the office distinguished him. So we dearly miss him on this, his 100th birthday anniversary. Madam President, let me make one comment about the two amendments I have on the bill. I think it is important we address both of them, but one of them is, in particular, very significant. We have a subpart S version of the FARs that affects scheduled and nonscheduled airlines. A scheduled airline can live with the flight crew rest and duty time because they can adjust their schedules to do that. The unscheduled cannot. So the subpart S in the FARs today allows a subpart S to work longer hours, but they also have longer rest hours in between. They average out actually with longer rest hours per active hours than under the law that affects the scheduled airlines. Let me give you a couple examples why it is important. Ninety-five percent of our troop movement over in theater, where the Presiding Officer and I just came back from, after having spent New Year's Eve with our troops over in Kabul and Afghanistan--during that time, there were several times when they had to bring blood in. If a nonscheduled airline has to bring the blood in, they cannot do it because that is too far. They would have to leave the plane there and have crew rest in Kabul and come back. Well, they cannot do that because we have rules against it. Ninety-five percent of the troop activity, movement, comes from nonscheduled airlines. Forty percent of the material comes in and out. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about getting blood over to our troops in the AOR. So it has worked well. There has not been, in 15 years, one case where an accident on a nonscheduled airline has taken place due to the fatigue of anyone. So it is a problem that does not exist, and I have always had this hangup about fixing things that are not broken. So, consequently, I am hoping we will be able to keep that. What is happening today is there is a comment period and a rule that would do away with that subpart S, and I would like to have this amendment in here. It would keep that from happening. So I think it is very important, and I think it means a lot to our troops over there. The only alternative--if you take the blood example--is, you would have to find, from maybe Qatar or some other place, a military plane, a C- 130 or a C-17, to take them in. As you know, right now the OPTEMPO of our lift capacity is to the point we cannot take on anything more. So I think this is a life-and-death type of thing. The other amendment I feel strongly about--I mentioned a minute ago when Senator Glenn retired, that left me as the last active commercial pilot in the Senate and I still am and have been flying for 50 years. Many times in the past I have, at my own expense and in my own aircraft, done things where we are helping out people because there is no one else to do it, either taking people for medical treatment or taking, in one case, a limb that had been amputated back to be reattached, this type of thing. So for people to do it--the pilots and the equipment, such as my equipment--it costs us money to do it. But we feel, in order to encourage them to do it, they should be exempt from liability should something happen so they do not have frivolous lawsuits. If you do, then it discourages people from being generous. So this is kind of a Good Samaritan type of amendment. These are amendments Nos. 7 and 6. I am hoping to get them in the queue. I cannot do that at this time. I want to cooperate with Senator Rockefeller, but as soon as we can, I want to get these in. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reclaiming my time. First of all, I thank you very much. The one set of amendments I have, I would hope to get into the managers' amendment or somehow have them come up and even be voice voted. But they are issues I have talked about in the past quite often. I think we all understand--or most of us do--that when our good friend Senator Glenn retired, that left me as the last active commercial pilot, on a regular basis, in the Senate. So I have these two amendments I am very interested in. I will yield the floor. When such time comes--what the Senator from West Virginia said is true. Right now, because of the Prayer Breakfast that is taking place, I happen to be hosting the African dinner tonight, so I have groups coming by every 30 minutes throughout the day. At some time today, I wish to be able to get two amendments, Nos. 6 and 7, in the queue. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment for consideration of Inhofe amendment No. 6.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, all I want to do is get two amendments in the queue in 30 seconds.

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

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment for the consideration of Inhofe amendment No. 7.

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

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there has been some confusion, moving around the time. While I was supposed to be here earlier, let me ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in morning business for such time as I will consume.

Mr. INHOFE. I say to my friend from Arkansas who just spoke, I know a little bit about the program you have. In fact, the Senator is fully aware my daughter Molly is a marketing professor at the University of Arkansas, who has talked about this very concept. I do not know why all the successes have gravitated to northwest Arkansas, but it seems that they have. Maybe this has something to do with it. I look forward to following through with the Senator on this program. I wish to mention a couple things I have been wanting to talk about, but I am here actually to describe two amendments I have to the FAA bill. First, I would like to say publicly how proud I am of the new attorney general, Scott Pruitt, that we have in the State of Oklahoma. He is taking the leadership in suing to determine the constitutionality of the government-run health care. We are doing that currently in the State of Oklahoma. I am looking for some great results from that. As I look at this, sometimes you have to ask the very basic questions. If you are talking about a government-run system, something that doesn't work in Sweden or Denmark or the UK or Canada, why would it work here, when we have all these members of Parliament coming over saying: Why are you insisting on going to something that is a dismal failure at the same time we are moving toward a much more successful health delivery system, the model for the whole world, and that is what we have in the United States. I have to say also, when I look and listen to people talking about the debt and the deficit and the problems we have, I think it is ludicrous that we can go back and try to act like Bush had these great deficits. If you take the deficits during the 8 Bush years, add them all up and divide by 8, it came out to $247 billion each year. Now we have a President who has in just 2 years accumulated almost $3 trillion--six times the deficit that was there under the Bush administration. When people keep saying something over and over that is not true, they assume people will eventually believe it. In this case, I believe the American people are so concerned about the spending, the unprecedented spending, the unsustainable spending of this administration, this President and his majority in both Houses, they are up on this issue. Before I get to my two amendments, I wish to mention one other aspect I was going to have as an amendment to the FAA bill. Unfortunately, there was not time to put it together, so I will be doing some sometime this summer, but I wish to serve notice. I have the distinction, I guess you would say, since the retirement of Senator John Glenn, I am now, I believe, the last remaining active commercial pilot in the Senate. When I look at the FAA bill, I have a lot of interest in it. I had an incident that occurred to me on October 20 of this year when I was flying my twin-engine airplane into a field in south Texas. It was called Cameron County Airport, a noncontrolled field. I experienced something that is going to make me go back and revisit to see if perhaps what happened to me, if it happens to someone else, people in the FAA would be just as generous as they were with me. Before I tell you what happened, I have to say the FAA could not have been better. They could not have been more cooperative. I sat down and talked with them about the incident. I will tell you what happened. I was flying some passengers in one of my planes, a twin-engine airplane, into Cameron County Airport. This happened to be a nice day. It was a VFR--visual flight rules is what that means--so I didn't have to have control with the controllers on the way down. However, as a precautionary measure, what I always do, I talk to them anyway. So when you go down straight south from Tulsa, OK, to Cameron County Airport, you fly right over Corpus Christi. That is about 120 miles north of the Cameron County Airport. Because they have a lot of training down there--they have the Navy guys, the training that takes place--it is always safer, when you are flying around down there with a lot of kids who may only have 30 or 40 hours, to get on control so they are watching you. When you get on a control, in this case it is an approach control, they give you a squawk so you know--they know who you are, where you are, how fast you are going, how you relate to the other traffic in the area. So I got on Corpus Christi approach and I said: This is Twin Cessna 115 echo alpha. I will be coming south on VFR, descending through 15,500 to go to the Cameron County Airport. Halfway down they handed me off--this is the terminology that is used--to the FAA controller down there in the valley. This is way down South. A lot of the people back East here do not understand that Texas, when you get down to the southern tip, that is farther south than Miami, FL. It is way down there. We went down and they handed me off to what they call valley approach. Valley approach took me all the way down to Cameron County Airport, turned me loose--and I am trying to get the recording so I know exactly when it was--to land at the Cameron County Airport. This is the FAA. The problem is, when I went ahead and landed--by the time I got everything in landing configuration, it was too late to go around. We are going below the blue line, as the saying is, so I had to land when there were workers on the runway. I say to my friend from Iowa, the way they normally preclude something from happening, as he well knows, is they have you on their radar. They know you are there. But they publish NOTAMs, that is Notice to Airmen. Before you fly into any place, you check the NOTAMs to see if there is construction on the runway, if there is any kind of problem. Of course, we checked and there were no NOTAMs that day for Cameron County Airport, but there were people working on the runway. I wish to offer legislation, and I will include in the legislation a requirement that NOTAMs are published where they can be found by the pilot. In this case, the NOTAM that came out that there is someone working on the airport did not come out until November 2 and this was October 20, so I had no control over it. I am not blaming anyone. I am saying they need to be in a conspicuous place where that will happen. The second problem I see that affects general aviation is everything we do when we talk to a controller is recorded, and the public should have access to these recordings. I know it is a difficult thing. I have requested this, now, since way back in October and have not yet received it. I am going to try to set up a system where that is available to everyone. Then, last, because even though no action was taken--I didn't violate anything and everything turned out fine; I did study procedures and all that--but the bottom line is, all during that process, someone, a bureaucrat, could have taken away my license. Here I have more hours than most American airline pilots. I fly, on average, probably 4 hours a week still to this day. That would be taking away a major part of my life and that is how serious it is. Many years ago, about 10 years ago, the greatest pilot in America, named Bob Hoover--he is a tremendous pilot, up in years, actually considerably older than I am--and they actually took away his license. This is called an emergency revocation. I authored a law to require a type of an appeal, appellate process. We passed it. I think a similar thing should be afforded to all members. Again, I wish to say the FAA could not have been more cooperative and more thorough, but I think we need to change the rules. We will probably have to do it legislatively. I plan to do that during the summer. My two amendments. The first is one I think most people, when they understand it, will appreciate; that is, they are attempting, it is my understanding--right now there is a rule that is pending. It is not part of this legislation directly but in a way it is because, with my amendment, we would be able to preclude this from happening. The air carriers are scheduled airlines and unscheduled. The unscheduleds--they are called charter airlines and other types of airlines--they are under a different FAR, the Federal Aviation Regulation, part 21, but it is a subpart S. Subpart S says, if you are an unscheduled airline, you are not restricted to the same crew restrictions they have for a scheduled airline. There is a reason for this. The reason is this. A scheduled airline, they are out there every day, and they adjust their schedules for crew rest time. A charter does not have that opportunity. So they may go maybe three or four times what the crew's rest would be and then have to take a longer flight. This does affect the military. Right now, if you are flying blood into Afghanistan, it is flown in by charter airlines. These airlines will take it down to Qatar and then go in probably on a C-17. To go from Ramstein down to Qatar and back is longer than they can take without crew rest or, if they take it into Afghanistan, that charter flight would have to do crew rest actually in Afghanistan-- maybe in Kabul. Obviously, they cannot leave a civilian plane there under some of those conditions. So the only choice, then, is we would have to use some of our lift capacity of the C-17s to do that. The problem we are having right now, our C-17s are so overworked, our crews are overworked, so I believe that exemption should continue to be in place and we will be trying to pass this amendment. I am going to try to get in the queue. This is actually our amendment No. 7. The other amendment I have I am very sensitive to because I have participated in these programs. There are a lot of voluntary organizations, volunteer pilots--I have done it at my own expense, helping heart patients get around different places, flying in to help people out. A lot of pilots are very generous with their equipment and time and money and they do this. What I want to do is get them a release from some of the liability to which they would otherwise be exposed. In other words, these people are doing this at their own expense, on their own time, but they are also exposing themselves to major lawsuits. These are the two amendments. That happens to be amendment No. 6. I will be trying to get that in the queue after tonight's vote, so perhaps we will be voting on it sometime between now and Tuesday. With that, I appreciate the patience of my friend from Iowa and 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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I heard this morning the tributes that were made by Senator John McCain and Senator John Kyl about the role that was played by the very heroic judge who lost his life in the tragedy that took place in Tucson. Shortly after the tragedy, the offices of Senators McCain and Kyl reached out to my committee--the committee on which I am ranking member and Senator Boxer is chairman. They talked about how they would go about honoring Judge John Roll by naming the new courthouse that will be constructed in Yuma, AZ, after him. Many of us have come to know the work of Judge Roll after his tragic, heroic death in the recent shooting where he died protecting Ron Barber, Congresswoman Giffords' district director, and sacrificing himself. My office knew about him before, about Judge Roll's work on behalf of the judicial system in Arizona. Judge Roll contacted my committee staff last year, after a GAO report criticizing the way Arizona was utilizing their courthouse space. This is a letter from Judge Roll to us: On behalf of the district of Arizona, I strongly disagree with many of the conclusions in the report, particularly as they relate to Arizona and its attempts to cope with an ever- burgeoning criminal caseload largely arising from border enforcement. He hoped his response to the report would be helpful to us. It was. We have learned that the problems they have in Arizona on the border are something they have never experienced before. It has put their judicial system into real problems, and consequently this judge was taking a leadership role in reaching out to us to let us know that GAO report was not accurate. We have had a chance to talk with both Senator McCain and Senator Kyl. I sat down with Senator Boxer, who is the chairman of our committee, and talked about what we might be able to do in a very expeditious way. I believe the decision to name the Yuma, AZ, courthouse after Judge Roll is a fitting tribute to a man who served his State with distinction. The courthouse is a new courthouse, government construction, to help alleviate some of the overcrowding going on in Arizona right now, primarily because of the problems that exist on the border. I do not know of any time in the years I have been here that a bill has been introduced and then discharged the same day. We all feel strongly enough that this needs to be handled in this way. It is the very least we can do. Judge Roll was highly regarded by his colleagues and clearly took his judgeship seriously, doing more than simply deciding cases and going home. He was an active advocate for the judicial system in Arizona. I believe we would have had this courthouse named after him upon his retirement had his life not been tragically taken. Today Senators McCain and Kyl introduced S. 188, and I am happy to announce that Senator Boxer and I have discharged S. 188 to the floor on this same day. Anything else I do not think would have been appropriate. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and pay tribute to GEN Carrol H. Chandler for over 36 years of exceptional service and dedication to the U.S. Air Force. He will be retiring from Active Duty on March 1, 2011. He currently serves as the Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC. As Vice Chief, he presides over the Air Staff and serves as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Requirements Oversight Council and Deputy Advisory Working Group. He assists the Chief of Staff with organizing, training, and equipping 680,000 Active-Duty, Guard, Reserve and civilian forces serving in the United States and overseas. A command pilot with more than 3,900 flying hours in the F-15, F-16, and T-38, GEN ``Howie'' Chandler has commanded a major command, a numbered air force, two fighter wings, a support group and a fighter squadron--a true testament to his exceptional airmanship, leadership, and judgment. His staff assignments include tours at Headquarters Pacific Air Forces, the Pentagon, Headquarters U.S. Pacific Command, Headquarters U.S. Military Training Mission in Saudi Arabia, and Headquarters Allied Air Forces Southern Europe. General Chandler grew up in Carthage, MS. He entered the Air Force in 1974 after graduating from the U.S. Air Force Academy. Following graduation, he attended undergraduate pilot training at Laughlin AFB, TX. He excelled throughout his training and after earning his wings was selected to remain at Laughlin AFB to teach future pilots as a T-38 instructor pilot and flight examiner. He continued as an instructor pilot and assistant operations officers at Randolph Air Force Base, TX. Then, as a testament to Captain Chandler's achievements as a T-38 instructor pilot, he was selected to fly the Air Force's premier air superiority fighter, the F-15 Eagle. Stationed at Kadena Air Base, Japan with the 67th Tactical Fighter Squadron, he continued to shine in the air and on the ground as a squadron standardization officer, flight commander, and wing flight examiner. His prowess in the air earned him a selection to become the chief of Air-to-Air Tactics Branch at Headquarters Pacific Air Forces, Hickam Air Force Base, HI. His talents were quickly realized, and he was selected to become the aide-de-camp to the commander-in-chief of U.C. Pacific Command at Camp H.M. Smith, HI, and then the Air Force aide to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon, Washington, DC, positions for which only the elite are selected. Following his assignment at the Pentagon, he was once again stationed at Kadena, where he flourished at every position he held: assistant operations officer of the 44th Tactical Fighter Squadron, chief of standardization and evaluation, operations officer of the 67th Tactical Fighter Squadron, and commander of the 44th Fighter Squadron. Having demonstrated his impeccable leadership, he was selected to be the chief of the Operations Inspection Division at Headquarters Pacific Air Forces at Hickam Air Force Base, HI, and then he deployed to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, as the chief of Air Force Division, U.S. Central Command Forward, from 1992 to 1994. In 1994, Colonel Chandler was selected for back-to-back-to-back commands, commanding the 554th Support Group at Nellis Air Force Base, NV, the 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, and the 56th Fighter Wing at Luke Air Force Base, AZ. Now, Brigadier General Chandler was selected to become the chief of headquarters staff followed by assistant chief of staff for operations, A-3 Division, of Headquarters Allied Air Forces Southern Europe, Naples, Italy. After being promoted, Major General Chandler returned to Washington, DC to become the director for expeditionary aerospace force implementation, followed by the director of operational plans, deputy chief of staff for air and space operations. Moving from the Pentagon to Langley Air Force Base, VA, he became the director of aerospace operations. General Chandler continued to demonstrate excellence and was selected for promotion to lieutenant general and selected to command Alaskan Command, Alaskan North American Aerospace Defense Command Region, 11th Air Force and Joint Task Force, Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK. Following this assignment, he returned to Washington, DC, to lead as the deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force. general Chandler was selected for the rank of general and asked to return once again to the Pacific theater to command the Pacific Air Forces at Hickam Air Force Base, HI. Finally, he was selected to become the second highest ranking officer in the Air Force as the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, where he has served for over a year. Under General Chandler's leadership, the Air Force handled some of our most challenging issues, including the $40 billion KC-X acquisition program, creation of Air Force Cyber Command, force structure realignment, and creation of Air Force Global Strike Command. Finally, General Chandler led the drive for what I consider the Air Force's most pressing issue: recapitalization. Through General Chandler's leadership, the Air Force secured a budget of $1.7 billion for bomber and air-to-ground weapons, acquired $8.2 billion for fighter and munitions programs, and laid the foundation for $200 million in supplemental munitions funding. The leadership, insight, and dedication of General Chandler have been instrumental in building lasting and trusting relationships with the U.S. Congress, resulting in an overall increase in U.S. national security. The breadth and depth of General Chandler's assignments and the professionalism with which he has carried them out reflect a keen intellect, an unwavering dedication to the Air Force mission, and an unrivaled grasp of national security policies developed through both personal experience and academic instruction. General Chandler earned a master's degree in management, attended the Executive Program for General Officers at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and the Navy Senior Leader Business Course at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. While he has received many distinguished awards and decorations, it is General Chandler's commitment and sacrifice to this Nation that make him stand out among his peers. I have the utmost trust in and respect for General Chandler, gained over the past several years through our personal interaction during numerous meetings and hearings, including the annual Altus Quail Breakfast and meetings of the U.S. Air Force Academy's board of visitors, which I have been honored to attend. I will miss his honesty and frankness, a trait that has served him, the Air Force, and this Nation well during his time as a senior Air Force leader. On behalf of Congress and the United States of America, I thank General Chandler, his wife Eva-Marie, and their three children, Carl, Rose-Marie, and Thomas, for their commitment, sacrifice, and contribution to this great Nation. I congratulate General Chandler on the completion of an exemplary Active-Duty career and wish him and his family Godspeed in the next phase of his life.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. INHOFE. When you talk about the missile defense aspect of this, I wonder if it has occurred to a lot of people that maybe this treaty is with the wrong people. We know right now that Iran is going to have the capability--and this is not even classified--of a nuclear weapon, a delivery system, by 2015. I think one of the worst things for America-- and this President did it--was to take down the sites we were planning in Poland that would give us this protection. My point I want to make, and then to ask the Senator about, is that in the event this is ratified and we are restricted in any way from developing further our missile defense system, doesn't that put us directly in an impaired position in terms of North Korea, maybe Syria, but definitely Iran, that has already indicated and already has the capability of reaching us by that time? It is interesting that the site would have been in effect to knock down a missile coming from Iran by 2015, the same year our intelligence community tells us they will have that capability. Isn't that the threat we are concerned about, more than Russia?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, today I wish to talk about public diplomacy. I have spent a lot of time in Africa and have built close relationships with many African leaders. As you know, our country's official diplomacy is conducted by the State Department. However, public diplomacy involving people-to-people interaction is equally important for promoting a positive image of America to the world. The United States is admired as a beacon of freedom for oppressed people everywhere. The attacks on the U.S. of 9/11 demonstrate the new challenge we face by the forces of ignorance and intolerance that seek the destruction of our country. Today I include in the record an insightful essay that I will share with the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the critical role of public diplomacy in building bridges of good will for the United States. The author is Richard Soudriette, the president of the Center for Diplomacy and Democracy in Colorado Springs, CO. Mr. Soudriette is the founding president of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, IFES, which has promoted free and fair elections in over 120 countries. I have a long and personal history with Richard as he was my chief of staff in my office as mayor of Tulsa. Since then, he went on to be the founding president of the International Foundation for Electoral System, IFES, which has promoted free and fair elections in over 120 countries. Richard and I share the same heart for Africa and the same vision for developing countries around the world; that they continue to move towards self-sufficiency and become thriving economic nations. His essay discusses public diplomacy at the local level and mentions my home town of Tulsa, OK, as an example of a community that has developed innovative international visitor programs. Public diplomacy is vital to keeping our country safe. The best way to defeat the forces of extremism is to educate people around the globe about America and our values, culture, and people. I strongly support Richard's work around the world and I ask unanimous consent that the statement by Richard Soudriette be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. In addition to what Senator Thune said, there are several people who said they want to go into closed session first and address issues having to do with my amendment and his amendment before a vote.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it was my understanding that we had an informal arrangement that we would go back and forth. I would like to be recognized.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I do want to be recognized for the purpose of further explaining my amendment No. 4833 and also to respond to the Senator from Massachusetts. Before doing that I would ask if the Senator from South Dakota has any responses he wishes to make at this time, and then I wish to keep the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. It is my intention now--I made my presentation earlier on and a similar presentation yesterday and the Senator from Massachusetts responded. I wish to respond to his responses to clarify some of the things that might be a little unclear. First of all, the Senator from Massachusetts said every Senator on our side and, most importantly, the unbelievably experienced negotiators who put this treaty together, have made a lifetime of trying to understand these kinds of relationships and the ways in which you adequately verify, and they wanted to expand, which I appreciated, how qualified these people were, but here is the problem we have and I think it was articulated by the Senator from South Dakota. We have a constitutional responsibility. We take an oath of office to support the Constitution, and one of the things it is up to us--not to anybody but us--to provide for common defense. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution specifically gives us not just the right but the obligation for advice and consent, and quite often we talk about all these smart people who have agreed with this. That leaves one group out. That is us. We happen to be the ones who are accountable to the people through our election. The Senator from Massachusetts also said that the treaty itself, talking about the amendment, my amendment, he said he opposes an amendment to the treaty itself which we all understand now after two votes that it would kill the treaty, essentially saying that if you amend the treaty it is dead. I think we need to stop and reevaluate what our obligation is, not just the constitutional obligation, as the CRS has outlined in a study of the role of the Senate in the treaty process. Amendments are proposed changes in the actual text of the treaty. They amount therefore to Senate counteroffers that alter the original deal agreed upon by the United States and the other country. If the Senate gives its consent to New START with amendments to the text, the treaty is sent to Russia for its approval with the amendments. Both the Russian Duma and the United States Senate have a constitutional right to change portions of this treaty and it is up to them to do. So this reinserts it back into the process. I feel that is exactly what our Founding Fathers wanted us to be doing in these treaties and that is what we are trying to do. The third thing that was stated by the Senator from Massachusetts is, he was talking about the concept of the type one inspections and the type two inspections as a new one. Well, it is a new process because type two inspections are inspections on formerly declared facilities. Obviously in the START I treaty we didn't have formally declared facilities. They came as a result of the first treaty. Type one refers to inspections of ICBM bases, submarine bases, and air bases to confirm the accuracy of declared data on the number and types of deployed and nondeployed warheads located on ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers. So I would say that type two inspections weren't even addressed in the first treaty. The Senator also said we said we ought to send this back ``but it doesn't rise to that level in my judgment.'' Now he talks about the level of significance. All these amendments are significant. Each one of us who is an author has a little bit of bias because we have studied a little bit more in our particular area. I can't think of anything that is more significant than verification. The interesting thing that was brought out by the Senator from North Dakota was General Chilton's support. I am reading from the report right now. It says General Chilton's support for the New START level was predicated on no Russian cheating or changes in the geopolitical environment. Well, historically they have been cheating on everything. Let me go ahead and reread what I said before. We had the meeting, the convention in 2005, and then again 5 years later in 2010, came out in May or June of this year, and in that one, talking about the biological weapons convention in 2005, the State Department concluded that Russia maintains a mature offensive biological weapons program and that its nature and status have not changed. That is what they said in 2005. Now 5 years later the new report came out and the State Department report states the Russian confidence-building measures since 1992 have not satisfactorily documented whether its biological program was terminated. Therefore, they are saying the same thing 5 years later, so they lied 5 years ago and it appears that they have not done--or they cheated, I should say. Chemical weapons the same thing. In 2005, the State Department assessed that: Russia is in violation of its Chemical Weapons Convention obligations because its declaration was incomplete with respect to declaration of production and development facilities. Then, in 2010, 5 years later, the State Department again stated there was an absence of additional information from Russia, resulting in the United States being unable to ascertain whether Russia has declared all of its chemical weapons stockpile and all of its chemical weapons development facilities. If we are predicating all that on General Chilton, who said cheating has all of a sudden miraculously stopped, this is a great reform measure, and I would like to see the evidence of it before we assume that is the case. The Senator from Massachusetts also stated people responsible for verification of this treaty would never have been sent to the United States. This treaty would never have been sent to the United States if the treaty did not have adequate verification measures. So it talks about all these verification measures. Then he says: It is the judgment of our military, our State Department, and our intelligence community that these measures are adequate. That may be true with those who are currently answering to our President who strongly support this treaty. But if we look at the State Department and the military and the intelligence of the past, those people who have commented, James Baker, as I recall, Secretary of State, summarized that the New START verification regime is ``weaker than its predecessor,'' testifying to Congress in May of this year. I happen to have been there. He said the New START verification program: . . . does not appear as rigorous or extensive as the one that verified the numerous and diverse treaty obligations and prohibitions under START I. This complex part of the treaty is even more crucial when fewer deployed nuclear warheads are allowed than were allowed in the past. Insofar as the military is concerned, Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration, stated on December 2, a few days ago, that: New START has a very weak verification regime, one that establishes a dangerous precedent and lowers our standards for verification. Here is the military weighing in. He goes on to say that: New START's verification provisions would provide little or no help in detecting illegal activity at locations the Russians did not declare, are off limits to U.S. inspectors, or are hidden from U.S. satellites. James Woolsey--when we talk about intelligence, I have a bias because James Woolsey is from Oklahoma. He was the Director of Central Intelligence from 1993 to 1995. He was adviser to the SALT I negotiations up through 1970, a delegate at large to the START and defense and space negotiations. He stated, on November 15, that under this treaty, unlike the original START treaty, Russia is free to encrypt telemetry from missile tests, making it harder for us to know what new capabilities it is developing. There is no longer the requirement for permanent onsite monitoring of Russia's primary missile production facility, which under old START helped us keep track of new mobile missiles entering the Soviet force. He goes on and on. That is agreed with by Paula DeSutter, former Assistant Secretary for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation at the U.S. State Department, who pointed out on July 12 that New START has glaring holes in its verification regime. New START is ``much less verifiable than the original START.'' I only say this because my friend from Massachusetts talked about the military, the State Department, and the intelligence community. One thing that is ingrained in our system is that we have a President who is Commander in Chief. He has a lot of influence over the State Department and the military. We have heard some very well respected people along those lines. One of the arguments or rebuttals the Senator from Massachusetts had against my opening statement yesterday was that we have fewer sites now than during the development of the START I treaty. This is true. We do have fewer sites. An argument can be made--and most people agree with the fact--that if you have fewer sites, you need more inspections. Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton stated, on May 3, that ``while [verification] is important in any arms-control treaty, verification becomes even more important at lower warhead levels.'' Brent Scowcroft and Arnold Kanter weighed in on the same thing in a joint statement: Current force levels provide a kind of buffer because they are high enough to be relatively insensitive to imperfect intelligence and modest force changes. . . . As force levels go down, the balance of nuclear power can become increasingly delicate and vulnerable to cheating on arms control limits, concerns about ``hidden'' missiles, and the actions of nuclear third parties. In May of this year, in front of the Foreign Relations Committee, former Secretary of State James Baker summarized that the New START verification regime is weaker than its predecessor, testifying to Congress that the New START verification program ``does not appear as rigorous or extensive as the one that verified the numerous and diverse treaty obligations. . . .'' He goes on to say it is more significant as you reduce your number of inspected facilities. Further, the Senator from Massachusetts responded to me by saying they are going to demand the same number of inspections of our military bases, and we would have to be prepared to host them three times more in inspections. That is true. This is bilateral. Everything we are asking them to do, we to have do too. I like that idea. He went on to talk about the inconvenience, but my amendment applies to both the United States and to Russia. My amendment increases inspections for both sides, which will improve confidence, trust, and transparency. More importantly, it improves our ability to catch the Russians cheating and deter Russian cheating. I am fully aware we have to do the same thing the Russians have to do. Furthermore, it was stated by the Senator from Massachusetts, in his response to my statement: So I think it's one thing to ask our strategic nuclear forces to do that ten times a year, or less than once a month. It's another thing for them to be waiting for 30 inspections a year. We have 2 submarine bases, 3 bomber bases, and 3 ICBM bases. I might add, Russia has 3 submarine bases, 3 bomber bases and 12 ICBM bases. So we are actually not on parity there. Quoting from a letter Secretary Gates sent this summer about whether the Russians would cheat on this treaty in a manner that would be militarily significant, he said: The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint Chiefs commander, and the U.S. strategic command and I assess that Russia will not be able to achieve militarily significant cheating or breakout. In other words, they are not going to cheat. This is this conversion I guess they have had.

Mr. INHOFE. Just for a moment, for a question.

Mr. INHOFE. I didn't hear the Senator.