Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to pause for a moment. I know we are on the bill, and I am most anxious to proceed with the Defense authorization bill, having served on the committee since 1994 and before then in the House. It is imperative now that we get as robust a bill as possible. Before doing that, let me mention one thing because I haven't yet spoken about this. I have been watching several of our colleagues who have come to the floor to speak about a great Senator, Norm Coleman, who is no longer seated in the Senate but who is a remarkable character. A good friend of mine, Paul Weyrich, who recently died, wrote an op- ed piece, and it is called ``The Workhorses and the Show Horses.'' He talked about so many of the Members of the House and the Senate who are out there just to make themselves look good. They are the ones who are show horses. Then there are the workhorses. We talk about someone such as Norm Coleman, who was always there and getting deeply involved in issues, many of which are not popular issues if you are using them to run for reelection. I am thinking of a close friend, a mutual friend of ours named Ward Brehm. Ward Brehm and I have been working together for a long time on some things in Africa, as the Chair is aware, and he was talking about being from Minnesota and how much involved Norm Coleman got in various international affairs issues that don't have any votes behind them, but he was willing to do it. Every time you turned around, he was willing to do things that other people weren't willing to do. I remember several years ago when he and I met with a delegation from Burundi and Rwanda and the DRC. This was a group that was over here in conjunction with the National Prayer Breakfast. He and I always worked together during the time that we had the National Prayer Breakfast. We would get these people to come all the way over here from different countries, but we kind of concentrated on Africa. I remember him standing there talking about, for a long period of time--keep in mind he is a Jew. I was never real clear where in New York he was from--I think the Bronx or someplace. But anyway, he was very strong in the Jewish community, and I am not. I am on the Christian side. But we would always get together and talk to them about Jesus and talk to them about loving God. And then when he would pray--at the end of these things, we would offer a prayer, and he would end up giving a prayer in Hebrew--an amazing guy. At the National Prayer Breakfast African dinner 2 years ago--I had sponsored the dinner that was for all the Africans who had come over for the Prayer Breakfast and stayed for the African dinner--he was a major player in that. So these are things people didn't know about Norm Coleman. The idea is scripturally based; it is Acts 2:42. It is kind of a genesis of these weekly Prayer Breakfasts in the Senate. On Wednesday mornings, we had a Prayer Breakfast and about 20, 25 Senators showed up every Wednesday and Norm Coleman was the chairman of that and was always in these groups. But he was also one who was helping us in forming these same groups with members of Parliament from all over Africa. He was a tireless worker in that effort, which was not something out there to get any votes. I talked to him the other day, having gone through this election and then the 8 months or so, whatever it was, in recounting and all of that. I told him that many years ago I was mayor of Tulsa, and I did a pretty good job, I thought. I was supposed to win hands down. Someone came out of obscurity and because of a set of circumstances that should have gotten votes, not lost votes, I had lost unexpectedly on that Tuesday. Well, we had scheduled our Tulsa Mayor's Prayer Breakfast the next morning. Bill Bright, who died not too long ago, came by as the speaker. Keep in mind, here he was the speaker at the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast the morning after I lost the election. He gave the most brilliant speech. I remember how he said it and the words he used. He said: A lot of times we think in terms of what is happening to us today, looking at our own careers, but, he said, God is still up there and there is a plan for all of us. He said in a very clear way that I thoroughly understood, the day after I lost the election I wasn't supposed to lose, that God opens a window and he closes a door and that window is going to be bigger. I can tell you right now I wouldn't be doing what I am doing today if it had not been for that. So I would just say about my friend, Norm Coleman, God has a plan in mind for you, Norm, and it is one we will look back someday and say perhaps this is the best thing that could have happened to you. In the meantime, we love you, Norm, and God bless you. Amendment No. 1511 I wish to also speak in terms of a program that I think a lot of people don't understand, and on which I know there is honest disagreement. The F-22, people have said, is something like a Cold War aircraft. It is not. To quote Secretary Donnelly and General Schwartz both, because they both said the same thing, they said the F-22 is unquestionably the most capable fighter in our military inventory, not just air to air, as some on this floor have insinuated, but also precision attack air to ground, as well as intelligence collection. In contrast, almost every other piece of military equipment in our inventory today--air, land, and sea--is Cold War equipment that needs to be replaced. I think about the Bradley vehicle. It has been around since the 1960s. I think about the Abrams tank. It has been around since the 1970s. I think about the Paladin, even though we have had about five major upgrades on the Paladin, that is our artillery beast, and that was actually World War II technology where you had to get out of the thing after every shot and swab the breach. You hear that and people can't believe it. Well, fortunately, we are going to go through an improvement on that. But the point I am trying to make is most of the stuff we have is Cold War stuff and to find that F-22 isn't needed because it wasn't flown in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think, is pretty narrow-minded. We have a lot of people we have to defend America against for contingencies that we don't know are out there and we don't know what our needs are going to be. The need certainly wasn't there in terms of Afghanistan and Iraq, but we don't know where the next enemy is going to be coming from or what the next contingency is. I wish we did. I can remember being on the House Armed Services Committee my last year there in 1984. We had people testify. They said--these are smart people. They said: You know, in 10 years, we will no longer need ground capability. And look what has happened since that time. So no matter how smart our people are, there is no way we are going to be able to determine where the next guy is going to come from and what our capability is going to have to be. Is it going to be in the air, sea, strike vehicles, lift capacity, cannons? So we need to keep that in mind because the only thing we have in the form of a fifth- generation fighter is the F-22, and it is uniquely designed and equipped to penetrate a hostile environment and be a savage air dominance for our ground forces. The F-22, I look at it as an investment in the future, not just 10 years down the road but 20 years and beyond. What we build today is going to have to be able to determine and deter and defeat adversaries for decades. Just look at the age of our entire military today. We talked about all these vehicles, but we have such things as the national security in long term, 40 years. We can't even see what we are going to need 10 years from now. Now we talk about the F-35. Well, the F-35 is great. I am a strong supporter of the F-35 and working on it and getting it up as fast as possible. Its mission requirements are not the same as the F-22. The F- 22 is out flying today, and we have that capability today. Only five F- 35s are flying, and it is still in the testing period. It is impossible to assess the full capabilities of the F-35 until operational tests are completed in, I think, 2014. Well, that is 2014. This is 2009. There is a lot of time between now and 2014. While we discuss cutting the only fifth-generation fighter in production today, China and Russia are continuing to move forward with the development of their fifth-generation fighters. I think they call the Chinese one the J-12 and the Russian is the T-50. They are out there right now talking about building these things. Today our Legacy, our F-15s, F-16s, F-18s are less capable than other fourth-generation fighters, such as the SU-27 and the SU-30 series aircraft. I might remind the President that we have--we already know other countries are buying these capable fourth-plus generation aircraft that are better than what we have now, except for the F-22. We know of one sale, and I remember this--it has been quite awhile ago now--for F-27s from China, 240 of these. Now they are talking about cutting our number of F-22s--and I will talk about the numbers in a minute--down to the 187 and stopping the amendment that would increase that by seven vehicles. I don't want to see our Legacy fighters outmatched by fifth- generation fighters developed by China and Russia. I have always said our pilots are better, our training is better, but they have to have at least comparable equipment to survive. So our air-to-air threat is only one aspect of the threat our Air Force faces today. Our surface-to-air threat remains to be a real serious problem. You just think about what the Russians are making now, the S-300s and the Chinese 4000s. They are capable of tracking up to 100 targets and getting as high as 90,000 feet in the air. Now, that is priceless. These systems that make penetrating hostile airspace difficult and deadly for a legacy aircraft, including unmanned vehicles, such as our Predator, which has performed brilliantly, are uncontested facts. Only the F-22, with its advance stealth technology and weaponry and supersonic speeds, can successfully penetrate what we call denied airspace, hunt and destroy strategic ground targets during the day or night, and collect and provide battle intelligence and awareness, and maintain our superiority in the air. The Air Force officials have repeatedly stated no less than 243 F-22s would be sufficient to maintain a moderate level of risk. We are talking about the deaths of Americans. If that is the goal, that is what we should have. In the beginning, it was 750 F-22s. We have slowly gone down. That is what this amendment is about today. GEN John Corley, Commander of the Air Force Combat Command, said: At Air Combat Command, we have held the need for 381 F-22s to deliver a tailored package of air superiority to our Combatant Commanders and provide a potent, globally arrayed asymmetric deterrent against potential adversaries. In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts the execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid term. To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate that 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy. Air Combat Commandment analysis, done in concert with the Headquarters Air Forces, shows a moderate risk force can be obtained with an F-22 fleet of approximately 250 aircraft. So we are talking about a bare minimum number, and whether it is 243 or 250, that should be a bare minimum number. While the F-22 hasn't deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, a theater security package of six F-22s are on a continuous rotation to Guam in the Pacific Theater of Operations and have been forward deployed in Japan. Why? Because it is the only fighter capable of stealthy penetration of North Korea's air defenses. Finally, there continues to be allegations about the costs and operations of the F-22--to include an article last week in the Washington Post. The bottom line is, these allegations are false or intentionally misleading. The F-22 cost per flying hour is $19,750, not more than $44,000, as they were trying to say. The F-22 maintenance trends have improved from 62 percent to 68 percent. The F-22 skin is not vulnerable to rain. Finally, the fly-away cost for F-22s multiyear this Congress approved is $142.6 million, not $350 million. One final point on all of these supposed studies about the F-22: We have been through this before with the approval of the multiyear and are going through it again. I have been briefed on both classified and unclassified studies, and while the range of numbers varied, each study concluded that 183 F-22s is not enough. So we need to continue to build the F-22s and look at exporting this aircraft to our allies. Fortunately, some of that is taking place today. Japan, Australia, and Israel have expressed considerable interest in the purchase of F-22s. Nations around the world realize the F-22A Raptor is the only operational fighter-bomber available that can successfully defeat and destroy air and ground threats of today and tomorrow. So what we are talking about is--in the markup, we increased the number by seven aircraft. The chief mover of this, I have to say, was Senator Saxby Chambliss. As I told him, this is not enough. He agreed, but it was the most we thought we could do. I believe when the time comes for an amendment to cut that number down, we need to give serious consideration to that amendment and not allow it to pass. There is an expectation of the American people--and I have gone through this before with other airframes and other ground platforms-- the American people think we give our kids who go into battle the very best of everything. I can tell you that is not true. I gave an example. There are five countries, including South Africa, that make a better non-line-of-sight cannon than we have today. To me, that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the American people when we explain that is the situation. The F-15, F-16, and the F-14 have done a great job, but they need to move on to the fourth and fifth generation, and the only way to do that is with the F-22, which has been a success story. Guantanamo Bay I have another interest I want to share today, and that has to do with Gitmo. People are probably tired of hearing me talk about Gitmo, but I think we are about to make a mistake. The administration is making the demand that we close Gitmo. I have stood on the floor of the Senate many times and talked about my experiences there--the fact that anybody who wants to close Gitmo, if you ask why, they will say that for some reason people associate that with the types of torture that allegedly went on at Abu Ghraib and all of that. This has nothing to do with that. There has not been a documented case of waterboarding at Gitmo. It is a state-of-the-art prison. When President Obama talked about the 17 locations in America where we can take terrorists and relocate them from Gitmo to America, one happened to be Fort Sill in my State of Oklahoma. I went down to Fort Sill, and there was a lady in charge. She is a young major in charge of the prison where they would put these terrorists. She said, ``I don't understand what people are thinking.'' This young lady, named SMA Carter, said she had two tours at Gitmo, and it is designed for terrorists. They have a court system where they can do tribunals. We have six classifications of security in Gitmo. It is one of the few good deals the government has. We have had it since 1903. I have told the Presiding Officer this before. We only pay $4,000 a year for it. Do you have a better deal than that in government? There isn't one. I have to say the terrorists are still at war with the United States, and we are legally entitled to capture and hold enemies and fighters in the hostilities. We detain terrorists and supporters to prevent them from returning to the battlefield, saving the lives of our service men and women and the lives of civilians who are innocent victims. I have spent a lot of time there. I am familiar with some of the terrorists there who are really bad people. They want to kill everybody who is listening right now. That is their mission in life. We have had about 800 suspected al-Qaida and Taliban terrorists who have been sent to Gitmo since 9/11--people who are really bad. I looked through there, and we saw Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He was the architect of 9/11. There was also the guy who was the explosives trainer for 9/ 11, who provided information on the September 2001 assassination of the Northern Alliance leader, Masood, and on the al-Qaida organization's use of mines. There was also the terrorist financier who provided detailed information on Osama bin Laden's front companies. There was the Taliban fighter linked to al-Qaida operatives connected to the 1998 East Africa Embassy bombings. Remember that, in Tanzania and Kenya? Down there we also had an al-Qaida explosives trainer who designed a prototype shoe bomb for destroying airplanes, as well as a magnet mine for attacking ships. These people are unlike the types of prisoners we have had in other wars. If we look back during any of our wars, we had soldiers fighting for their countries. These people are not soldiers fighting for a country. They are fighting for a cause, and that cause is to destroy us. To date over 540 prisoners have been transferred or released, leaving approximately 230 at Gitmo. They include members of al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations, planners of major terrorist attacks worldwide, including 9/11. These are the types of people there. The intelligence gained from detainees at Gitmo helped the United States and its allies identify, exploit, and disrupt terrorist operations worldwide, saving untold lives. There have been a number of terrorist attacks. For a long time, they were classified, but most are no longer classified. In 2007, the Senate voted 94 to 3 on a nonbinding resolution to block detainees from being transferred to the United States, declaring: Detainees housed at Guantanamo should not be released into American society, nor should they be transferred State-side into facilities in American communities and neighborhoods. On May 20, 2009, the Senate voted 90 to 6 on a bipartisan amendment by myself and Senator Inouye to prohibit funding for the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United States. Unfortunately, the supplemental appropriations conference report deleted that provision, allowing detainees to be transferred to the United States for trial. If we put them into our Federal system--I can speak this way because I am not an attorney, so I can stand back and cite the obvious. If we do that, then the rules of evidence are different. There are a lot of these guys who are picked up, and even now they talk about Miranda rights. That blows my mind when I think about it-- when this goes on now and we have the opportunity to get these people and extract information from them. Thinking about the idea of trying them in the Federal court system where, if they cannot get a conviction--and many times they could not for one reason, which is that the rules of evidence are different. When they were captured, they went by the rules of evidence for military tribunals. So we could have some who would be turned free, and many of them in the United States. Recent polls show that a majority of Americans oppose closing Gitmo and moving detainees to the United States. By a margin of 2 to 1--which is huge in polls--those surveyed said Guantanamo should not be closed, and by more than 3 to 1 they oppose moving some of the accused terrorists housed there to prisons in the United States. Again, one of the prisons the Obama administration talked about of the 17 prisons happened to be in Oklahoma. It should be obvious to everybody if we have 17 locations where we are housing terrorists, that becomes a magnet for terrorism--17 magnets in the United States. A recent Fox News poll said President Obama made a mistake when he signed the order to close Gitmo. Seventy-seven percent of all Americans say that was a mistake, that Gitmo should not be closed, 60 percent of all Americans, up from 53 percent in April and 45 percent in January. You can see the trendlines. The vast majority--nearly two-thirds--is saying he should not close Gitmo and Gitmo prisoners should not be transferred into prisons in the United States. Sixty percent of all Americans say that is true. Sixty percent in polling is a huge number, a vast majority. I encourage Senators who will be voting on this significant amendment to keep that in mind. Since President Obama announced he intended to close Gitmo, it has become widely circulated that these detainees could be transferred to American prisons for prosecution in U.S. criminal courts and potentially released in the United States. Moving detainees to prisons here would require significant investment in restructuring existing facilities and would cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Currently, the United States only has one Supermax facility located in Florence, CO. According to the Bureau of Prisons, as of May 21, ``only 1 bed was not filled at Supermax.'' So if we want to give maximum security to these people, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we better decide who is going to be in that one bed because we don't have the capacity. The capacity of all the high security Bureau of Prison facilities at the beginning of this month was 13,448 inmates, while the total prison population was approximately 20,000. So what we are talking about is they are overcrowded, and that is flat not going to happen. Despite claims by Senator Durbin that the Supermax prisons in the United States are ready to receive Gitmo detainees, the Supermax prisons in the United States are at or above their maximum capacity. FBI Director Robert Mueller said there is the very real possibility that the Gitmo detainees will recruit more terrorists from among the Federal inmate population and continue al-Qaida operations inside the walls of prison. That cannot happen in Gitmo because they are all terrorists there. That is how the New York synagogue bombers were recruited, in our own prison system. In 2002, an entire wing of a jail in Alexandria, VA, was cleared out for the 9/11 ``20th hijacker,'' Zacarias Moussaoui, to be housed for his trial--just for one detainee. Bringing Gitmo detainees to the United States could also place America and its citizens at risk by inevitably creating a new set of targets for the jihadist terrorists. Gitmo, on the other hand, is a state-of-the-art prison. I cannot find anyone who has gone over there, including unfriendly media, media that was bent on closing Gitmo--once they go over there and see it, almost all of them change their mind. It is a state-of-the-art facility that provides humane treatment for all detainees. It is fully compliant with the Geneva Conventions and provides treatment and oversight that exceed any maximum security prison in the world, as attested to by human rights organizations, the Red Cross, Attorney General Holder, and an independent commission led by Admiral Walsh. This is state of the art, and this is not a place where torture takes place. It is the only facility of its kind in the world that was specifically designed to house and try these types of dangerous detainees. If President Obama ever decides to visit Gitmo, I am sure he would equally be impressed as everyone else, including, I might say, Attorney General Holder. He came back and gave a glowing report and said how great this was and, at the same time, said the President still wants to close it. When you look at the Gitmo situation, there are, on average, two lawyers for every detainee. There are 127 doctors and nurses. The ratio is 1 to 2 in terms of health care specialists to take care of these prisoners. Here we are talking about health care in this country. Maybe they want to go to Gitmo. They would be a lot better off. Current treatment and oversight exceeds that of any maximum security prison in the world. There is also a $12 million expeditionary legal complex. This is very significant because if we are going to do tribunals, we cannot do tribunals in our court system in the United States because it is not set up for that. Obviously, there are some things in testimony that takes place that have to be private. You cannot have these things go out because that would endanger American lives. We spent $12 million on this complex. It is a courtroom at Gitmo to try detainees, and specifically that is what it is there for. It is the only one of its kind in the world, and it provides a secure location to try detainees charged by the Federal Government. They have full access to sensitive and classified information, full access to defense lawyers, and protection by the full media, access by the press. But it is set up to take care of that specific type of an incarcerated individual. Senator Harry Reid declared, in a press conference after my bipartisan amendment was adopted, that ``We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.'' I applaud Senator Reid for that statement and hope he will stay with that because that is something the American people are not willing to tolerate. He went on to say he opposes imprisoning detainees on U.S. soil, saying: We don't want them around the United States . . . I can't make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States. Senator Durbin said: The feeling was at this point we were defending the unknown. We were being asked to defend a plan that hasn't been announced. I think Senator Durbin was correct then and is correct now. There are lots of questions, very few answers. What is the impact? Let's say we close Gitmo. What is the impact of placing detainees in the U.S. prison system--pretrial and posttrial? Has an assessment been done to determine the risk of escape, as well as potentially creating targets in the United States for terrorist attacks? Will Gitmo detainees be segregated from the regular prison population? Keep in mind, these guys are trained to recruit. That would be a garden spot for them to get into the American prison system to recruit people to become terrorists. What facilities exist in the United States today that can hold these detainees? We talked about that. They tried to locate 17 facilities, and it will not work. By the way, the State legislatures in each one of those States that have one of these facilities have passed resolutions or some type of a document saying: We don't want them in our States. That is what they are saying from the States, and we need to listen to them. One might ask, where will the military commissions be held--at Guantanamo or the United States? Obviously, if you close Guantanamo, you lose that facility. Assuming military commissions are held in Guantanamo, where will detainees who are convicted serve out their sentence, if not there, because there is no other place that has the capability of doing that. There are all these questions. What additional constitutional rights will a detainee gain if they are tried in the United State versus Guantanamo? Are there differences in the rights awarded to detainees tried in a Military Commission versus civilian court? Could location or geography affect the right afforded to detainees--somewhere in the U.S. versus Gitmo? How do we handle protection of classified information during trials? What are the long-term implications on future conflicts of trying these detainees in a civil court versus military commissions? Why is the administration reading Miranda rights to some detainees captured or held in Iraq and Afghanistan? How many are being read Miranda rights? How many have invoked their rights? What is the impact of requiring the reading of Miranda rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield and advising them they have the ``right to remain silent''? What if a detainee is found not guilty--where will he be released? What does the administration plan to do when a Federal judge orders the release of a detainee but the administration knows is too dangerous to release of transfer? What do you do with a detainee you cannot try or release due to national security concerns? Despite not having a plan, the administration continues in its quest to empty Gitmo regardless of the cost or the risk. The Obama administration initially talked with the small South Pacific island of Palau, population 20,000, to accept transfer of a group of 17 Chinese Muslims currently at Gitmo, called Uighurs, at the cost of some $200 million. That is $11.7 million per individual. This is not a cheap thing he is talking about doing. The total cost to build Gitmo was only $275 million. As I said, it has been on lease since 1903 for $4,000 a year. The Wall Street Journal just yesterday had a government official who said that well over 50 detainees have been approved for transfer to other countries and that negotiations are continuing with Saudi Arabia to take a large group of Yemeni detainees. Attorney General Eric Holder has estimated that more than 50 detainees may end up on trial by U.S. authorities. This news comes as more and more Americans are growing opposed to the closure of Gitmo, placing them unnecessarily at risk in order to satisfy political goals. I think we need to stop, sit back, take a deep breath, and look at some of the things that are going on today. The idea that we would have Miranda rights for terrorists, people who have killed Americans, is pretty outrageous. Finally, on June 9, the Obama administration again went against the will of the Congress and the American people by transferring the first Gitmo detainee to the United States for his trial in New York City. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani has been indicted for the 1998 al-Qaida U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 224 people, including 12 Americans. Ghailani was later captured in Pakistan in 2004 while working for al-Qaida, preparing false documents. Intelligence shows he met both bin Laden and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Afghanistan and remained a close associate with al-Qaida until his capture in 2004. This bonafide terrorist will have the privilege of a U.S. civilian court trial in the United States--I think it is New York. To me, it is inconceivable that could happen. The press reported that Ghailani was smiling when the charges were read to him in New York. Despite the Obama administration's intentions, they will find themselves in a position where they cannot even try or safely transfer or release Gitmo detainees. As of May 2009, 74 transferred/released detainees have returned to the fight--74. These are the ones we captured again. We know they returned to the fight. How many more are there out there? If you release these people, they go right back to their practice of killing Americans. Former Guantanamo Bay inmate Mullah Zakir, also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, is leading the fight against the U.S. Marines in the Helmand Province in Afghanistan. He surrendered in north Afghanistan in 2001, was transferred to Gitmo in 2006, and then released. He is out there killing marines today. That is what is happening currently. There is no alternative to Gitmo. I go through all this not to be disagreeable with anyone except to say there is an answer, and there is only one answer. Today, we are considering the Defense authorization bill. I have an amendment to that bill. I now have, in a matter of 3 hours, 22 cosponsors. This is amendment No. 1559 to the Defense authorization bill, S. 1390. This does something very simple. I like simple bills because they cannot be misunderstood. They are not like the health insurance bill with over 1,000 pages no one has read. They are not like the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House with no one reading it, over 1,000 pages. This is just two pages. That is all. It is easy to read. Let me tell you what it says. I am wrong, it is one page. It says an amendment offered by Senator Inhofe: Sec. 1059. Prohibition on transfer of Guantanamo Detainees. No department or agency of the United States may (1) transfer any detainee of the United States housed at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to any facility in the United States or its territories. That is No. 1. No. 2 is, we cannot ``construct, improve, modify, or otherwise enhance any facility in the United States or its territories for the purpose of hous- ing any detainee described in para- graph (1) . . .'' No. 3: We cannot ``permanently or temporarily house or otherwise incarcerate any detainee described in paragraph (1) in the United States or its territories.'' That is a very simple solution. It is all in three sentences on one page. I have a feeling there are going to be many people who know that we are on the right side of this issue, know that the American people are overwhelmingly, by more than two to one, in support of an amendment such as this, and are going to offer some amendment full of loopholes that will still allow them to close it. It will sound good. But this is the only one out there. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, if their interest is to really do something about keeping Gitmo open, there is only one vehicle out there. We are on it right now--the Defense authorization bill. That is amendment No. 1559. All it does is prohibit us from transferring any detainee from Gitmo to any facility in the United States of America or its territories; it prohibits us from constructing, improving, modifying, or otherwise enhancing any facility in the United States or its territories for the purpose of housing any detainee described in paragraph 1 above--that is the terrorist; and No. 3, it prohibits us from temporarily or otherwise incarcerating any detainee described in paragraph 1 in the United States or its territories. Period. That is all it does. I say to those two-thirds people of America, there is a vehicle now we can use to make sure that facility, one of the really true state-of- the-art resources we have in this country, stays open and keeping those detainees, those terrorists out of America. If you want to keep them out of America, this is the way to do it. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I notice no one else is on the floor right now. I was only going to address those three subjects, but I do want to make a couple of additional comments. If anyone comes in and seeks the floor, I will come to a close. There is one other major issue that we are dealing with right now--we have had a number of hearings--and I would like to kind of put it in perspective so people will understand. There are a lot of complaints around the country about the cap and trade bill that was passed by the House of Representatives-- interestingly by one vote over the majority--which is 219. Most of the bill actually was written at about 3 o'clock in the morning and passed the same day--a thousand pages. I applaud John Boehner over there for saying that we want to establish some kind of a program whereby anything we are going to consider on the floor should be on a Web site so all of America can read it at least 72 hours before it is voted on. I applaud that, and I hope we will be able to do that. I certainly hope we will be able to do that with a bill that I am sure will be passed from the Environment and Public Works Committee of the Senate--the cap and trade bill that has yet to be drafted. The chairman of that committee, Senator Boxer, has stated it is going to basically be the framework of the Waxman bill from the House that was passed by a margin of 219 votes to 212, I think it was. Anyway, that at least gives us something to talk about. I would like to go back historically to my first exposure to this whole issue. Back about 10 years ago, when we had the Kyoto Treaty, the Kyoto Treaty was a treaty the Clinton-Gore administration was trying to get us to ratify in the Senate. It was a treaty that would establish a cap-and-trade type of arrangement to limit the number of CO2--and the proper term is anthropogenic gases--anthropogenic, man-made gases, methane, CO2. The theory behind that, and I believed it at that time because everyone said it was true, was that these man-made gases were causing global warming. I assumed the science was there and was settled. As I say, everybody thought it was. It was at that time that the Wharton School of Economics came out with the Wharton econometrics survey. That survey quantified how much it would cost America in taxes if we in the United States ratified the treaty and lived by its requirements. The result was in the range between $300 billion and $330 billion a year. Now, I have often said one of the most egregious votes ever taken in the Senate was the vote that took place in October of 2008 when we gave an unelected bureaucrat the $700 billion to do with as he wished. It was just unconscionable. I voted against it. I was opposed to it, but we lost. We did it, and now, most of the people who voted for it, are sorry. I tried to equate at that time what $700 billion was, and I said if you take all of the families who file tax returns and pay taxes and do your math, it is $5,000 a family--$5,000 for every American family, not just the ones in Oklahoma but everywhere. So I thought, as bad as that was, that was a one-shot deal. If we pass cap and trade, we are talking about a $300-plus billion tax increase every year, not just once. So at the time we looked at this, and the Wharton School came out with these figures, I thought, let me be sure in my own mind, as a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, that the science is there. So I looked into it, only to find out this whole thing came from the United Nations' IPCC--the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. All we have seen are just the reports not from scientists but from politicians on the summaries they give policy donors. So we started talking to real scientists only to find out that really well- established scientists--and this is 10 years ago--who looked at this said: Well, yes, there could be a connection between man-made gases, CO2, and global warming. However, it is not a major significant contribution. Now, to fortify this, then-Vice President Gore was trying to build his case on why we should ratify this convention and he did his own study. He hired a guy--one of the top scientists in America--named Tom Wigley to do an analysis. Now, here was his challenge. If all of the developed nations in the world--America, France, Western Europe and the rest of the developed nations--would ratify this treaty and would live by its emission requirements, how much would that lower the temperature in 50 years? So if all the countries in the developed nations did this, how much would it lower it in 50 years? The result of the study was seven one-hundredths of a degree Celsius. Well, I said that is not even measurable. And I said, if his own scientist says that, we have to have a wake-up call here in America. And that is when I made this statement that people have been throwing at me for 10 years--the idea of the notion that man-made gases significantly contribute to global warming is probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. Well, when we stop and look back now at what has happened in the scientific community, many members of the community were the recipients of grants and had those grants held up unless they would come in and say, yes, we are going to have to do something about CO2 in order to stop global warming. By the way, I have to just say that at this time we are in our ninth year of a global cooling. People seem to forget we have been going through these ups and downs all throughout recorded history. God is still up there, and we are going to have warming and cooling periods. The same individuals who are so hysterically behind this idea of passing a cap and trade--putting a huge tax on America at this time-- are the same ones in 1975 that were saying we are going to have to do something because another ice age is coming. Well, anyway, this has been going on for a long period of time. So as we have progressed through the years, more and more scientists have come over who were on the other side. And I call to mind now, just from memory, Claude Allegra, from France. Claude Allegra is a socialist over there--very prominent scientist. He was marching through the aisles with Al Gore 15 years ago, and he has now reversed his position and said, wait a minute, everything we thought from the modeling didn't happen. This thing is not real. He is solidly on the skeptic side now, saying I was wrong back then. This Claude Allegra is the guy Sarkozy now is talking about putting in as the environmental minister of the country of France. Now that is the caliber of people we are talking about. David Bellamy was the top scientist in the U.K. and David Bellamy was solidly on the other side 10, 12 years ago. He is now saying, we have looked at the modeling and we have changed and this is just flat not true. A guy named Nir Shaviv from Israel, another top scientist, he was on the other side of this issue and he has now come over. And for my colleagues who want to really see the fortification, see the numbers we are talking about in terms of scientists who have reversed their position, go to my Web site, Inhofe.Senate.Gov, and look it up. There are a lot of speeches I have made from the floor of the Senate, but one was about the 700 scientists, most of whom were on the other side of the issue and are now saying the same thing as Claude Allegra, David Bellamy, Nir Shaviv, and others have said because they have changed their minds on this thing. So clearly the science has turned around, and that gives a sense of urgency for some people who want to respond to some of the extremists-- mostly in California, and mostly in Hollywood--to go ahead and pass something. Get something passed and get it passed quickly. It is kind of like health care. They want to get it passed before people have a chance to read it. So now we have a bill that is going to be put together and drafted in the Environment and Public Works Committee, which was going to be coming to the floor of the Senate prior to the August recess--just a few weeks from now--but Chairman Boxer has now decided to put it off until after the recess. I applaud her for that, because time is not the friend of the people who are trying to make believe we are going to have to pass an expensive tax to address what they consider to be a more serious problem than I consider it to be. And during the August recess, during those 30 days, you are going to have a lot of Members of this Senate be approached by people--such as people in the agricultural community. I had the opportunity of going and talking to the National Farm Coop the other day and discussing with them what would happen if we were to pass a cap-and-trade system and what that would do to the farmers of my State of Oklahoma and all throughout America. Stop and think about it. Seventy-one percent of the cost of a bushel of wheat is in fertilizer and in energy costs. That is what would go up. So you would be talking about doubling the price of wheat, or I could use soybeans or any other commodity. It would be disastrous for our farmers in America. So the years have gone by, and slowly people have caught onto this thing, and that is why there is such a sense of urgency by people who want to pass this before the public realizes what it is. Fortunately, the public already understands, and the vast amount of recent polling shows that, just like the issue of closing Gitmo, which I talked about a few minutes ago, they are solidly on the side of not passing a cap- and-trade tax which would constitute the largest tax increase in the history of America to address a problem that people aren't really sure exists to start with. So I think we will defeat that in the Senate. It will, of course, pass out of the committee. It is a very liberal committee. I love everyone on that committee, but they will pass anything that has to do with a cap-and-trade package, so it will be on the floor of the Senate. But it will not pass the Senate. And the reason I say that is we have had several votes in the Senate--the House had never had any votes. We have considered this five times, and actually voted three times--2003, 2005, and 2008. In 2003, it was called the McCain-Lieberman bill. At that time, I was the only one on the floor. For 5 days, 10 hours a day, I talked about this and was trying to defeat that thing. For 50 hours, only two or three Senators came down for a short period of time to help me. Now, fast forward from 2003 to 2005 to 2008. The bill was called the Warner- Lieberman bill. We had 23 Senators who came down, and it didn't take 5 days to defeat it; it was just 2 days. So I think in terms of passing the tax increase called cap and trade, they have about maybe 34, 35 of votes, and it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass it. Really, I am happy our forefathers were divined and inspired when they thought of the two Houses so we could have checks and balances. So I think that is what will happen. I know there are other names I could mention but cannot because some of the things I know are at a level of confidence. But some of the new Senators who have been elected, they don't really want to go back and say--whether Democrats or Republicans, but, in fact, it is the Democrats I have in mind-- saying to the people who have just elected them: Aren't I doing a good job for you, coming back from my first session and passing the largest annual tax increase in the history of America? That isn't going to happen, Mr. President. People are so sensitive right now with the level of spending that is going on in this country. I can remember in 1993, it was the first year of the Clinton administration, and I was complaining at that time on the floor--I was serving in the House of Representatives--of the huge tax increase he was pushing, and all of the things that were going on--with gun control, the Hillary health care, which we all remember. At that time, I remember complaining on the floor: He even has a budget of $1.5 trillion. Well, guess what. This one is $3.5 trillion. We can't sustain that. We can't do that in America. So I think one at a time we are going to have to stop these expensive programs, one being the health care program--I know we can't afford that--another being cap and trade. I think we will defeat that, and I believe America is now going to look a lot more carefully, and they are going to applaud the efforts being made to make sure any bill that comes up for consideration of this magnitude should be on a Web site, as Mr. Boehner suggested, and several other Senators have suggested, including myself, for at least 72 hours so we and the American people can read and see what it is going to be. I can assure you, if that had happened when the cap-and-trade bill passed the House, it would not have passed the House. With that, I see there is someone else on the floor wanting to have the floor, so I yield the floor.

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

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I wish to speak as in morning business. However, if anybody comes to the Chamber with an amendment or anything, I will immediately stop. I want to make that clear.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I only rise on the floor for one reason; and that is, it is my intention next week--probably Tuesday or Wednesday, whenever I get the floor time--to give a rather long history of the whole issue of the cap and trade. What I intend to do is start from the very beginning. While the Presiding Officer was not presiding over the Senate back during the Kyoto Treaty some 11 years ago, I was. At that time, the Republicans were the majority, and I happened to be the chairman of the committee that had jurisdiction. I have to tell you, at that time, I was a believer that manmade gas, anthropogenic gases, CO2, methane were the cause of global warming. The reason is because everybody said that. Nobody had a dissenting view. It was not until the Wharton School came out with the Wharton Econometrics Survey and said if we were to ratify the Kyoto Treaty and live by its emissions requirements, it would cost somewhere between $300 billion and $330 billion a year that I started thinking about that. I remember a tax increase that was enacted in 1993. That was the Clinton-Gore tax increase that at that time was the largest one in a long period of time. This would have been 10 times greater than that. So I thought: Let's be sure the science is there. That is when I discovered there were many scientists who had been intimidated through the use of manipulation in the awarding of grants from the Federal Government or from the Heinz Foundation or from many of these organizations. They had been suppressed very much like the man in the EPA was suppressed last week. In looking at that, we started examining it and finding out that many scientists around said: No, that is not the case. I will be specific because this was back when President Clinton was in office and Al Gore was the Vice President. At that time, he wanted to determine how much we could accomplish if the developed nations ratified and lived by the Kyoto Treaty. He went to Thomas Wigley, who was one of the top scientists at that time. He was chosen by the then-Vice President of the United States, Al Gore, who said: We want a study. Over a 50-year period, if all developed nations would ratify and live by the emissions standards of this treaty, how much would it reduce the temperature over a 50-year period? When the results came out, it was seven one-hundredths of 1 degree Celsius; in other words, not even measurable. That is what began to catch on, and people realized it was a lot of pain, a lot of punishment, a lot of heavy taxes--like the current cap-and-trade proposal is, or like the one that passed the House--yet there is not any gain. Even if you were to believe--as I do not--that a major cause of global warming is CO2, then what good would it do for us unilaterally to do it if the developing nations are not doing it? We discovered something yesterday in a hearing. I have a great deal of respect for Lisa Jackson, who is the new Administrator of the EPA. Her honesty was incredible yesterday. Showing her a chart, I asked her a question, stating: This is what we used during the consideration, 13 months ago, of the Warner-Lieberman bill. The chart shows the numbers as to living within or without the limits of the CO2 emissions. If we only did it in the United States, would it make any difference at all in the world amount of CO2? She said: No, it would not. I think that is the most significant thing. Because individuals, and well-meaning individuals who believe manmade gases are causing global warming, should realize that does not do it, even if you believed it. In fact, the reverse would be true. There is no doubt--and we have all kinds of studies to show it--if we had passed any of the last three cap-and-trade bills we considered on the floor of this Senate, that would have had the effect of pushing the manufacturing jobs out of America into countries where they have no emissions requirements, such as China, and that would have caused a net increase--a net increase--of CO2. So I think that was a major thing yesterday that took place. It is my intention next week to go back through the history of this issue, to bring us up to the present time, and then to look into the future as to what we might be doing with this legislation. I was very happy to hear, a few minutes ago, that Chairman Barbara Boxer has decided not to come out of the committee with a bill until after the August recess. Quite frankly, I think it works in my favor. The longer we have to inform people as to some of the misinformation, the better I think it is going to be in terms of a vote that would take place. I cannot imagine that if there are only some 35, 36 votes that would have been there to pass the Warner-Lieberman bill 13 months ago, that there would be any way today to get up to 60 votes. So, quite frankly, I do not think it is going to pass anyway. But I do think during the recess we are going to have an opportunity to talk about this issue. Today, I visited with a national farm group, and we were talking about how it would disproportionately hurt the farmers. The fact is, 70 percent of their wheat cost is in fertilizer and energy. Fertilizer and energy are where the costs would be increased dramatically if we were to pass some kind of a cap-and-trade bill. Then, of course, there is the regressive feature. The fact is, poor people in America have to have gasoline in their cars. They have to heat their homes. They spend a lot larger percentage of their disposable income on heating and in using energy than wealthy people do. So I think, with all these things working right now, we are in a position to stand back and say, cap and trade is not going to work. It is going to be history. And we can start approaching this in ways, perhaps somewhat like President Bush tried to do with the Clear Skies Act, where he talked about real pollutants, such as SOX, NOX, and mercury, and have meaningful reductions in those to protect our environment. That is what our plans are for next week, and I look forward to sharing these thoughts with anyone who is willing to listen. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me say of my friend, the senior Senator from Wyoming, he does articulate this issue well. He has spent countless hours working on it. When you listen to him, his depth of knowledge and trying to work out something that would give improvements and avoid a total socialization of medicine, he knows what he is talking about. When I go back to my State of Oklahoma, it is not all that different than from when he goes back to his State of Wyoming and people ask the question: If government isn't working well now, why do we want to put all the rest of these things in government, whether it is health care or the banking industry, the insurance industry, oil and gas and the other takeovers we are witnessing right now? I do think you can summarize what he said very simply by merely saying, if there is a government option, of course, this is a moving target. For those of us who are not on a committee that is dealing with health care reform, we are not sure what is going on there, and I am not sure anyone else does either because it is a moving target. From one time to another, we hear different things that are going to be in the bill, and then they change their mind. One thing we know, though, they keep saying there is going to be a government option. If there is a government option, we are going to see a huge impact on insurers, private companies that offer insurance, and you will see that market dwindling. You can't blame them for that. The other thing that is a certainty in this whole issue of the Kennedy bill and what they are trying to do, what the administration is trying to do with the health delivery system in America is they would be putting Washington between the patient and the doctor. That gets a response when I am back in Oklahoma of we don't want that to happen. So we have right now a lot of invasions on the systems that have worked well in America.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized as in morning business for the time I consume.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. It is easy to say, and people will applaud when they say: You are going to end up getting something for nothing. You are going to get an education for nothing. You are going to get a college education. You are going to get health care for nothing. That sounds real good. Someone has to pay for all this stuff. I suggest that if you go up to the Mayo Clinic in the Northern tier of the United States, you will look and you will see a very large population of patients from Canada who are there; patients who have been told: Well, yes, you have breast cancer. But because you are at a certain age, we are not able to operate on you. If we do, it is going to be a waiting period of some 18 months. At the end of that time, of course, the patient is going anyway. We are talking about, in this country, we need to do something about it, about the way we have been running our health care system. I think improvements can be made. I remember one time the first lithotripter was used, I believe, in a hospital in my State of Oklahoma, in Tulsa, OK, at St. Johns Hospital. That was a technique where you could submerge a patient and dissolve different things that were within them, kidney stones and that type of thing. However, they could not use it. So they had to surgically and very invasively operate on people and cut them open to remove these things that could otherwise have been dissolved. But the problem was, we have, in our Medicare system, a lot of people who are making medical decisions who are not qualified. So we have a lot of improvements that need to be made. But by adopting a system that has been a failure everyplace it has been tried, whether it is Sweden or Great Britain or Canada, is not something we are prepared to do in this country. I know the effort is out there, and they are going to make every effort to see that that happens. We are going to make sure that does not happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I do have a couple of comments to make concerning the remarks by my good friend from Vermont. I will do that at the conclusion of another subject I feel some passion about, and that has to do with the nomination of Harold Koh by President Obama. He is nominee for the position of Legal Adviser to the State Department. I understand cloture has been filed on Harold Koh. I wanted to come to register my strong opposition and assure the American people that their representatives in Congress are not going to let this nominee sail through unopposed and to let them know there are some of us here in the Senate who will require full and extensive debate before this nominee receives a vote. I think in doing so you almost have to ask the question as to what ever happened to the understanding we have always had in this country as to what sovereignty really means. As Legal Adviser to the State Department, Koh would be advising the Secretary of State on the legality of U.S. action in the international forum and interpreting and advocating for international law and treaties. The significance of this position and its effect on our sovereignty and security should not be understated. Koh is a self- proclaimed transnationalist. Adherents to this school of thought believe international law is equal to or should take precedence over domestic law and international court rulings have equal authority to the decisions of a representative government. That is very significant. I know he actually believes this and he adheres to this school of thought, that international law is equal to or should take precedence over domestic law. Koh's transnational principles could have serious implications on U.S. sovereignty, especially regarding the authorization of the use of force in the prosecution of the war on terror, gun rights, abortion, and many other issues. Koh believes a nation that goes to war should have--must have United Nations Security Council authority, going as far as writing that the United States was part of an ``axis of disobedience'' by invading Iraq--or should we say by liberating Iraq. In October of 2002, Koh wrote: I believe . . . that it would be a mistake for our country to attack Iraq without explicit U.N. authorization, because such an attack would violate international law. Additionally, he supports ratification of the International Criminal Court, which could subject our troops to prosecution in a foreign court. Implementation of this interpretation of international law raises a number of alarming questions. If the United States is required to gain U.N. authority for military action, what punitive actions might the United States be subjected to if it unilaterally uses preemptive force? Would our Navy SEALs have had to wait for authorization from the international body before rescuing the American being held hostage off the Horn of Africa? I think 99 percent of American people said they should have that authority and we should not have to go to any kind of an international court. I don't know where this obsession has come from that nothing is good unless it is international anymore. In 1992, George Will said: There may come a time when the United States will be held hostage to . . . the idea that the legitimacy of U.S. force is directly proportioned to the number of nations condoning it. That was back in 1992, and this is what is happening today. I hope that day never comes. The decisions made to protect our great Nation should not be made by members of an international body but by men and women who are elected by the people of these United States. Equally concerning is Koh's treatment toward Department of Defense recruiting efforts. In October of 2003--some of us remember this--Koh led a team of Yale law faculty in filing an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense, claiming the Solomon amendment was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court rejected Koh's arguments unanimously. That was at a time when there were very few things that were unanimous in the Supreme Court. He was rejected unanimously. Writing for the Court, Justice Roberts stated: Nothing about recruiting suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters, and nothing in the Solomon amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the military's policies. Further, Koh supports accession to the International Criminal Court, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms. What is this CIFTA that has been promoted by President Obama? That is that we yield to an international group in terms of how we manufacture and distribute weapons in this country. All of these treaties would greatly impact the lives of everyday Americans and would require the United States to alter its domestic law to meet their respective parameters. In 2002, Koh spoke at Fordham University Law School about a ``World Drowning in Guns.'' That gives an indication where he is coming from. His speech was published in the Fordham Law Review. Koh's topic was the international arms trade, but, as usual, his analysis had serious domestic implications. Koh wrote that American legal scholars should pursue ``the analysis and development of legal and policy arguments regarding international gun controls'' through constitutional research on the second amendment. In other words, Koh believes the best way to regulate guns in America is through international law, through a global gun control regime. As Legal Adviser, Koh would be in a position to pass judgment on whether a proposed treaty would raise legal issues for the United States, including issues related to the second amendment. He would, therefore, be able to endorse treaties that could be used by the courts to restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms--an idea he is clearly and openly in favor of. It is simply not true to say that his beliefs about gun control--this is what some people say--the second amendment right, doesn't really matter because he will be in the State Department advising on international law. On the contrary, he wants to use international law to restrict constitutional freedoms in this country. In his position, he will have the power to advise the administration and to testify before the Senate about what reservations might be needed when ratifying a treaty to protect constitutional freedoms. However, he has a history of advocating for treaties without conditions. He cannot be trusted to express reservations with treaties that I believe will negatively impact everyday Americans. The fact that he is in the State Department doesn't make him safe, it makes him more dangerous. This is exactly where, with the possible exception of the Supreme Court, he wants to be. This is not an accident. It is his strategy. He realizes he cannot achieve his goals through legislation, so he has turned to international law. If he can establish that international law is binding on the United States, regardless of whether the Senate has ratified the treaty in question, activists can avoid Congress and work the issue through the courts. If you believe the second amendment confers an individual right to bear arms on the American people, then I urge you to reaffirm that principle by voting against Harold Koh. If you believe our Nation should not be subjected, by a variety of treaties, to threats to our national sovereignty and American way of life, I urge you to reaffirm those values by voting against the nominee. I mentioned several international treaties he has promoted. It is not just confined to our second amendment rights, it is everything else. The basis of his influence in these areas is that somehow international law should have precedence over our laws. This is something we have been in trouble with for a long period of time. Every time we yield to the United Nations, we end up with a very serious problem. I have talked to a number of our troops overseas who are very much concerned about being subjected to the international court. Let me make one comment before I yield back any remaining time, and that is on the subject that was discussed by the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Twelve minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on June 16, the House passed the bill we have been talking about here. I have concerns that have not been discussed in the last few minutes. Although the Senate voted 90 to 6 on a bipartisan amendment to prohibit funding for the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United States, the supplemental appropriations conference report deleted that language. That language came from an amendment that was authored by myself and my good friend from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, but they stripped that language. The Senate's bipartisan amendment would have effectively prevented the closing of the terrorist detention facility at Gitmo. Since President Obama announced that he intended to close Gitmo, it has become widely circulated that these detainees could be transferred to American prisons for prosecution in U.S. criminal courts and potentially released in the United States. In February of this year, I led a delegation--I have been there several times--a delegation that had never been down to Gitmo, and they saw the fine treatment the detainees get down there and saw the rooms where torturing supposedly is going on. Not one incident of torture has ever been documented. After I returned, I introduced S. 370 to prevent the detainees at Gitmo from being relocated anywhere on American soil. Since that time, it has been called to our attention that the administration is talking about maybe 17 locations in the United States to put these terrorists. One of those locations was Fort Sill in my State of Oklahoma. I went down there, and I found out that would not be at all workable. In fact, Sergeant Major Carter, who is in charge of the prison at Fort Sill, said: Why in the world would they close a place like Gitmo? It is the ideal place to keep these people. Currently, even though they are talking about putting them in supermax prisons, the only supermax facility is located in Florence, CO. According to the Bureau of Prisons, as of May 21, only one bed has not been filled at supermax. Obviously, this isn't going to work. The rated capacity of BOP facilities at the beginning of this month was 13,648 inmates, while the total prison population of those facilities was far more than that--exceeding 20,000. Despite claims by Senator Durbin that supermax prisons in the United States are ready to receive detainees, the supermax prisons in the United States are at or above their maximum capacity. Additionally, the civilian prisons do not meet the same standard as currently exists at Gitmo. In 2002, an entire wing of a jail in Alexandria, VA, was cleared out for the 9/11 ``20th hijacker,'' Zacarias Moussaoui, to be housed in the jail. That was just one detainee. For one detainee, they are talking about clearing out the entire wing. So moving detainees to the United States would not be reasonable. It would also place America and its citizens at risk in inevitably creating a new set of targets. This is the problem we have. We have 17 places in the United States where we would be putting these people. We have 17 magnets to draw in terrorists located around the country. Three weeks after I called for President Obama and my Senate colleagues to go see firsthand the facility at Gitmo, Attorney General Eric Holder--he is our new Attorney General appointed by President Obama--went down there, and he came back with a glowing report that the facility is well run by its current military officers. This affirms what I have been saying all along; that is, Gitmo is a state-of-the-art facility that provides humane treatment for all detainees and is fully compliant with the Geneva Conventions. When the war supplemental came to the floor in the Senate, I was extremely pleased that Democrats and Republicans in the Senate joined together and announced they would not include the $80 million in the war supplemental to close Gitmo. Sadly, this bipartisan initiative has fallen victim to partisan politics without any regard for our national security or the wishes of the American people. Senator Reid, Harry Reid, declared--and I agreed with him--in a press conference after my bipartisan Senate amendment was passed that, ``We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.'' I think that is a good statement. I agree with it. He went on to say, ``We don't want them around the United States. I can't make it any clearer than the statement I have given you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.'' Well, that sounds real good, and I agree with him and I hope he is right. However, the problem is, if you try to try these people in our Federal court system where the rules of evidence are different in terms of admissibility of evidence, many times we would not be able to get a prosecution and they would be turned loose. Finally, Senator Durbin said the feeling was at this point that we were defending the unknown, we were being asked to defend a plan that hasn't been announced. Well, I have to say it still hasn't been announced. Two weeks ago, the Obama administration again went against the will of Congress and the American people by transferring the first Gitmo detainee to the United States for his trial in New York City. This was Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani. This is a guy, if you remember, who is the terrorist responsible for the bombing at the American Embassies in Tanzania and in Kenya. He was later captured in Pakistan in 2004 while working for al-Qaida preparing false documents and facilitating a transport of arms to insurgents across the Afghan and Pakistan border. Intelligence shows that Ghailani met both bin Laden and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Afghanistan and remained in close association with al-Qaida until his capture in 2004. Now this bona fide terrorist will have the privilege of a U.S. civilian court trial in the United States. Ahmed Ghailani was just 1 of 239 detainees housed in the state-of-the-art facility at Gitmo. According to the Wall Street Journal today, a government official has said that well over 50 detainees have been approved for transfer to other countries and that negotiations were continuing with Saudi Arabia to take a large group of Yemen detainees. Attorney General Eric Holder estimated yesterday that more than 50 detainees may end up in trial by U.S. authorities. This news comes as more and more Americans are growing opposed to the closure of Gitmo. In fact, I would have to say this: Recently, we have had more and more polls taken, and it is now about a 3-to-1 ratio that people don't want these people tried in the United States, they don't want to have them housed in the United States. So we have a very serious problem. Not only are we talking about detainees down there, we are also talking about an increase in the surge in Afghanistan, and even though Afghanistan does have two prisons, they won't take any detainees unless they are Afghans. So if they are from Yemen or from Djibouti, they won't take them. So this is the problem we have right now. The views of Congress haven't changed. In 2007, the Senate voted 94 to 3 to a nonbinding resolution to block detainees from being transferred to the United States, declaring: Detainees housed at Guantanamo should not be released into American society nor should they be transferred stateside into facilities in American communities and neighborhoods. In 2009, the Senate voted 90 to 6 to again keep detainees out of America. The views of the American people have not changed. I mentioned the polls. The polls are all conclusive that the American people do not want to have these people turned loose into the United States, which is exactly what could happen. While the quality of the facility of Gitmo has not changed, it is the only facility of its kind that is currently--it has six levels of security from the different levels of security. It has one doctor for each two detainees, and, as everyone agrees, it is the ideal place. I might add that this is one of the few good deals we have in government in that it only costs us $4,000 a year. We have had this place since 1903, and it is something we can't get rid of. The only reason I mention this now is because I have the bill that is filed, which is S. 370, that meets the will of the American people.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair. So this bill I have, S. 370, will give people in this Chamber an opportunity to vote to keep the detainees--to keep the terrorists--out of the United States of America. I would say this: If there are some people who would be voting for the supplemental as it is right now, at least they would have another opportunity to express their will, as they have expressed on two other occasions, that we don't want the detainees, we don't want the terrorists tried in America or to be detained within the United States of America. So with this, it is my hope the majority will allow an immediate vote on the bill I have filed, S. 370. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask to be made aware when I have 1 minute remaining.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senator Tester to lessen the burdens for small commercial filming on public lands. Specifically, this legislation provides special permitting to small film crews, defined in the bill as 5 persons or fewer, to simply pay a reasonable annual fee to be able to film on public lands. Our Nation's public lands are an incredible natural resource, and the professional outdoor media industry is a valuable way to bring awareness to our Nation's resources and bring about awareness of the value of conservation of our Nation's land and resources through documentaries, sporting programs, and other productions. Small filming crews can be negatively affected by the current permitting and fee schedule because the business of wildlife filming is done on a speculative basis and often relies on unpredictable factors requiring much patience and time. Last Congress, Chairman Rahall held a Natural Resources Committee hearing on the fees for filming and photography on public lands. At that hearing, Steve Scott, an independent television producer from Norman, OK, and Chairman of the Professional Outdoor Media Association, probably best described the work of small outdoor filming operations. He testified, ``By its very nature, wildlife photography is extremely time consuming, often done in the harshest conditions. . . . While large film and television production crews need relatively little time on public lands to complete their project, our nation's professional outdoor media may spend weeks or months in the field in order to capture a few magic seconds of unstaged Nature in its pristine state. And when outdoor media members spend time in the field, under the current fee structure, we also spend money, and lots of it.'' The small professional outdoor filming industry has enough natural barriers; The Federal Government should not impose itself as another through daily fees adding to the expense. Last Congress, my colleague from Oklahoma, Congressman Dan Boren, and Don Young, introduced H.R. 5502 to accomplish the same aim of the legislation Senator Tester and I are introducing today. That legislation was supported by nearly 30 outdoors and sportsmen's organizations. Those organizations supporting last Congress' legislation include the American Fisheries Society, the American Sportfishing Association, the Archery Trade Association, Bass Pro Shops, the Berkley Conservation Institute, Boone and Crockett Club, Bowhunting Preservation Alliance, Campfire Club of America, Catch-A-Dream Foundation, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Conservation Force, Dallas Safari Club, Mule Deer Foundation, the National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses, the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National Wild Turkey Federation, the North American Bear Foundation, the North American Grouse Partnership, Pheasants Forever, Pure Fishing, Quality Deer Management Association, Quail Forever, the Ruffed Grouse Society, Safari Club International, the Texas Wildlife Association, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, the Wild Sheep Foundation, and Wildlife Forever. This Congress, Congressmen Boren, Ryan, Courtney, Miller, Putnam, and Ross introduced H.R. 2031 on April 22, 2009, which is identical legislation to the legislation Senator Tester and I are introducing today. I am sure it will enjoy the same support from our outdoor and sportsmen's organizations, and I look forward to its consideration in the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senator Tester to lessen the burdens for small commercial filming on public lands. Specifically, this legislation provides special permitting to small film crews, defined in the bill as 5 persons or fewer, to simply pay a reasonable annual fee to be able to film on public lands. Our Nation's public lands are an incredible natural resource, and the professional outdoor media industry is a valuable way to bring awareness to our Nation's resources and bring about awareness of the value of conservation of our Nation's land and resources through documentaries, sporting programs, and other productions. Small filming crews can be negatively affected by the current permitting and fee schedule because the business of wildlife filming is done on a speculative basis and often relies on unpredictable factors requiring much patience and time. Last Congress, Chairman Rahall held a Natural Resources Committee hearing on the fees for filming and photography on public lands. At that hearing, Steve Scott, an independent television producer from Norman, OK, and Chairman of the Professional Outdoor Media Association, probably best described the work of small outdoor filming operations. He testified, ``By its very nature, wildlife photography is extremely time consuming, often done in the harshest conditions. . . . While large film and television production crews need relatively little time on public lands to complete their project, our nation's professional outdoor media may spend weeks or months in the field in order to capture a few magic seconds of unstaged Nature in its pristine state. And when outdoor media members spend time in the field, under the current fee structure, we also spend money, and lots of it.'' The small professional outdoor filming industry has enough natural barriers; The Federal Government should not impose itself as another through daily fees adding to the expense. Last Congress, my colleague from Oklahoma, Congressman Dan Boren, and Don Young, introduced H.R. 5502 to accomplish the same aim of the legislation Senator Tester and I are introducing today. That legislation was supported by nearly 30 outdoors and sportsmen's organizations. Those organizations supporting last Congress' legislation include the American Fisheries Society, the American Sportfishing Association, the Archery Trade Association, Bass Pro Shops, the Berkley Conservation Institute, Boone and Crockett Club, Bowhunting Preservation Alliance, Campfire Club of America, Catch-A-Dream Foundation, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Conservation Force, Dallas Safari Club, Mule Deer Foundation, the National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses, the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National Wild Turkey Federation, the North American Bear Foundation, the North American Grouse Partnership, Pheasants Forever, Pure Fishing, Quality Deer Management Association, Quail Forever, the Ruffed Grouse Society, Safari Club International, the Texas Wildlife Association, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, the Wild Sheep Foundation, and Wildlife Forever. This Congress, Congressmen Boren, Ryan, Courtney, Miller, Putnam, and Ross introduced H.R. 2031 on April 22, 2009, which is identical legislation to the legislation Senator Tester and I are introducing today. I am sure it will enjoy the same support from our outdoor and sportsmen's organizations, and I look forward to its consideration in the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 12 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have come to the floor over the past several years, countless times, talking about a resource we have called Guantanamo Bay. People refer to it as Gitmo. I was distressed about some of the statements our President made when he made the comment that we are going to close Gitmo and make sure there is no more torture. I have to say, there has never been one documented case of torture in Guantanamo Bay. It is ludicrous that people would say this. Every time I talk to someone who says we have to close Guantanamo Bay and you ask them what the reason for that is, they turn around and they say: It is because the people in the Middle East and some people in Europe think there is torture that has been going on. It goes back to the Abu Ghraib thing. This had nothing to do with Abu Ghraib. There has never been a documented case of torture. Let's look at this resource. We got Gitmo in 1903. It is one of the best bargains we have had in government because we only paid $4,000 a year for this. It is a state-of-the-art prison. We don't have anything in the United States that is as secure and as humane as Gitmo. They have a ratio of doctors to detainees of two to one, the same with legal help. I have been down there several times. If you talk to the ones who won't be throwing something at you, they will tell you they have never had food and treatment as good as they have had down there. I can't imagine we would take a resource such as that and close it down and bring some 200 or 240 terrorists to the United States. Yet that is exactly what the President is talking about doing. I was shocked when I picked up the newspaper on Monday morning and saw that Ahmed Ghailani, who was the terrorist who bombed the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, was actually brought to the United States. He is in New York today. I didn't know about it until I read it in the newspaper. He is going to be adjudicated or go to trial in our court system. Here is the problem we have with that. These people in Guantanamo Bay are terrorists, detainees. These are not criminals. These are not people who committed a crime. They are not people to whom the normal rules of evidence would apply. In fact, most of the rules of evidence, it was assumed, would be in the form of military tribunals. Of course, those rules are different than they are in the court system. What will happen when you have some of the worst terrorists in the world coming up and getting tried in our system and we find out they have to be acquitted because the rules of evidence are not what they were during the time they were brought into custody? We have this resource we have used since 1903. It is the only place in the world we can actually put detainees. The President has said there are some 17 prisons in the United States where we can incarcerate these people. I suggest--and I don't think anyone will refute this--if you did that, you would have 17 magnets for terrorism. One of the places they suggested happened to be Fort Sill in Oklahoma. I went down to Fort Sill. There is a young lady there who is a sergeant major in charge of our prison. She said: What is wrong with those people in Washington? What is wrong with the President, thinking that we can incarcerate terrorists here in Oklahoma? This young lady was also a sergeant major at Guantanamo just a few months ago. She went back and she said: That is the greatest facility. There is no place where we can replicate that thing. She said: On top of that, we have the courtroom that was built. We spent 12 months and $12 million on a courtroom where we could have military tribunals, and they were going on. And President Obama ordered them to stop, and he wanted to bring them to the United States to be adjudicated here. This is outrageous. I have heard people on the Senate floor talk about how bad Guantanamo Bay is. They will never be specific. They will never talk about what is wrong with Guantanamo Bay. What are they doing? Are they torturing people? No. Are they being mistreated? No. There are six levels of security. When you are dealing with terrorist detainees, you have to put them in areas where the level of their activity is greater and requires more or less security, and we have that opportunity to do it there. No place else in America, no place else in the world can they do that. By the way, it is not just 245 detainees whom we have to deal with. It is worse than that because in Afghanistan, with the surge taking place right now, there will be more detainees. There are two major prisons: Bagram--and I can't remember the other one in Afghanistan. They will say they could be incarcerated there. No, they won't, because they won't accept any detainees who are not from Afghanistan. So if they are from Djibouti or from Saudi Arabia or someplace else, we have to have a place to put them or else you turn them loose or else you execute them. A lot of these people who think they should not be incarcerated in any prison at all, you have to keep in mind, you can't turn them loose on society. These are people who are not normal, people like normal criminals. First of all, they have no fear of death. It is just ingrained in them. These are people who want to kill all of us. So we are talking about very dangerous people. I am very much concerned. I did not believe President Obama would go through with bringing terrorists to the United States. I didn't think that would happen. Yet I picked up the paper Monday morning and there it is. Ahmed Ghailani, one of the worst terrorists around, killed 244 people, many Americans, in Tanzania and Kenya. This is something that I know the American people don't want. I would hope many of my good Democratic friends are not going to line up and support President Obama in bringing these terrorists to the United States. I guess I am prejudiced. I have 20 kids and grandkids. I don't want a bunch of terrorists in this country where they are subjected to that type of thing. The fact is, they would be magnets; there is no doubt in my mind. This Sergeant Major Carter at Fort Sill said that if we put them down there, they would be in a position where it would draw terrorist activity to my State of Oklahoma. By the way, I think there are 27 State legislatures that have passed resolutions saying they don't want any of the detainees located in their States. I can assure my colleagues that every one of the 17 proposed sites that would house these people is a site where they have passed resolutions saying: We don't want them here. The liberal press is always talking about how bad things are and we have to close Gitmo. If you go down there, you find that those people have never been there. Almost without exception--I don't know of one exception where if they have gone down there and they have seen how humanely people are treated, they have seen a resource down there that we can't replicate any place in the United States, they come back shaking their heads saying: What is wrong with keeping Gitmo open? Even Al Jazeera went down there. That is a Middle Eastern network. They went down and had to admit publicly that the treatment was better there than it is in any of the prisons they are familiar with. Abu Ghraib was a different situation. Yes, some of our troops were involved in that. Most people wouldn't call it torture. It is more humiliation than anything else. But nonetheless, they did that. But the interesting thing about Abu Ghraib is, prior to the time that the public was aware that was going on, the Army had already come in and started their discipline, and it stopped that type of thing from taking place. But even if it weren't, for people to think just because there was something in their minds that was torture that was going on in Abu Ghraib, to even suggest that was going on in Guantanamo Bay is totally fictitious. I have been privileged to take several Members down with me to see this firsthand. I think every Member of the Senate should have to go down and see for himself or herself what is really going on down there. We can't afford to take a chance on turning terrorists loose in the United States. The polling that came out just this morning showed that by a margin of 3 to 1, people do not want to close Guantanamo Bay. We have to keep Gitmo open. I was in a state of shock when I found out that one of the worst terrorists incarcerated down there was brought back to face justice in our court system in New York. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I introduced legislation that will exempt fishing guides and other operators of uninspected vessels on Lake Texoma from Coast Guard regulation. After weeks of discussion with the Coast Guard and thoughtful consideration, many in the Oklahoma delegation have decided that this is the course of action that will best protect an industry that is extremely important to the people of southern Oklahoma. While the waters on Lake Texoma are considered ``navigable'' and currently subject to Federal regulation, this is inherently a state function and should be regulated at that level. This legislation will cede authority to conduct the licensing of fishing guides to the proper governing entity, which is the State of Oklahoma and not the Federal Government. I applaud Congressman Boren for introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives, and thank Senator Coburn for his cosponsorship of this measure. At the end of the day this is about two things: preserving the fishing guide industry and, most importantly, ensuring safety on Lake Texoma. The State of Oklahoma is better positioned to accomplish both. The Coast Guard has not had an active presence at the lake until recently, whereas the State of Oklahoma's Department of Public Safety has a long history of ensuring safe boating activity there. Day in and day out, the State of Oklahoma will be better able to provide for the safety of individuals at the lake. Federal interference in the daily lives of Oklahomans is ever-increasing, and I believe it is important that we preserve state jurisdiction over activities such as this. This legislation accomplishes that. 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 introduced legislation that will exempt fishing guides and other operators of uninspected vessels on Lake Texoma from Coast Guard regulation. After weeks of discussion with the Coast Guard and thoughtful consideration, many in the Oklahoma delegation have decided that this is the course of action that will best protect an industry that is extremely important to the people of southern Oklahoma. While the waters on Lake Texoma are considered ``navigable'' and currently subject to Federal regulation, this is inherently a state function and should be regulated at that level. This legislation will cede authority to conduct the licensing of fishing guides to the proper governing entity, which is the State of Oklahoma and not the Federal Government. I applaud Congressman Boren for introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives, and thank Senator Coburn for his cosponsorship of this measure. At the end of the day this is about two things: preserving the fishing guide industry and, most importantly, ensuring safety on Lake Texoma. The State of Oklahoma is better positioned to accomplish both. The Coast Guard has not had an active presence at the lake until recently, whereas the State of Oklahoma's Department of Public Safety has a long history of ensuring safe boating activity there. Day in and day out, the State of Oklahoma will be better able to provide for the safety of individuals at the lake. Federal interference in the daily lives of Oklahomans is ever-increasing, and I believe it is important that we preserve state jurisdiction over activities such as this. This legislation accomplishes that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.