Floor Statements

Mr. President, first, I have to say what a joy it is to work with Senator Levin. I know the public thinks that no Republicans like any Democrats and vice versa--at least those are the flames they try to fan--and that is not true.

I can only think of two issues on which Senator Levin and I disagreed with each other. He has been through 16 of the NDAAs as either chairman or ranking member. I am sure that is some kind of a record. But to work with someone who you know will be totally honest with you even when you have a difference of opinion is really a joy. I hope we can be an example for some of the other committees that don't have that much joy when they are working on an issue.

The long history he has had here and the integrity he has expressed will be sorely missed, I have to say to my good friend Senator Levin.

As Senator Levin said, we will have to get to the bill before we leave. This bill has passed for 52 consecutive years, and that really says something. But each year there is always a problem.

The comment that was made on the land package--I think the process is wrong regardless of the merits of the bill. As was pointed out by Senator Levin, it was supported in a bipartisan way by all the appropriate committees; however, that is not us, that is them. The process should not allow others to come in on this bill, so I think it is flawed. I don't think it will happen again. I really don't.

I talked to the people who will be involved in next year's NDAA, which, by the way, we will start working on in February of next year.

I will go over a couple of other reasons why we have to get this bill done. As I said, we have done this for 52 consecutive years, and I am sure we are going to be able to get this done.

We passed this bill out to the floor from our committee--the committee chaired by Senator Levin--on May 23, the day after it was done in the House committee. So we were ready to do this way back in May, and the problem was we could not get it on the floor.

I can remember coming down to the floor with Senator Levin and begging people to bring amendments to us. We have to have amendments down here because we can't expect the leader to bring this to the floor unless we know people will work with us on amendments. So eventually they did bring amendments, and we responded. We had many amendments. I don't remember exactly how many amendments were put forth, but I do remember we considered and put 47 amendments into this package--we did it through the big four method, which was the only thing left for us to do--47 amendments divided almost equally between Republicans and Democrats. We considered those amendments and put them in as a part of the bill.

Of course, despite pushing for months that the NDAA be considered under regular order, which we should have done, we find ourselves in the unfortunate situation we are in today. It is reminiscent of last year. Last year we went all the way up to December 26 before we finally passed it.

It would really be a disaster if we didn't pass it. People don't realize that if we don't pass this bill--our last chance is this week because the House will be out of there. There will be no way to have amendments or change anything now from the product we have. We already have a lot of the amendments in, but we can't make changes to them. We can't have another bill because we have run out of time. It will not happen unless it happens with this bill. I know a lot of people would prefer to have something else, although I know this bill is going to pass by a large margin. It is a good bill.

People wonder what would happen if we didn't pass this bill. It would be a disaster. Enlistment bonuses--a lot of these kids have been over there serving, and they have been told they will have certain things, and one of them is the bonuses. Well, all of a sudden, on December 31, if we don't have a bill, those expire and those kids will not have enlistment or reenlistment bonuses.

The incentives are important in order to keep troops with critical skills. We hear a lot about the SEALs and the great work they do. These critical skills incentives will go away on December 31.

There is also incentive pay for pilots. I have researched this because there is a lot of competition out there for our pilots--pilots for heavy vehicles, as well as strike fighters. Right now there is a competition with the airlines. Everyone wants to hire these guys, so there is competition out there. All of a sudden the flight pay would come out on December 31 if we don't pass this bill, and that means we will lose some of these guys. It is a $25,000-a-year bonus for these guys over a 10-year period, so it is $250,000. However, for each one who decides not to come back--to retrain someone to the status of an F- 22 would cost about $17 million. We are looking at bonuses that might be $25,000, but the alternative, if we don't get this done by December 31, would cost $17 million for each pilot who needs to be trained. So that is very significant. We have skill incentive pay and proficiency bonuses for all of those. So that singularly would be enough reason to say we have to have it; we just can't do without it. Stopping all military construction, which would be on December 31.

One of the areas where the chairman and I disagree is on Gitmo. We have had a friendly and honest difference of opinion on that. I look at Gitmo as one of the few resources we have that is a good deal for government. We have had it since 1904 and it only costs us $4,000 and half the time Cuba forgets to charge us, so it is a pretty good deal. There is no place else we can put, in my opinion, the combatants. People say bring them back to the United States. The problem is if we intermingle prisoners at Gitmo with the

prison population--these people at Gitmo are not criminals, they are people who teach terrorists. So there are a lot of arguments against bringing Gitmo prisoners to the United States. That in itself would be a 2-hour speech, so I will not get into it now.

There are some areas where the chairman and I disagree and there were a lot of compromises because we knew we had to have the bill. If we don't pass this bill, there will be no European Reassurance Initiative to stand up against Russian aggression. I shouldn't have done this because I was on the ballot this year for reelection, but for the week prior to our election, I went over to see what was happening in Ukraine because Ukraine was having their elections the week before we had our elections. Not many people are aware that in Ukraine, Poroshenko--what happened in their election in Ukraine, a political party cannot have a seat in Parliament unless they get 5 percent of the vote. The vote took place 1 week before our vote. This will be the first time in 96 years that the Communist Party will not have one seat in Parliament. That is amazing. We have to understand what is happening with Putin.

I also went to Lithuania and Estonia and Latvia and those areas in the Baltics. That is another problem we have. They want to give us the assurance that it is not just Putin in Ukraine, but they are becoming aggressive. I coined the term for what Putin is trying to do, ``de- Reaganize'' Europe, to try to take out all the freedoms that were there and try to put a coalition together. That is a huge issue, and it is addressed in this bill in a very aggressive way with the reassurance initiative.

Also, if we don't pass this bill, we would not have the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, which I think we are all aware is so necessary with ISIL on the rampage they are pursuing.

So we have a lot of provisions. I think the chairman did a good job of covering them. A couple of them perhaps might have been overlooked or that I might add for my own personal interests. One is the support of the Aircraft Modernization Program. Historically, we have always had the best of everything, but now when we look at China and at Russia and what they are doing, it is a very difficult situation for us. We had the F-22; the President terminated that program his first year in office. So now we have all of our eggs in the basket in terms of the strike vehicles and the F-35. A lot of people don't like the F-35, but that is what we have to have and that is in this bill to continue with that.

The E-2D surveillance aircraft is one very few people know about. It is one of the ugliest airplanes in the sky, but it is one that is necessary for surveillance and other functions of government.

We have the KC-46 tanker aircraft. We have been using the KC-135 now for decades and we have to go toward a more modern vehicle, and we do have on the books that we will continue to do that, working with the KC-46. So several others--some improvements to the workhorse of the military, the C-130 aircraft, and other vehicles.

Without this bill, we are going to have to stop some of these projects, so think about the cost. We are in the midst of contracts right now that we could be in jeopardy of losing.

The construction on military and family housing is there. It is very significant.

So I think all of these pieces--and one piece I think people are interested in is this will end the reliance on Russian-made rocket engines. We hear a lot about that. This bill includes a timeframe for when the current contracts run out, so that we are going to be developing our own rocket engine. I have heard from a lot of outside experts. Tom Stafford is one of the famous astronauts from Oklahoma. He and I have talked at length about what we are going to be able to do with some of these rocket engines. So I think this is enough reason why we have to do this, and I think everyone realizes that.

We have heard a lot of talk that frankly is not true. Unfortunately, there are some groups that are kind of antimilitary groups that came out with some statements that weren't true and some of the talk show hosts I admire were given information that wasn't quite as accurate as it should have been.

Right now, if we can think of no other single major reason to pass this bill, it is to take care of those individuals who are in the field right now who are fighting. We have the exact count, to make sure we use accurate figures. As of today, 1,779,343 troops in the field or enlisted personnel. These are the ones who can be affected, 1.8 million of them. We would be reneging on the commitments we have made to them.

We have heard criticism that we are somehow cutting their benefits to put in a land package. That just isn't true. We don't need to talk about this because that is not our committee. That is the committee referred to by the chairman in his remarks--the Energy and Natural Resources Committees of the House and the Senate. But it is budget neutral. Over a 10-year period, the CBO says it is budget neutral. So there is no legitimate argument that we are using any of the funds that would otherwise go to the military on the land package.

I have to say the process was wrong. We have done this in the past and we are not going to do it again. We shouldn't have had a land package come in that has nothing to do with defense, but nonetheless it is there. I was offended by the process. Frankly--I have to confess, and it is good for the soul, I guess--I thought after reading it, it was a pretty good bill. If it would have been brought up outside of this bill, I would have still voted for it. But the process is wrong, and I think we all understand that. We did the best we could.

We have these things that are going on right now, and I think we can't take a chance on not having or, for the first time in 53 years, not passing an NDAA bill by the end of the year. It would be a crisis. The system could be criticized for the way it happened. Considering that we passed our bill out of the committee on May 23, we should have had it on the floor. We should have had it done in regular order. We will do everything we can in the future to try to make that happen. For two consecutive years now we have not been able to do that. We have had to go through the system of what they call the Big Four--the chairman and ranking member of the House and the chairman and ranking member of the Senate--to pass this bill. I think in this case we have come up with a good bill. We have been able to incorporate 47 of the amendments that have come from those that were filed to be added on the floor. So we have done the best we can. There is no other alternative now when we consider what will happen if for some unknown reason this would be the first year in 53 years that we don't have an NDAA bill.

I will just repeat what I started off with; that is, what a joy it has been to work with Carl Levin over these years in the capacity of either the chairman or the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He will be sorely missed. Oddly enough, we also have the same situation happening over on the House side with Buck McKeon. I served with him when I served in the House. He is going to be retiring after this year as well. So we have two retiring chairmen of what I consider to be the most significant committees in Washington.

We are going to continue to work together for the rest of this bill. We have a good bill, and we are going to uphold our obligation to the 1,779,343 enlisted personnel in the field. We are not going to let them down.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me reclaim my time just to make one other comment. The two people who are sitting here, Peter Levine on your side and John Bonsell on our side, their compatibility in working together is also unprecedented. It doesn't happen very often. I can't speak for the Senator from Michigan, but I can speak for myself, to say that without these two working together I sure could not have participated in a meaningful way. So I thank them as well.

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

Tonight there will be a speech. I think everyone is aware of that. I think we all know pretty much what the President of the United States is going to say.

I would like to read the oath of office that any President of the United States has to take, and this President has taken this oath in an affirmative way for--I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Tonight we have the President's speech, and I would like to recite one more time what every President has to say and has to affirm before he becomes President.

I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully

execute the Office of the President of the United States, and

will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend

the Constitution of the United States.

I think people are overlooking this because they know what to expect tonight. They know what is going to happen. They know the President is going to do something that in the eyes of most people--and I have to say that most of the people I talk to are from my State of Oklahoma. They have a lot of common sense and ask the question: Is this illegal, what we are about to witness?

The President is bound by the Constitution to ensure the laws on the books are being carried out in a manner that is true to the law that is written and passed by Congress. It is his duty, his obligation. That was envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

As any school-aged kid or any of my grandchildren would say, laws are made in Congress and signed into law by the President. Once bills become law, the President's constitutional duty is triggered at that point, no matter who holds the office or how that person feels about the particular law. If a President finds a law problematic, then this is how he has to address that problem: He has to work with Congress to change the law. He does not have the authority to unilaterally declare that law not to apply to millions of Americans, which is what I think we are going to witness tonight. That is exactly what the President is doing.

He issued ultimatums to Congress: Pass what I want or else. We heard that. We heard those words. When Congress and the American people push back against him, he charges forward with Executive orders that are written and executed behind closed doors. Let's remember that at the time this President first took office, his big thing was transparency. He wants people to know what is going on and not have any surprises. Yet this is what is happening: These Executive orders are taking the place of those laws that are passed by Members who are elected to the House and to the Senate.

He says the reason for this is he is tired of waiting on an immigration system that is broken. Those are his words. He has taken action because Congress won't. That is not the way it works. A Congress that has had--by the way, he had a Democratic majority the first 2 years in the House and Senate and the White House. He can't say we are not doing it. He is certainly not referring to Republicans. These are the excuses for doing what he is doing.

Some claim he is not doing anything different from what President Ronald Reagan or President George H.W. Bush did. I think it is very important, very briefly, to show you that is not true at all.

In 1986 Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which gave amnesty to close to 3 million illegal immigrants. Amnesty was granted by statute, not by Executive order. That was a law which was passed and which the President signed and agreed to.

Soon after, the people realized the children of these immigrants--who were still eligible for deportation--were simply overlooked. The fact is, if there is a husband and a wife and they are able to go ahead and become naturalized citizens, their underaged children would have to be as well. Everyone agreed, no one disagreed, and so they went ahead and did it. That was working with Congress. Congress made that decision with the President of the United States.

In 1990 President Bush expanded President Reagan's grant of deferred deportation to all minor children and to the spouses of those who were granted amnesty in the 1986 law, and Congress codified the policy later that year in the Immigration Act of 1990. So it wasn't George H.W. Bush who did this; it was the Congress of 1990 that did this. We are not talking about the same thing at all.

In the case of both Reagan and Bush, they worked with Congress and interpreted a statute. That is not what is happening now. President Obama is creating a law on his own as to how he wishes the law would be. He has no authority to do it. We are going to see this tonight, and I think we need to have this in our background in what we are looking for.

As we saw with his previous amnesty--that was 2012; we remember that, about 2\1/2\ years ago--this new Executive amnesty will encourage more people to come here and break the laws.

This year, thanks to President Obama's Executive order--called the deferred action for childhood arrivals, DACA--Americans watched as unaccompanied alien children--that is, the UAC--poured over our southern border seeking the same amnesty others had been given. Who is to say the President won't give them that? It is reported that tonight he will be changing the qualifications of the DACA to include even more.

What happened then is really worse than what is happening now and going to be announced tonight because at least tonight they are talking about 5 to 6 million people who are going to be granted amnesty, and what he did before in encouraging the young people to get here to the United States--we don't know where they are today or how many there are.

In my State of Oklahoma--Fort Sill in Lawton, OK--we have a base that was given several hundred of these young children. They are under 18 years of age. They were told they were to house these children until January. It worked out pretty well because we were in the middle of building some buildings down there, and so we had a place for them for a temporary period of time. They were supposed to be released in January. I went down there in October, and they were already gone. They didn't really know where they were, but they were gone. Even to this day, if you call up and talk to the commander down there, they will tell you they don't know for sure where they are.

To go even further into this, I went to the Texas border, where I went to a center called Los Fresnos. There are 18 IES facilities on the southern border. It is not just in Texas but all--I think 13 of those are in Texas. I went down there to see the process they used. I talked to the Border Patrol. The Border Patrol told me they are instructed to--and they did--send the kids as they came to the various facilities, these 18 facilities. So I went to the one that I believe is the largest. It is called Los Fresnos. It is on the southern border on the eastern side of Texas. They weren't very happy about this. I went in and took a bunch of pictures to see what was going on there. I found out that they had a facility that had 200 beds. They had 200 beds. That is a very small number of people.

I asked the question: How many kids are coming through here?

They said: Thousands.

I said: How many in the last 6 months?

They said: Well, several thousand.

Let's keep in mind they can only bed down 200 people. Thousands have come through.

We came back to trace where these thousands actually ended up. We were not able to find out. You can find that they have a Web site saying how many States received how many kids. We have no way of verifying if that is true. For all we know, there are hundreds of thousands of kids out there, and we don't know where they are.

Those people who are concerned about 5 to 6 million people tonight, keep in mind that it is really much more than that. On that number, the issue we have is we don't know where the children eventually end up, and the administration does not have to notify the local governments of their presence. There are counties that are published as to how many are in a county. We don't know their names.

Interestingly, when I was at Los Fresnos on the border, I talked to a lot of the kids who were being brought into this country. Those kids-- each one had a story, and you could tell it was a rehearsed story: I have parents who live in California. I have a dad who lives in New York. They all had a story down as if they are coming back.

Keep in mind--these are kids who came not from Mexico but through Mexico. We heard only yesterday some of the atrocities, the things that had happened to some of these kids--the raping, the killing, all of that--as they were making the transition through Mexico.

They publish online what States they end up in, but we don't know the numbers, whether these are verified numbers or if we are taking their word for it.

Something is going on, and even I, as a Member of the Senate, have gone down there two separate times to Los Fresnos and still don't know the answer to the questions that I get from people in Oklahoma who are very much concerned about this. Who monitors to ensure that they remain and show up for court? If they evade the law long enough,--and they know now they can evade the law; if the President can do it, they can do it--then amnesty will eventually be received by them.

We have immigration laws that are going to be ignored. What does this say to the immigrants who are coming into America and applying for citizenship in accordance with the law?

I have been honored several times to go and be the speaker at naturalization ceremonies in my State of Oklahoma. I

will tell you, you cry when you look out there. You see a couple hundred people who have come to this country, gone through the system, studied the history--and I would suggest those people up for naturalization probably know the history much better than people who are born here in this country. They learn the language. They go through all these things, and finally they become citizens of the United States. That is the legal way to do it. What are their thoughts right now after all they have gone through and the doors are open for anyone to come through? Is that compassion for those people? I don't think so. Compassion is acknowledging and respecting the millions who adhere to our laws and achieve citizenship.

But here is the thing. When you stop being a nation based on the rule of law, you are at the mercy of one man and his whims. It sounds exactly like something our Founding Fathers were looking to avoid and escape. I think that is the problem we have. I have people asking me: Why is the President breaking the law with regularity? Does he not have to obey the law the same as we do?

Well, as you know, there is a lawsuit that is being processed over on the House side. But we also know this: Anyone who comes who has 2 years left in his term knows if something is starting the process to determine whether action is legal, it would be probably 5 or 6 years before that case would be decided. By that time he is long gone.

I want to mention one thing that is specific. People say: Well, how can you say the President is breaking the law? He does break the law. He breaks it all the time. One of the things I have been concerned about for a long period of time is keeping the installation named Guantanamo Bay--called Gitmo--keeping it open. It is the only place that we can keep the type of terrorists we have down there. It is one, I think, that has worked out well. But somehow there is the obsession that this President has--he wants to close Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay.

Knowing that, I put an amendment on the Defense authorization bill in 2014. If anyone wants to look it up, it is section 1035(d) of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA. It specifically states-- anticipating that the President would start releasing these people from Guantanamo Bay without authority, we put into law that the President shall notify Congress not later than 30 days before the transfer or release of any Guantanamo Bay detainee.

What did we find out? The President, without notifying anyone, released probably the five--in fact, not probably, certainly the five very worst of the terrorists who were being kept down there. In fact, one of their names was Mohammad Fazl. One of the Taliban commanders, whose name is Mullah Salem Khan, made this statement--this is right after the President released the five terrorists. We do not know where they are, whether they are killing Americans, where they are right now.

He said, ``Mohammad Fazl, his returning is like pouring 10,000 Taliban fighters into the battle on the side of Jihad. Now the Taliban has the right lion to lead them in the final moment before victory in Afghanistan.''

So that is another issue altogether. These people are released to come back and kill Americans. But the point is, that law was aimed specifically at the President that he cannot do that. He did it. So when I see these things happen, I think I have never seen this before.

I am not a real student of history, but certainly I have read an abundant amount of the history of this institution as well as the President and what is going and what should go on in Washington and what our Founding Fathers envisioned. Our Founding Fathers never envisioned they would have a President who would blatantly break the law, specifically break the law.

That is what is happening now. That example is just one of many I could give. So enjoy the speech tonight. I think you are going to see that another one of our laws looks as though it is going to be broken. That would be our immigration laws that are on the books now.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about China's inability to keep its promise with the United States. We had someone go over

there. Of course, the President went over and talked to President Xi, and they gave assurances that certain things were going to happen. I have always said for quite some time--I have had occasion to visit with the Chinese, and a lot of them were hoping the United States would restrict development here at home so that the only place our manufacturers could go would be places such as China, India, Mexico, and so on.

One of the statements made by the President of China was that they would stop increasing their emissions by 2030. But it is impossible to accomplish this goal because of its current domestic energy mix and heavy reliance on coal for affordable electricity for its economy.

Now, even if that statement were accurate--that they will eventually stop increasing emissions--what they are also saying is that they are going to continue increasing their emissions from where they are today until 2030. That is a long ways from now.

Nonetheless, I made a speech last week in which I said that China has no known reserves of natural gas. I was wrong. I was wrong due to some of the misinformation we got. The fact that they are not able to realize these reserves is very significant. That shouldn't distract from the fact that China has a difficult road ahead in developing affordable sources of fuel to meet its energy demands.

According to a Forbes article dated August 19, 2014, ``China is not the United States and faces technological, geological, technical and topological hurdles in developing its shale gas resources.''

That is a quote from Forbes magazine.

China announced in August that it had to lower its natural gas production forecasts significantly. In 2012 the Chinese projected they would produce 60 billion to 100 billion cubic meters of natural gas from shale by 2020. In August of this year they cut that forecast to only 30 billion cubic meters, and an additional 30 billion cubic meters of production is expected to come from coal field sources. Now, all told, this would meet 1 percent of China's total electricity generation needs by 2020. That is 1 percent. That is all we are talking about here, if all of these assumptions are right, and this is by their own admission.

As the New York Times reported on August 21 of this year, China's ability to extract sufficient natural gas is in serious doubt and its natural gas production is ``growing at a slower pace than its decelerating economy.''

China's problem is that its shale deposits are much different than ours. The formations are deeper and they are more laden with clay, making it more difficult to extract the natural gas and more expensive to get it out through the hydraulic fracturing process.

I am very familiar with this. Hydraulic fracturing actually started in my home State of Oklahoma in 1948. So we are familiar with this.

Chinese companies have had a difficult time bringing online the natural gas they have found. One company, Far East Energy, recently shut a quarter of its wells for a number of technical and transportation problems, including a lack of gas-gathering pipelines. This underscores that China simply doesn't have the deep technological know-how that we do in this country, which made the shale revolution possible that we have all enjoyed so much in the last 5 years. It was built on the back of 100 years of successful oil and gas development and technological advances in this country, which obviously they haven't had.

China will continue to rely heavily on coal for its electricity generation, and we see this happening today. China continues to build the equivalent of one new coal-fired powerplant every 10 days.

Just think about that. In the last 7 years--in a speech I made on the floor, we had analyzed and calculated the number of coal-fired plants they have, and they are going to continue that into the future. Another option for producing electricity with lower CO2 emissions is nuclear. However, the country's nuclear plants have stalled following the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Renewables are also an option, but we all know these alone can't affordably power the world's largest economy.

I doubt China will stick to any agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if it puts at risk the country's economy.

Meanwhile, the United States has agreed, by the President's statement, to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions from 26 to 28 percent by 2025, so that the President can solidify a legacy on climate change that will be at the cost of the American people. We are handcuffing our economic future to the President's policies, which fail by their own measure. Acting unilaterally, the President's greenhouse gas regulations would reduce global temperatures by only 0.018 degrees Celsius by 2100. That is 86 years from now. We have been doing this for quite some time--ever since they started the United Nations meetings to get together all of these countries that make all kinds of promises and projections. China has always been there with tongue-in-cheek, just wondering if we were really going to do that in this country. We should stop and think about what China is doing right now in its development, in its growth, and the fact that they are just cranking out these coal- fired plants at a rate that is hard for us to understand. Nonetheless, they are doing it and will continue to do it, by their own admission, until 2030.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a distinguished public servant and officer in the U.S. Army, LTG Peter M. Vangjel. General Vangjel served as the 64th Army inspector general and retires on February 1, 2015, after more than 37 years of selfless service to our Nation. Throughout his professional life, General Vangjel personified the Army values of duty, honor, and selfless service in leadership roles around the world and here at home. Many of us on Capitol Hill know General Vangjel by these qualities and have enjoyed the opportunity to work with him on a wide variety of Army issues and programs. It is my privilege to recognize his many significant contributions.

General Vangjel is a native of New Hampshire and graduated from the University of New Hampshire in 1977. He served in a variety of command and staff assignments and has led our soldiers in both peace and war, in combat and humanitarian missions, in the United States, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. He has proven himself as a stellar leader demonstrating unselfish devotion to the Nation, our leaders, soldiers and their families.

For the final 3 years of his noteworthy career, General Vangjel served as the Army inspector general, providing independent and unbiased advice to the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army. His advice, assistance, and detailed oversight of timely, high-visibility inspections and investigations proved critical for an adaptive Army in transition. He personally led multiple efforts to promote readiness, resource stewardship and accountability of equipment, funds, personnel and leader behavior.

As he has throughout his career, General Vangjel embraced his charter to conduct outreach to our Army's leaders, soldiers, families, and the public at every opportunity, stressing the importance of resource management and creativity. Nowhere was this more evident than during his 2-year assignment to the Middle East, where he supervised efforts that provided nearly $8 billion dollars in cost avoidance and streamlined contracting and logistic support efforts as our troops surged in to Afghanistan and retrograded from Iraq. His vision, passion, and energy kept key military and civilian leaders aware of emerging trends enabling them to correct problems and anticipate future challenges.

General Vangjel led his team in conducting many significant inspections enabling our Army to address critical issues, revise policies, and improve processes. His special inspections of Arlington National Cemetery restored effective oversight and reinstilled public confidence in the effort to honor our fallen heroes at a place sacred to all Americans. Likewise, his team's work to help our suffering soldiers receive more efficient behavioral health treatment within the Integrated Disability Evaluation System brought to light new information about process issues and the need for better coordination and support from Veterans Affairs. In addition, during his tenure, the Army inspector general performed vital compliance oversight inspections for some of our Nation's most sensitive activities, including nuclear and chemical research and development centers, intelligence oversight, and information assurance operations.

LTG Peter M. Vangjel has consistently provided superb leadership, advice, and sound professional judgment on numerous critical issues of enduring importance to the Army and our Nation. On behalf of Congress and the United States of America, I thank General Vangjel, his wife Joanne, and his entire family for their commitment and contributions to our Army and the Nation, and I congratulate them both on an exceptional career of selfless service.

Mr. President, I wish to applaud the University of Central Oklahoma and the University of Oklahoma for being recognized by the Military Times as among the 100 best colleges for our Nation's veterans. With over 2,400 students who are veterans between them, UCO and OU provide outstanding support and academic experiences for our Nation's heroes after they have returned from their service to our Nation in uniform.

Founded in 1890 as one of Oklahoma's first institutions of higher learning, the University of Central Oklahoma is ranked 40th on this list and cultivates creativity and innovation from its 17,000 students, of which more than 700 are veterans. Students have the opportunity to earn diplomas from the more than 100 major areas of study offered at UCO. In 2010, UCO established the Veteran's Hero office to address the unique needs of our veterans and their families as they transition from the battlefield to the classroom. Continuously recognized as among the best universities in the Nation, UCO puts the extra effort into taking care of our veterans and has earned distinction in this area for 3 consecutive years in similar rankings by Victory Media, a nationwide veterans' employment recruiting service.

Also founded in 1890, the University of Oklahoma ranks 85th on this list and has nearly 30,000 students, of whom more than 1,700 are veterans who are earning degrees from the more than 150 majors offered on three campuses. Through the Veterans Support Alliance, faculty and staff volunteers at the University of Oklahoma have provided a positive and supportive learning environment for veterans. OU's efforts have helped student veterans and servicemembers achieve academic excellence and personal success. As a pacesetter for public higher education, OU is also ranked by the Princeton Review as among the top 10 public universities in the nation in terms of academic excellence and cost for students.

On behalf of the great State of Oklahoma, I commend UCO and OU for making the ``Best for Vets: Colleges 2015'' list and salute their steadfast efforts to provide quality education for those who have defended our freedoms at home and abroad.

I read with a lot of interest about the trip President Obama made to China and his meeting with President Xi over what they characterized as an agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. I didn't hear any kind of agreement or anything that was said by the President of China, and they have been talking about this as a historic breakthrough. That is exactly what they said in 2009, back when Copenhagen was center stage for the big annual party.

Just so people are aware of what goes on, the United Nations throws a big party to get countries to agree to reduce greenhouse gases by a certain amount. It is kind of interesting since at one of the first ones I went to, I saw a good friend of mine from Benin in West Africa, and I said: You guys are not sucked into this thing--I know that for a fact--in terms of any kind of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. What would happen to the economy of West Africa if you did that?

He said: This is the biggest party of the year, so we are all going to be here.

The same thing was true in Copenhagen.

Before I go into that, let's take a look at what they called a major historic breakthrough between the United States and China where the President pledged to reduce the emissions in the United States between 26 and 28 percent by 2025. What did China agree to? First of all, even if they did agree to reduce emissions, we would not believe them because they don't end up doing what they say they are going to do in these agreements. But China says that what they are going to do is stop increasing their CO2 emissions by 2030. In other words, between now and 2030 they are going to continue to increase their levels of CO2 emissions, which I agree they are going to do that.

Next year--that is, a year from December--there is going to be another big party that will be in Paris, and it will be the one where President Obama says he and President Xi from China have an agreement. But, of course, that is going to be kind of like it was in Copenhagen back in 2009.

I remember 2009 so well. At that time I was--and I still am--on the Environment and Public Works Committee. We had a wonderful lady who was President Obama's appointee to be the Director of the EPA, and at that time in Copenhagen they already had Congresswoman Pelosi, Senator Boxer, President Obama, and then-Senator John Kerry. All of them were over there promising the 191 countries that were in Copenhagen that we were going to pass some kind of cap and trade.

After that was over, I went on a quick roundtrip to Copenhagen. I always remember that trip because I was on the ground, after all that travel, all of 3 hours, but I think it was the most enjoyable 3 hours I ever had because I was able to be over there as a one-man truth squad and to say to the people attending that great meeting there that the United States was not going to pass any kind of cap and trade. In fact, the most votes they could have gotten in the Senate at that time--and the Senate is changing, as we all know--was 30 votes. Obviously it took a lot more than that to do that.

I went over as the one-man truth squad to tell them that they were not telling the truth and that there is no way in the world we are going to pass it, and the same is true this time.

I will tell you what that meeting reminds me of. It reminds me of the meeting that took place in China a couple of days ago with our President. It reminded me of the meeting that took place in Rio de Janeiro. This would have been in 1998, which was during the Clinton White House. They went over there and agreed and signed the Kyoto Treaty. They signed the treaty knowing for a fact that it would not be ratified on this end. We know it takes a supermajority to ratify a treaty in the Senate.

We had a resolution that was passed at that time called the Byrd- Hagel resolution. It said that we would not ratify any agreement, such as Kyoto or anything like that, that didn't do two things--that were either harmful to the economy or didn't treat all countries the same. In other words, we have to treat the reductions in China the same as they would be in the United States. Of course the Kyoto Treaty didn't do that. They knew at the time it was not going to be ratified. In fact, they were not even going to submit it for ratification to this body, and that is exactly what did happen.

Let's look at what is happening in China right now. China is doing pretty

well. Between 2005 and 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal- fired powerplants per week. That is two powerplants a week. In 7 years, China added more coal capacity to its fleet than existed in the entire United States. This is not going to be slowing down in the years to come. By their own admission, they will be increasing between now and 2030. China is expected to bring a new coal-fired powerplant online every 10 days to give its economy the electricity it demands. So China is now the largest consumer and importer of coal in the world.

It is kind of interesting. We are going through the shale revolution in this country. Wonderful things are happening here. If we did not have the resistance from the White House, we could be totally independent from any other nation for the production of energy. China, on the other hand, doesn't have the shale or the oil or the gas. They don't have the coal, but they can import the coal, and that is exact what they are doing, and they will continue to do that. Stop and think. If you don't like the arguments, just use logic. Why would China ever agree unilaterally to reduce its emissions when that is the only way it can produce electricity?

I have talked to them before. I talk to people who smile and laugh at us and say: Wait a minute. You say you believe us when we say we are going to reduce our emissions? We applaud the United States. We want the United States to reduce its emissions. If they do that, the manufacturing base has to leave the United States and come to China.

So it is to their advantage to increase their emissions, and that is exactly what will happen.

We will talking about this a lot. I will chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. I chaired that several years ago when the Republicans were in the majority, and the Republicans are a majority again. We will look at these things logically, and we will conduct ourselves in a way that will not give the United States of America the largest single tax increase in history.

Way back in the beginning, in 2001 and that timeframe, a lot of us thought there was actually some truth to the global warming issue, and a lot of people are trying to resurrect that now. However, at that time people didn't know what the cost was going to be. Shortly after that, it was the MIT, Charles River Associates, and the Wharton School that came out with an approximation of what it would cost in the way of a tax increase for the American people if we were to adopt the global warming provisions they wanted to adopt, which was between $300 and $400 billion a year.

If you follow that statement with a statement not from me and not from anyone else on the floor of the Senate but from Lisa Jackson, who was the Director of the EPA and was appointed by President Obama--I asked her this question on the record: Let's say that we go ahead and pass one of these resolutions.

The resolutions have been offered since 2002. The first one was offered by McCain and Lieberman and the last one by my friend Senator Markey, who was then in the House.

I said: If we pass any of these--the largest increase in history-- would this have the effect of reducing greenhouse gases?

Her answer--Lisa Jackson, Director of the EPA, said: No, it would not. She said the problem is in China, India, and Mexico, and that would not affect the overall world emissions of CO2.

So for those who really believe there is going to be something that comes before us in the form of a treaty--as our President has said will happen in Paris 13 months from now--keep in mind that it is something that will not happen, the same as it was not going to happen in Copenhagen. The American people are not ready. They have studied this issue. They know the science is not there, and what they want to do is to avoid any kind of a negative effect on our economy, and that is exactly what I think will happen.

I see my good friend is here, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is my honor to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Marine Cpl Thomas A. Blair of Wagoner, OK who lost his life on March 24, 2003, from injuries sustained during a lengthy battle with insurgents while serving his Nation in Nasiriyah, Iraq.

The son of Alfred Jr. and Nancy Hinton Blair, Tommy was born July 7, 1978, in Wagoner, OK. After graduating from Broken Arrow High School, he entered the Marine Corps in 1997 and was assigned to the 2nd Low Altitude Air Defense Battalion, Marine Air Control Group-28, 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, Cherry Point, NC.

Tommy was posthumously awarded the Navy-Marine Corps Commendation Medal for helping pull nine wounded marines into an armored vehicle before it was hit by at least four enemy rocket-propelled grenades and then a missile fired from an American attack plane. He was among 18 marines killed that day in fighting around Nasiriyah.

Tommy was laid to rest in Ozark Memorial Park Cemetery in Joplin, MO, and is survived by his father Alfred Jr., mother Nancy, and brother Alfred III.

``He was a young man that would give the shirt off his back if someone needed it,'' recalled his older brother, Marine SSG Alfred Blair, III. ``He lived life to the fullest and enjoyed every minute of every day. In his first letter home to our mom, he said he was doing what he had been trained to do and was proud to be doing it for his country.''

Today we remember Marine CPL Thomas A. Blair, the first known native Oklahoman to lose his life in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was a young man who loved his family and country and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Captain John J. Boria

Mr. President, I also pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Air Force Capt. John J. Boria of Broken Arrow, OK, who died on September 6, 2004, after injuries sustained in a all-terrain vehicle accident while serving his nation in Doha, Qatar.

Javy, as he was known by his family and friends was born on August 12, 1975. After graduating from Union High School in Tulsa, OK, in 1993, I nominated this bright young man to attend the U.S. Air Force Academy. He spent a year at the Academy's Prep School before entering the U.S. Air Force Academy, where he graduated in 1998. Upon completing flight training, he was assigned as an instructor and KC-135 pilot at the 911th Refueling Squadron at Grand Forks Air Force Base, ND, and was deployed to Qatar to work in the Combined Air Operations Center in June 2004.

Funeral services were held on September 14, 2004, at Broken Arrow Assembly of God Church, with internment at the U.S. Air Force Academy Cemetery in Colorado Springs, CO. Javy is survived by his parents John and Wanda and brother Joe.

His favorite Bible verse in John 15 states, depending on the translation, that ``no greater love has a man than he lay down his life for his friends,'' his mother said. When discussing becoming an organ donor with his mother during his junior year at the Academy, Javy said, ``I want to be a donor too. If I die and part of me could be used, it could give somebody else a chance to live the life that I won't have.''

Today we remember Air Force Capt. John J. Boria, a young man who loved his family and country and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Chief Warrant Officer Travis W. Grogan

Mr. President, I now pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Army CWO Travis W. Grogan, who died on November 27, 2004, after the aircraft he was a passenger in crashed in Bamian, Afghanistan.

Born an only child on January 12, 1973, Travis grew up just outside Oklahoma City, OK, and graduated from Moore High School. Descending from a long line of servicemen, with relatives who served in Korea, World War I, and the Civil War, he initially enlisted in the Navy, where he served for 9 years as a search-and-rescue swimmer. Later, he became interested in flying and transferred to the Army to become a helicopter pilot with the 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, Light, Schofield Barracks, HI. He had been in Afghanistan since April 2004.

``He died for our freedoms here in America,'' Barbara Grogan said of her only son. ``This was important to him, and it should be important to everyone in America. Our freedoms are worth fighting for.''

Travis is survived by his wife Tracy; daughter Ashley; son Austin; parents, Barbara and Lewis; and grandmother, Wilma North.

Funeral services were held on December 9, 2004, at the First Baptist Church in Moore, OK, with burial conducted at Ft Sill National Cemetery in Elgin, OK.

``He knew why he was in Afghanistan. He was very proud of being able to serve his country,'' said his grandmother. ``If they had found him wounded, he would have said, Doctor me up; I'm going back'.''

Today we remember Army CWO Travis W. Grogan, a young man who loved his family and country and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Specialist Jared D. Hartley

Mr. President, it is my honor also to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Army SPC Jared D. Hartley, of Newkirk, OK, who died on July 15, 2005, of injuries sustained after an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle in Taji, Iraq.

Jared was born January 2, 1983, and enlisted in June 2002. After basic training he was assigned to 125th Forward Support Battalion, 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, based at Fort Riley, KS.

Jared was a 2002 graduate of Newkirk High School, where he played football and basketball. He joined the Army shortly after graduating high school and deployed for a 13-month tour in Iraq. ``When he came back, he was going to get out of the military, but they told him they needed him,'' his brother Alex Hartley said. ``He said, `No problem, I'll stay in as long as you need me'.'' He returned for his second tour in March.

Alex said his brother was committed to the military's mission in Iraq and pleased with the positive response he received from the Iraqi people. ``He said people he talked to were glad they were there. Protecting our country and helping people--he felt good about his mission.''

Jared was buried at Newkirk Cemetery and is survived by his parents, Doug and Kathie, and his brother Alex.

Today we remember Army SPC Jared D. Hartley, a young man who loved his family and country and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Lieutenant Colonel Daniel E. Holland

Mr. President, I wish to remember the life and sacrifice of Army LTC Daniel E. Holland, of San Antonio, TX, who died on May 8, 2006, of injuries sustained when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device while he served his Nation in Baghdad, Iraq. Daniel was a veterinarian assigned to South Plains District Veterinary Command at Ft Hood, TX, attached to the 352nd Civil Affairs Command at Fort Bragg,

Mr. President, let me say first of all to leave that chart up, because it shows very clearly that I might have the biggest dog in this fight. I do not know. But I will say that Cushing, OK, has more pipelines coming through, throughout the United States, than any other city in America. That is where they all come through.

A few minutes ago the Senator from Wyoming was talking about what the President said less than a year ago, that he was going to be cooperating, we are going to do this thing, it will be the best thing for America. He has not done it. But I will tell you what is worse than that. This right here: because of this pipeline, the hub we have in Cushing, OK--the President went to Cushing, OK; this was about a year ago--over 2 years ago he did--he went there to affirm to the American people that he is going to do all he can to make sure this pipeline becomes a reality. Read this, I ask my friend from North Dakota. It says:

I am directing my administration to make this project a

priority, to go ahead and get it done.

He has made this--I am not going to use the L word because it sounds disrespectful, and I lose credibility when I do that. He is saying something that is not true. He moved from that, and he has done everything since that time to destroy the pipeline.

That was when they were talking about the southern leg. Well, obviously the southern leg is not a problem because the southern leg does not cross an international border, so the President couldn't stop that even if he wanted to. So he was taking credit for that, but he is certainly underestimating the people of Oklahoma. In fact, nobody showed up when he was there. So that portion between Canada and Cushing is where the problem began.

I am going to throw out something very briefly. I also did this yesterday on the floor, but I think it is important.

There is a new surge of opposition to this that wasn't there before this happened. Tom Steyer is a very fine person, I am sure--I don't know him--but Tom Steyer has put up $100 million--his words, not mine-- $50 million of his own money, to do two things. One is to resurrect global warming, which is dead. If we read the polls today, people have caught on. It is now No. 14 out of 15 of the environmental concerns, according to all the polling data. So he is trying to bring that up again. The second thing he is trying to do is stop the Keystone Pipeline.

I say to my friend from North Dakota, and I don't want to sound disrespectful, but $50 million of that is his own money, and he has that out there right now. I am going to quote him:

It is true that we expect to be heavily involved in the

midterm elections.

Fifty million of his own money.

We are looking at a bunch of . . . races. . . . My guess is

that we'll end up being involved in 8 or even more races.

The Keystone Pipeline would create 42,000 jobs and tens of thousands more. If you look at my State of Oklahoma, about one-third of all those jobs are in the State of Oklahoma.

Keystone is just the tip of the iceberg. When we look at this chart, we can see all of the domestic energy resources that are being developed around the county right now. We are going through a shale revolution, and the only thing getting in its way is the Federal Government.

Look at this next chart. I can remember back when people considered the only oil States to be west of the Mississippi, the Western United States. But with the Marcellus coming through, you could argue--and I have seen the argument in the State of Pennsylvania, for example--it provides the second-most jobs in that State. Yet they need to be aware that this is what is happening in the United States.

If we look at this map, it shows what we could do if we also had the Federal lands included in that. In fact, one of the shocking things we hear when we talk about the Federal lands is that in the past 6 years-- and that is since President Obama has been there, and he has done everything he could to retard the progress of oil and gas since he came to office. The production on State lands is up 61 percent--that is in 6 years, up 61 percent--and natural gas is up 33 percent. However, on Federal lands--land the President can affect--oil production is down 6 percent. How can production be up 61 percent on State lands and down 6 percent on Federal lands? I think that shows the commitment that is there.

ICF International is a well-respected consulting firm. It is not Republican or Democratic. They recently released a report that says U.S. companies will need to invest $641 billion over the next 20 years in infrastructure to keep up with growing oil and gas production. What does that mean for jobs? According to the analysis, spending on these new pipelines alone will create 432,000 new jobs. It goes on and on talking about this.

I asked the same question: How could it be--6 years ago I thought that this was a piece of cake, that this was going to be done. What is the argument against it? There are people who fight against fossil fuels. That is alive and well. But they know they are going to be producing it anyway, and if it goes to China--and there are already discussions; that is public record--if it gets to China, they are going to have to go through the refining process, and they don't have any restrictions on emissions in China. So the argument is that if they do it, there are going to be more emissions--if they find that to be so offensive--than if we do it here in the United States where we have the capability to produce and have the jobs here.

When I go back to Oklahoma, people say: What are the arguments against it? I try to explain the argument they are using, but they don't buy it. Of course, I am in Oklahoma talking to normal people.

Anyway, good luck. We are going to do all we can do to make this a reality. We are going to win this eventually, but I am afraid we have the opposition of this administration, and unless we get that turned around, we will have to wait for another President.

My friend is correct. It was 1948 in Duncan, OK.

Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling are to be credited for this shale revolution we are going through now. We hear this administration--knowing the American people want to use this abundance of good, clean, natural gas and oil--sounding supportive of that, but he has done everything he can to retard our efforts to continue to use, as we have since 1948, hydraulic fracturing.

This is interesting because the first Director of the EPA who was chosen and confirmed during the Obama administration was Lisa Jackson. I asked her the question live on TV during one of our committee hearings--I said: Hydraulic fracturing--people are creating problems with this. Yet we have never had a problem, and it all started in my State of Oklahoma. Has there ever been a documented case of groundwater contamination with hydraulic fracturing?

Her answer, I say to my good friend from North Dakota, was no.

So we have the Obama administration saying there is no problem with it. Yet they are doing everything they can to federalize jurisdiction over hydraulic fracturing, with the idea that would make it much more difficult to take advantage of this revolution we are in the middle of.

It is also about technology. All of the environmentalists or extreme environmentalists who are trying to stop or fighting this war against fossil fuels, they ought to be rejoicing that we have this technology now.

When we talk about the number of wells, it it is now past 1 million wells that have been drilled using hydraulic fracturing. By their own admission, there has never been one documented case of groundwater contamination. So the answer is that there is no reason not to do it.

This is our opportunity to be independent. We could be independent in a matter of weeks if we had the opportunity to export.

It is not just private land, it is private and State land. All of the increase we have had, the 63 percent we talk about, is all private and State land. How is it possible that increase could take place on State land while on Federal land it goes down 6 percent? That tells the whole story.

I have often said and many of the people who are very conscious about the environment--as I am and others--have said this is the answer. I remember years ago when I was very young, I worked in the oilfields. I can remember there were small wells all over and, of course, at that time there wasn't an effort. Now they have cleaned things up, and nothing is greater in terms of the technology that has come along for the environment than what we have experienced.

When we think about what is happening all over the world--I am glad the Senator mentioned this--with ISIS and all of these problems we have right now, I believe we are facing a greater threat right now militarily than we have before. And that is where a lot of our energy is coming from, and it doesn't have to.

A good friend of the Senator and a good friend of mine named Harold Hamm--he is from Oklahoma, but he does a lot of work up there--I asked him a question in relation to the President repeatedly saying: Well, if we were to go ahead and develop this on Federal lands, it would take 10 years before that would reach the economy.

I was going to be on an unfriendly TV show, and I called up Harold Hamm and I said: Harold, I am going to ask you a question, and be careful in the way you answer it because I am going to use your name and your answer on nationwide TV. If you were set up someplace like New Mexico on Federal land that had not been touched before, how long would it take that first barrel of oil to reach the economy?

Without hesitating, he said: Seventy days.

I said: Seventy days? Well, that is 10 weeks, not 10 years.

Then he went on to say what would happen each week for those 10 weeks. I have never been refuted since we used that.

In addition to all the arguments we are using, just think about what our oil independence, our energy independence could be in this country. It is all there for the taking. This is the key element to make that a reality.

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

Madam President, we yield back the remaining time and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I believe under the regular order that I will be recognized for up to 30 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized.

Mr. President, with all the things that are going on right now, I am particularly interested in the hearing we had yesterday on ISIS. It was a big deal. I applaud General Dempsey for his honesty in talking about how serious this war is that we are embarking on right now. The fact is that we have a mess, and ISIS has tripled in the last 3 months, up to now well over 30,000 troops, with tanks, heavy artillery.

This is not--I know the President has tried to make people believe this is just another rag-tag terrorist operation like Al Qaeda or the Taliban. It is not. This is war. This is a real serious thing that we are in the middle of.

I do applaud General Dempsey and also Secretary Hagel for their honesty in the committee hearing. It was difficult for them when the President talks about no troops on the ground, no troops on the ground. We know we already have troops on the ground.

I think the American people have had a wake-up call. I believe they understand how serious it is. In fact, there were two polls out last week. One of them was a poll that 70 percent of the American people know how serious this is and that ISIS could affect and would affect and is affecting our homeland. That was a big thing, that 70 percent of the people in America understand that. Just yesterday the Wall Street Journal poll came out, along with ABC, and they said the same thing: 70 percent of the people know this is something that affects our homeland.

When they talk about troops on the ground--I remember asking the question during the hearing yesterday. I said to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey: If the President said no troops on the ground, what if your airstrikes--if something happens to one of those planes and we have the problem that one of the pilots is bailing out. Are you saying that we do not have troops on the ground to ensure his or her safety?

He said: Absolutely we will.

So the point is that has been a question that people have to understand, that this is war. We have to win it. We can't take another chance.

The Economy And Overregulation

But that is not why I am here. I think because of the distraction of ISIS and all of these other things, a lot of people have forgotten the serious problems that are hampering our economy; that is, what this President has done through the overregulation that takes

place. Since he first took office and failed to achieve his signature cap-and-trade legislation, he has been working tirelessly to try to do what he couldn't do through legislation with regulation. The regulations received most of the attention because they are the most expensive.

I first started in 2003, and I remember so much in the Senate. In 2003, at that time Republicans had a majority. I was the chair of the committee that had the jurisdiction. They started off in 2003 with the first cap-and-trade legislation, and we defeated it. We defeated it ever since that time. One reason we defeated it was I was able to find out--and I didn't know this in the beginning--that people said: Global warming is real, there are all these bad things, and we are all going to die.

Yet from the costs we determined--and this came not just from me but from others who were interested, but universities such as MIT came out with a study, the Wharton School of Economics came out with one, and Charles River Associates. They all had the cost of this cap-and-trade somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion a year.

Every time I hear a large figure, I look at the population in my State of Oklahoma and see what that cost means to a family. In my State of Oklahoma, $300 billion to $400 billion a year would be a permanent tax increase for the average family in Oklahoma--that files a Federal income tax--of $3,000 a year.

When we get to these numbers, we look and we realize this is going to be very expensive and no one wants anything to do with greenhouse regulations when the cost is so high.

I will show later on that it wouldn't accomplish anything, anyway. That is probably why the recent polls, such as the Gallup poll on global warming, have it on the bottom of the national priority list. Their last poll is a poll of 15 things to be most concerned about, and global warming and climate change registered No. 14 out of 15.

The people have understood--it is as if they understand now what is going on with ISIS. They know what the truth is.

The Pew Research Center showed that 53 percent of Americans either don't believe that global warming and climate change are occurring or they say if it is, it is natural causes.

This has been going on. This is what has bothered me. I can remember--and I am going from memory now--but I used to use the example, back when we first started looking at this subject, as to how this is a cyclone that has been going on for recorded history.

In 1895, we were in a cooling period, basically. They were referring to it as the little ice age at that time--I could be wrong. But, anyway, that endured until 1918. Then in 1918, it turned into a warming time and that went all the way up through 1945.

This is what is significant. In 1945, we started another cooling period. It happened that 1945 was the year that was recorded as the year when it had the highest amount of CO2 emissions, and that precipitated not a warming period but a cooling period. Of course, that went on up to about 1975 when we went to the other side, where we have actually entered into a cooling area. Everybody knows that.

God is still up there. We have always had these seasons. People would like to think somehow it is man who is doing it. They don't want any progress. They don't want people to be able to generate electricity and energy to take care of our needs.

While my friends on the other side of the aisle act as though public debate has been settled on the issue, obviously it is just the opposite of that. It probably explains why it has been difficult for Tom Steyer to raise the full $100 million he promised to help Democrats win elections this fall.

We remember in February that he announced he would put up $50 million of his own money--and then he did--and that he would raise another $50 million. It would be $100 million that he would put in campaigns for incumbents who would agree to try to resurrect the global warming issue--because it has died in the eyes of the American people--and try to stop the pipeline.

He did this, and the trouble is he is not able to raise the other $50 million. The last count was it is only $1.7 million he has been able to raise from outside donors. Nonetheless, of course, he has his own $50 million. Regardless, we know he is spending the money he has, even though he hasn't raised other money.

We can see on this chart a quote where he said--that is a picture of Tom Steyer. He is not a bad guy and all of that, he is just far left, and he has a lot of money. He said:

It is true that we expect to be heavily involved in the

midterm elections. . . . we are looking at a bunch of . . .

races. . . . My guess is that we'll end up being involved in

eight or more races.

So Tom Steyer's goal is, as I said, to try to resurrect the global warming issue and try to stop the Keystone Pipeline.

I think it is an appropriate time to talk about the hypocrisy on the left over political spending. We spent all of last week debating a constitutional amendment to limit political speech that is currently protected under the First Amendment. Democrats are talking about the Koch brothers, and people are not aware that this type of activity was from a man named Tom Steyer, by his own admission.

Someone asked me the other day--I think we were on the floor. I was the only Republican to come down. It was kind of fun. They were having their all-night session. I made the statement: If there is anyone with insomnia at home who is not asleep yet, this is a good way to do it. I made the comment that this is something we know is going on.

I stated that with all these races that are out there, they are trying to do something in order to elect people to try to go back to what they failed to be able to get. I think it is an appropriate time to get through that hypocrisy.

Recent news reports have surfaced and described the Democracy Alliance. That is an organization that aims to organize the policy objectives and funding streams of the leftwing liberal establishment.

According to an internal memo that was leaked to the press a few weeks ago, the Democracy Alliance for the past 9 years ``has aligned donors, leaders in the progressive movement, [that is liberal] and political infrastructure in order to achieve victories at the ballot box and in policy fights including those for comprehensive health care reform, Supreme Court confirmations . . . ''

This influence is estimated to be between $600 million and $700 million.

The Washington Post recently had this chart. It is kind of hard to read, but in the Post it was obvious because each one of those dots is a liberal political organization. They all joined together and that is called the Democracy Alliance.

Again, this was 161 plus 21--182 organizations are part of this alliance. It details all of their agendas and how they are being coordinated by the political Democratic agenda by the Democracy Alliance. We will recognize most of the names on the list. It includes the Center for American Progress, Media Matters for America, America Votes, and even Organizing for Action which, incidentally, is President Obama's political campaign arm.

In April, this group convened a secret meeting in Chicago to huddle with its deep-pocketed donors to craft a strategy in messaging for this coming year's elections. It was shrouded in secrecy, and the memo prepared for attendees--all the people on this list who were coming in to meet in Chicago--warned them of interacting with political reporters. In fact, it included a pages-long list of reporters who are expected to try to crash the conference, along with the photos, so folks could be on the watch for these people.

The names of the people attending and involved were not going to be disclosed to the public, nor would any details be released about the discussions that were taking place.

Tom Steyer and the Democracy Alliance are acting like a cult, even as the Democratic left pushes for the institution of a new constitutional amendment. We now know that initiative was nothing more than a political sham.

At the end of the day, the liberal left wants an aggressive, secretive, political machine operating on its behalf, and it looks as though they have what they need in the Democracy Alliance.

The key selling point for the Democracy Alliance pitch to its contributors is the inseparable link to the deep connections with the Obama White House administration. The Democracy Alliance firmly believes it is in the driver's

seat when it comes to setting policy for liberals in Washington, and it wants its donors to know it.

There is nothing wrong with this. We have had differences of opinion and philosophy, and that is why we have political parties. This is more extreme than anything I have seen and more organized.

One of the key goals of the Democracy Alliance is to promote ``an environment that keeps our kids safe.'' This explains why the administration continues to push an extremist agenda of environmental mandates that will crush our economy.

This is where Tom Steyer has really succeeded in being part of the Democracy Alliance. He has managed to convince Democrats in the Senate to hold more than one all-night vigil on global warming, and these have come as the United States has been enduring one of its coldest years yet.

Just this month so far, NOAA, of the Commerce Department, has reported 246 record cold temperatures. Wyoming already has right now 20 inches of snow in some places, and it is unseasonably cold in Washington, DC.

One of these colder areas, my city of Tulsa, OK, on Saturday set a record cool high temperature. It only reached 65 degrees. It has never happened before, so it is not cooperating very well with trying to convince people the world is coming to an end because of global warming.

It also explains why the President is continuing to aggressively try to implement greenhouse regulations after failing to accomplish this goal legislatively. These regulations will effectively prevent any coal-fired powerplant from being constructed and force our Nation into relying substantially on expensive renewable resources.

Regulations such as these would take us in the direction of Europe, which in many instances has experienced electricity prices three times as high as they are in the United States. They have been ahead of us in trying to stop fossil fuels and in trying to stop nuclear energy. The rates their people are paying are now three times higher than ours.

If anyone doubts these rules will have a negative impact on our economy, just look at Australia. Australia imposed a carbon tax on their economy a few years ago and it caused horrendous damage. It caused $9 billion in lost economic activity per year and destroyed tens of thousands of jobs. This is in Australia. This just happened. It was so bad that the government in Australia recently voted to repeal the carbon tax. Remember all the talk about the fact: Oh, Australians are leading the way and they are going to have a carbon tax, we should be following them. Now they have repealed that by an overwhelming vote and their economy is now better for it. In fact, it was announced last week that Australia experienced record job growth last month of 121,000 jobs. They said this is because they have repealed this carbon tax they had passed. They credit this success to the repeal of the carbon tax in addition to these greenhouse regulations.

I think it is important for us to recall the many other regulations this Obama administration has already imposed on the American people and discuss all of the new regulations that have not yet come out, but they are working on it. Some of these regulations they are holding off until after the elections so the people would not know the cost of the regulations and how many jobs are going to be lost.

The first we need to remember is Utility MACT. By the way, MACT means maximum achievable controlled technology. In other words, what technology has told us we could do to try to control these releases.

Utility MACT was the first one they successfully passed. In this case, the EPA established a standard that was impossible for utilities to actually meet.

This regulation is inappropriate under the Clean Air Act, and it is having a $100 billion annual impact on the economy and destroying 1.65 million jobs. They have already done it. They were able to pass it along party lines.

The EPA has already finalized similar regulations for industrial boilers and cement kilns. Together, those regulations are having an impact of more than $63 billion on the economy and they have destroyed 800,000 jobs and may result in the shutdown of 18 cement plants around the country. No one has refuted these figures.

In another section of the law, the EPA put a rule together, knowing it would increase the cost of gas. The rule is known as the Tier 3 rule, and it regulates the amount of sulfur that can be in gasoline when it leaves the refinery.

Tier 2 standards were put in place back in the early 2000s. That resulted in a 90-percent decline in the sulfur content of gasoline by 2010. That is already behind us, and it had a positive, measurable impact on the environment.

The need for a Tier 3 standard is not articulated very well. In fact, EPA did not have any unique scientific data to support the key benefits of this rule, and the EPA ignored the fact that it would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. So they are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions with the rule they are still putting forth and be counterproductive. Talking about the Tier 3 rule, EPA stated that ``this rule will increase the cost of gasoline.''

Furthermore, the EPA recently finalized a rule called the 316(b) water rule. This rule regulates the cooling water systems used by powerplants and other major industrial facilities to prevent their operations from overheating. So they use water. The EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service were worried about the impact these facilities were having on fish, and so they put out a rule to help. In the rulemaking, EPA again states that ``the final rule will increase electricity costs.''

Worse is the fact that EPA could not even fudge its numbers enough to present a positive cost-benefit ratio. In its final rule, the stated costs are $300 million, which is about 10 times the estimated benefits of the rule, which are only $28.6 million. This violates the President's own Executive Order 13563, which states that agencies must ``propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs.''

That is another problem we have with this administration. They will add rules, they will add laws, and they violate these laws--just like when he turned loose the five terrorists from Gitmo. We had passed, in fact, knowing he was going to try to get rid of people in Gitmo--and he took the five who were the very worst--we had passed a law saying he can't do that until he gives the Senate Armed Services Committee 30 days' notice and gives us a chance to respond and stop him from doing it. He totally ignored it, just as he ignored these regulations.

Worse yet, this rule has no human health benefits. Its only beneficiaries are fish. So EPA is putting out a rule that will increase electricity costs, including for those who live on fixed incomes, all for the sake of saving a few fish.

Another rule EPA has done since President Obama began his administration is the regional haze rule. These regulations were established to improve the visibility of national parks, and States were instructed to develop their own plans--known as State implementation plans--in order to comply. My State of Oklahoma did this, but EPA overturned it because of a technicality associated with its economic analysis. When EPA did this, it instituted a Federal implementation plan, and in this case it cost over $1 billion to execute or nearly 10 times the amount of the State-based plan that had been developed cooperatively with our utility companies. This is the kind of uncooperative relationship we have come to expect when working with the EPA.

Beyond the greenhouse gas regulations, the one receiving the most attention is the waters of the United States rule. Nearly every group from Oklahoma is talking about this rule because it would extend the powers of the Federal Government over millions of new acres of land.

Just last week I was in Guymon, OK; El Reno, OK; and Boise City, OK. Boise City is the farthest west, largest city out in the panhandle. It is kind of sandwiched between Oklahoma, New Mexico, Kansas, and Texas. They are all in western Oklahoma. This is an arid part of the country. They are in their third year of their drought right now, but the new rule would declare much of this area as a Federal waterway subject to the onerous Federal regulations. This would impact every industry-- farming, ranching, oil and gas,

construction, transportation--everything.

Tom Buchanan happens to be the president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau. I asked him a question in a kind of townhall setting that we had not too long ago.

I said: What is the biggest problem we have in agriculture in Oklahoma?

He said: The biggest problem has nothing to do with the farm bill. The biggest problem we are facing right now is the overregulation by the EPA and what they are doing with endangered species, what they are doing with the containment of fuel on farms, what they are doing with the water rules they have. That is the biggest problem.

I was with Terry Detrick, president of the American Farmers and Ranchers, and he agrees that the biggest problem farmers in America are having right now is the overregulation of the EPA.

The EPA has said it will work with industries to make sure it works for them, but we know from experience this won't be possible. It is not going to happen. Their goal is to take over, to control and leave no room for negotiation.

Another devastating regulation being developed by the EPA is the ozone NAAQS standard. NAAQS means national ambient air quality standard. It was last set at the end of the Bush administration at 75 parts per billion. The EPA has been working since President Obama took over the White House to lower this standard.

In 2011 the President cancelled EPA's plans to lower the ozone standard because it was going to hurt his reelection chances. But now that he has secured that reelection, he is ready to start it up again.

The EPA staff and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee-- CASAC--recently recommended that the Administrator propose to lower the NAAQS level to between 60 and 70 parts per billion.

This chart shows how much of the Nation would be out of attainment if EPA lowers the standard to 60 parts per billion. In Oklahoma, all 77 counties would be out of attainment. What does that mean? I was mayor of the city of Tulsa once when it was out of attainment. We were not able to increase populations in many of our businesses.

It essentially means the EPA will have to issue a regulatory permit for any business expansion plans that could increase emission levels. It would make business expansion enormously expensive and would dramatically increase the power of the EPA. All told, this rule would put nearly 94 percent of the counties' populations of the United States of America out of attainment zones and would cede our economic superiority to the likes of China and India.

Zooming in to more industry-focused regulations, the EPA has been the main culprit in the President's war on fossil fuels. Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have opened up dramatic new oil and natural gas resources in this country that no one thought we would ever be able to profitably extract.

By the way, hydraulic fracturing was actually developed in my State of Oklahoma, in Duncan, OK, in 1949. So this is something that is going on. In spite of this, they are trying to use hydraulic fracturing to stop the successful increases we have been able to have in the wells.

Lisa Jackson was the first EPA Administrator under Barack Obama. I remember asking her the question: If we were to do something with hydraulic fracturing, has there ever been a documented case in the United States that hydraulic fracturing is damaging to groundwater?

She said: No, it is not. There has never been--her actual exact words--any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.

So if we eliminate this, it is not going to save anything because it is not going to create any problems. And this doesn't come from me; it comes from the Administrator of the EPA, appointed by President Obama. Regardless, the EPA is moving full force to regulate hydraulic fracturing. At one point during the administration, there were a total of 13 different agencies working to do this. The Bureau of Land Management is one of them. It is my understanding that their regulations are being finalized, and it could cost producers as much as $100,000 per well. Keep in mind that every time they talk about what it is going to cost industry or business, that is passed on to the public.

The EPA is also working to regulate methane emissions from across the oil and natural gas industry. Whether it is the upstream producers during the drilling and completion process, the midstream pipeline operators, or the downstream retail distributors, EPA is convinced that the industry is willingly allowing their valuable product to seep into the atmosphere without any concern or awareness of where it is.

EPA's methane strategy is part of the President's overall climate change action plan, and the Agency recently published white papers outlining its understanding of methane leaks in the industry, and they were not very impressive.

I recently wrote EPA and the White House to express my concern with these papers. I was shocked that the papers seemed to lack any comprehensive understanding of the industry's operational practices. I was also disappointed that EPA didn't consider many of the regulatory hurdles in place which actually prevent producers from installing the technology and infrastructure that would reduce methane emissions. I am hopeful that EPA will take my recommendations seriously before moving forward.

So we have two problems. Right now we could be totally independent of any other country. All we have to do is do what every other country in the world does; that is, exploit our own resources. This President has made it impossible for us to get into public lands and to get this done.

Then, of course, we have the problem of overregulation. In all, the administration's regulatory agenda is intended to shut down the engine of America's economy. They have already shut down coal. Now they are working on oil and natural gas.

What they have done so far is just a preview. But the liberal environmentalists--Tom Steyer, Bill McKibben, Democracy Alliance--must all be frustrated by what is going on right now. Temperatures are not going up, they are going down. Nobody seems to care. No one has any desire to implement the policies they want. Polling is all showing they have lost this battle. That is exactly why they are willing to spend between $600 million and $700 million on this year's elections--to convince the American people to elect Members who will support the President's regulations, which will shut down the economy.

One more thing, going back to global warming. Earlier I said that back in 2002 when we discussed the costs of it, being between $300 billion and $400 billion, as the largest tax increase in history, a permanent tax increase, I asked the question to Lisa Jackson--again, she was the Administrator of the EPA, appointed by Barack Obama--I said: If we were to pass these cap-and-trade regulations or bills or do it by regulation, would this have the result of lowering CO2 emissions?

She said: No, because this isn't where the problem is. The problem is in China, it is in India, it is in Mexico, it is in other places.

In fact, one could use the argument that it would actually have the effect of increasing emissions because as we chase away our base, the manufacturing base will go to countries like China and India, where they don't have any restrictions on emissions at all.

I think it is important to remind the people that even though that era is almost gone and people realize that is something that was very popular at one time, now the polls show that people have caught on. But keep in mind that what the President could not do through legislation he is now doing through regulations, and regulations, as we pointed out, are the greatest problem our economy is facing today, and this is something we are going to have to change.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is my honor to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Army SGT John A. Carroll, of Ponca City, OK who died on September 6, 2006, of injuries sustained when he came in contact with enemy forces using small-arms fire during a dismounted security patrol while serving his Nation in Ramadi, Iraq.

John was born September 1, 1980 in Greene County, PA and moved to Lawrenceville when he was 8 years old. In his mid-teens he left to live with his father in Georgia where he earned his general education development degree. While traveling from State to State in search of employment, he was approached by an Army recruiter in Oklahoma promising a chance to continue his education and a large signing bonus. He was sold and enlisted in 1999.

John met his wife Jessica Carroll in Florida while on leave from the 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Baumholder, Germany. He was on his third tour of Iraq and was due to be discharged in October 2006. After completing his service, they planned to live in Tennessee because they loved the mountains and the scenic surroundings.

A graveside service was held on September 17, 2006 at Mount View Cemetery, McMinnville, TN. Full military honors were administered by the Fort Campbell Honor Guard.

John is survived by his wife Jessica; mother Dawn Petrakovits; father Roger Carroll; two brothers Micah Carroll and Ben Beardsley; two sisters Liz Carroll and Rebecca Petrakovits; and mother-in-law Nancy Hicks and father-in-law Jerry Hicks.

Today we remember Army SGT John A. Carroll, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Corporal Wilfred Flores, Jr.

Madam President, it is my honor also to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Army CPL Wilfred Flores, Jr., of Lawton, OK, who died on March 31, 2007, of injuries sustained after an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle while serving his Nation in Ramadi, Iraq. He was 11 days short of his 21st birthday.

The son of retired Army Sergeants First Class Wilfred Sr. and Vicky, he was born April 10, 1986, at Fort Sill, OK. A member of the Jr. ROTC program, he graduated from Eisenhower High School in Lawton in 2004 and entered the Army Delayed Entry Program.

While waiting for his enlistment time, he volunteered at Giddy Up & Go, a non-profit therapeutic horse riding program for disabled children and adults. Wilfred joined the Army as an infantryman after completing basic and advanced individual training at Fort Benning, GA. After training he was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, NY. He was on his second deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

A memorial service was held on April 15, 2007, at Frontier Chapel on Fort Sill, OK. Burial with full military honors followed on April 16, 2007, in the new Fort Sill National Cemetery near Elgin, OK.

Wilfred is survived by his parents Wilfred Sr. and Vicky Flores; sister Theresa Siegrist; grandfather retired Air Force SSG Modesto Flores, Jr.; three nieces; and numerous aunts, uncles and cousins.

Vicky Flores said her son was very religious, very generous and believed ``God had a hand in everything. He loved his job,'' she said. ``He was there because he wanted to be there. He died doing what he loved the most.''

Today we remember Army CPL Wilfred Flores, Jr., a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Sergeant Buddy J. Hughie

Madam President, it is my honor also to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Army SGT Buddy J. Hughie, of Poteau, OK, who died while serving his Nation in Kamdesh, Afghanistan on February 19, 2007.

Born October 23, 1981 in Carlsbad, NM, and a 2005 graduate of Poteau High School, Buddy and his unit were conducting a joint mission with the Afghan National Army and the U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division in the country's Nuristan province when the group came under enemy small- arms and rocket-propelled-grenade fire. After two Afghan soldiers in the group were wounded, he left his position to provide medical assistance when he was shot and killed.

``Sgt. Buddy Hughie was a great American,'' said LTC Bobby Yandell, commander of the 1st Battalion, 180th Infantry. ``Sgt. Hughie was one of those soldiers that you did not have to worry about; he always did the right thing. We mourn his loss, but celebrate the life of a great soldier.'' Buddy, who previously deployed to Afghanistan in 2002-2003, volunteered to return to the country, Yandell said.

More than 600 people filled Poteau High School's Sherman Floyd Fieldhouse to honor Buddy's life. Burial was conducted on February 28, 2007, in Live Oak Memorial Gardens in Charleston, SC.

``He didn't have to be in Afghanistan, he didn't have to serve that 45 days in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He was there because he believed in what he was doing. More importantly, he backed those beliefs by action'' said BG Myles L. Deering, the commander of the Oklahoma National Guard's 45th Infantry Brigade.

He is survived by his wife Alexis Hughie; son Cooper; grandparents Kenneth and Delores Hughie; his mother Julie Hicks; a sister Jennifer Claiborn; a brother Dennis Hicks; and his great-grandparents Andrew ``Buddy'' and Dimple Rogers.

Today we remember Army SGT Buddy J. Hughie, a remarkable young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Sergeant Justin L. Noyes

Madam President, it is my honor also to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Marine Sgt Justin L. Noyes, of Vinita, OK, who died on July 2, 2006, of injuries sustained while attempting to disarm an improvised explosive device in Al Anbar Province, Fallujah, Iraq.

Born August 8, 1982 in Tulsa, OK, Justin played football and baseball at Vinita High School where he graduated in 2002.

Just 1 day before his 18th birthday and shortly after graduating from high school, Justin enlisted in the Marine Corps. He and his brother, Jeremy were first deployed to Iraq for the start of the war in 2003 and were there when

Saddam Hussein's statue came tumbling down.

While conducting training in North Carolina, he met his wife Sarah and they were married on May 15, 2005, in Florida in a ceremony overlooking the Gulf of Mexico.

In August 2005, Justin was reassigned as an explosive ordnance disposal technician with the 9th Engineer Support Battalion, 3rd Marine Logistics Group, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan.

A memorial service was held on July 17, 2006 at Cowboy Junction Church in Vinita, OK. As the hearse carrying his body made its way to the church, it passed more than 500 American Legion members lined along the road, each holding an American flag. Justin's death apparently touched the Craig County community to its core. Hundreds of residents, some saluting, some with their hands over their hearts, and all waving flags of every size, poured out of homes, offices, department stores and convenience stores to line the funeral route, which flowed through downtown Vinita. As the funeral procession traveled through neighborhoods, young boys with flags on their bicycles stopped out of respect. Full military honors were rendered for the burial at Fairview Cemetery in Vinita, OK.

Justin is survived by his wife Sarah; his mother Stacey Noyes; father and stepmother Mark and Karen Noyes; brothers Jeremy Norsworthy and Chris Barnes; and sisters Hannah and Rachel Noyes.

Today we remember Marine Sgt Justin L. Noyes, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Lance Corporal Trevor A. Roberts

Madam President, it is my honor also to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Marine Corps LCpl Trevor A. Roberts, of Oklahoma City, OK, who died on March 24, 2007, of injuries sustained after an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle while serving his Nation in Anbar province, Iraq.

Trevor was born October 6, 1985 in Moore, OK. He joined the Marine Forces Reserve's 2nd Battalion, 14th Marine Regiment, 4th Marine Division, Oklahoma City in his senior year before graduating from Westmoore High School in 2004. After graduation he attended 1 year at Oklahoma City Community College before being one of 30 people from his unit who volunteered to go to Iraq as an artillery specialist.

Nearly 1,000 people attended a memorial service at Eagle Heights Church with burial in Heritage Burial Park in Oklahoma City, OK.

At the memorial service, the Rev. Rob Olmstead recalled Trevor going on numerous mission trips, including one to Bangkok to work with orphaned children the summer before he attended boot camp. Trevor felt ``God is calling me to go work for these children in the foreign mission field,'' said his father, Chuck. While in Iraq, seeing the plight of the people solidified in his mind that he wanted to be a missionary, Roberts' parents said. ``He saw some stuff he did not want to have to see,'' Chuck Roberts said. ``It hurt him. He could look at the Iraqi people and see their hurt and their pain, and he could also see their joy. He could look in their eyes and just see.''

Trevor was preceded in death by his grandfather Carl Roberts. He is survived by his parents Chuck and Twyla Roberts; brother Nathan Roberts; maternal grandmother Helen JoAn Hey and her husband Lester; grandfather Willis Ferguson; paternal grandmother Rita Roberts; uncles Andy Ferguson and his wife Angie, Barry Ferguson and his wife Amy, and Mike Roberts and his wife Sandra; aunts Susan Hall, Linda Roberts, and Patty Bratton and her husband Mark; and numerous extended family, friends, and his beloved Corp.

Joey Ware, who knew Trevor more than 10 years, said his friend always looked out for those around him. ``Trevor would do anything for anybody no matter what it cost him,'' Ware recalled.

Shortly before his death he wrote on his web page about his faith and the dangers he faced: ``Sometimes I'm awakened at night, and I can not go back to sleep for hours because something is heavy on my heart. For some reason, this is one such thing. How fast life can change on us. Over here, it might be a firefight or a roadside bomb that makes a normal drive a stir of chaos. Things most definitely don't always work out the way we dream and hope, but we have to keep going, for you never know what tomorrow might bring.''

Today we remember Marine Corps LCpl Trevor A. Roberts, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Specialist Joshua D. Sheppard

Madam President, it is my honor also to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Army SPC Joshua D. Sheppard, of Quinton, OK, who died on December 22, 2006 of wounds sustained when his patrol came in contact with enemy forces using small arms fire while serving his Nation in Baghdad, Iraq.

Born July 10, 1984 and a 2003 graduate of Quinton High School, Josh enlisted in the Army in July 2003 at the age of 19. After completing basic combat training at Fort Benning, GA, and advanced individual training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, he was assigned to the 642nd Engineer Support Company, 7th Engineer Battalion, 10th Mountain Division, Light Infantry, Fort Drum, NY, in December 2003. He deployed to Iraq in September 2006.

An avid outdoorsman, Josh enjoyed fishing and working with wood. He was hoping to use his GI bill for an education and to learn skills that would allow him to come back to his community and work as a contractor with heavy equipment, his mother said. He wanted to become a contractor and open a saw mill. ``It was his love. He loved the outside,'' said his mother, Julie Young. ``If he got too claustrophobic sitting inside, he would go down to the woodshop.''

Funeral services and burial were conducted at Lona Valley Cemetery in Kinta, OK.

``He would have done great things,'' said his brother Reuben, an Army private. ``When we were in school, he was my best friend, and he was my best friend when he was in the service.''

He is survived by his mother Julie Young; stepfather Marty Young; and four brothers.

Today we remember Army SPC Joshua D. Sheppard, a remarkable young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Corporal Jared M. Shoemaker

Madam President, it is my honor also to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Marine Corps Cpl Jared M. Shoemaker, of Tulsa, OK, who died on September 4, 2006, of injuries sustained after an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle while serving his Nation in Al Anbar Province, Fallujah, Iraq.

The second son of Ken and Linda Shoemaker, Jared was born April 22, 1977. He graduated from Edison High School in 1995, a 3-year letterman in football, with area coaches naming him to the Oklahoma All-State team. He continued his football career, earned a degree in psychology and a minor in criminal justice and met his future wife Kari at Northeastern State University.

In January 2003, Jared joined the Marine Corps Reserve. After graduating from basic training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego, CA, he reported to the Infantry Training Battalion at Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, CA, where he graduated as a machine gunner. He was then assigned to Company I, 3rd Battalion, 23rd Marine Regiment and later reassigned to the 1st Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, 4th Marine Division, Marine Forces Reserve, Broken Arrow, OK.

In January 2005 he was hired by the Tulsa Police Department. In June of that year he graduated from the police academy and served as a patrol officer until he was mobilized to active duty status in December 2005. His friends recalled that he excelled as a police officer in every capacity, graduating at the top of his class academically. He also excelled in military service, earning the Albert Schwab Award for Marine of the Year in 2005.

A memorial service was held on September 15, 2006 at First United Methodist Church in Tulsa, OK. Full military honors were rendered for the burial at Floral Haven Cemetery in Broken Arrow, OK.

Jared is survived by his wife Kari; his parents Ken and Linda Shoemaker; brother Steve Shoemaker; brother and sister-in-law Ben and Kristen Shoemaker and their daughter Ellie; grandparents Forrest and Gloria Shoemaker;

Betty Ellsworth; Howard and Christa Ellsworth; uncle Stephen F. Shoemaker and family; mother-in-law Darla Harrison; and numerous aunts, uncles, and cousins.

Today we remember Marine Corps Cpl Jared M. Shoemaker, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Corporal Derek A. Stanley

Madam President, it is my honor also to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Army CPL Derek A. Stanley, of Tulsa, OK, who died on June 5, 2006, of noncombat injuries while serving his Nation at Forward Operating Base Salerno in Khowst province, Afghanistan.

Derek was born November 25, 1985, in Claremore, OK. After attending a Tulsa high school, he enrolled in Thunderbird Youth Academy in Pryor, OK, and graduated in December 2003 in the top quarter of his class with his general education development degree.

After enlisting in the Army in March 2004, he received training at Fort Leonardwood, MO. Upon completing basic training, he remained at Fort Leonardwood for 19 additional weeks of Chemical Brigade training before being assigned to the 710th Brigade Support Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Light Infantry, Fort Drum, NY. His unit deployed to Afghanistan on March 15, 2006.

About 100 friends and relatives filled Millsap Funeral Service Chapel in Fort Gibson, OK, on June 15, 2006, to remember Derek. Burial services were conducted at Fort Gibson National Cemetery where BG James E. Chambers presented a flag to Derek's mother.

Derek is survived by his mother Darlyn Smith; father Faron Stanley; brother Aaron Stanley; grandparents Winnie Young, R.C. Smith, and Leona Weesner; great-grandfather Otto Smith; and numerous aunts, uncles, cousins and friends.

Today we remember Army CPL Derek A. Stanley, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Staff Sergeant Clint J. Storey

Madam President, it is my honor also to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Army SSG Clint J. Storey, of Enid, OK, who died on August 4, 2006, of injuries sustained after an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle while serving his Nation in Ramadi, Iraq.

Born February 27, 1976, Clint's life crumbled around him in 1993, quitting school as he struggled to come to terms with the death of his father. However, he found his purpose a few years later when he earned his general education development degree and enlisted in the Army in February 1998.

After completing training at Ft Knox, KY, Clint reported to HHC 1/5 Infantry Battalion at Ft Hood, TX, where he served as a scout platoon driver and gunner and deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina. In September 2000, he reported to HHC 2-34 Armor Battalion in Ft Riley, KS, as a Squad Leader and Section Sergeant before volunteering to serve as a recruiter in Los Angeles, CA, from September 2002 to 2005.

In September 2005, Clint was assigned to 1st Calvary Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Friedberg, Germany, where he served as the Headquarters Platoon Sergeant and later as the senior scout in 2nd Platoon. From there he deployed to Biaj and later to Ar Ramadi, Iraq in January 2006.

Dozens of flags lined the streets as funeral services were held at Central Christian Church in Enid, OK, on August 16, 2006. About 100 people held flags as family and friends gathered around Storey's casket at Enid Cemetery, where he was buried with full military honors. While home on leave from Iraq, Clint and his wife Melissa became pregnant with the couple's second child. Melissa was presented with the folded flag that had laid atop her husband's casket. Military officials then presented another folded flag to his mother.

On August 27, 2006, close to 200 mourners gathered in the garden outside St. Thomas the Apostle Church in Palmer, MA, as a second memorial service was held in his wife's hometown. The Vietnam Veterans of America Western MA Chapter 111 organized military honors at the service, which included an honor guard, a 21-gun salute, a recording of ``Taps'' and a carefully folded American flag offered to Adela the couple's 4-year-old daughter.

Clint is survived by his wife Melissa; daughter Adela; mother Carolyn Inherst; stepfather Bill Inherst; sisters Charlene Phillips, Tammy Divine and Tonja Whitehead; and numerous other family members and friends.

Today we remember Army SSG Clint J. Storey, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Sergeant Clint E. Williams

Madam President, it is my honor also to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Army SGT Clint E. Williams, of Kingston, OK, who died on September 14, 2006, of injuries sustained after an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle while serving his Nation in Baghdad, Iraq.

Born August 6, 1982, in Durant, OK, Clint graduated from Kingston High School in 2001 where he was the senior class president and a member of the baseball team.

He joined the Army in April 2003 and was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He previously deployed to Iraq from October 2003 through November 2004 and returned in November 2005.

In June 2006, he was seriously wounded after a bomb exploded near him outside of Hawr Rajab south of Baghdad. Although the explosion killed a fellow soldier, Clint kept firing on enemy positions, held his ground and ran more than 300 meters to get additional fire support despite receiving wounds to his legs and hand. A fearless man, his favorite quote was ``All one really needs in life is a few good pals and together they can take on anything in life.'' Even after being injured in that battle, he volunteered for dangerous duty on raids rather than sit and wait for battle.

A memorial service was held on September 23, 2006 at Jerald Barton Memorial Gymnasium in Kingston, OK.

At the memorial service, his friend B.J. Bush recalled Clint as ``a good ol' boy with a knife in his front pocket and a can of snuff in the back. He was happiest with his gun and bow sighted in and his pole rigged with hook and line.'' He was laid to rest in Willis Cemetery, overlooking his beloved Lake Texoma.

Clint is survived by his father Lavoyed Williams; mother Marci Sprouse; three brothers Duron Williams, Dalton Williams and Daniel Williams; sister Jessica Williams; grandmothers Jean Williams and Nancy Sprouse; grandfather Jack Sprouse; and two nephews Jarren Williams and Devin Williams.

Today we remember Army SGT Clint E. Williams, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

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

Madam President, I was not scheduled to speak at this time, but there is something going on today that is pretty exciting and I wish to share with everyone.

There is a new group that has been formed that is called the IDC, In Defense of Christians. I just came from addressing this group's summit, and it is pretty amazing. There are over 1,000 people in the Visitor Center's big auditorium. It is the largest crowd that has ever been down there, and it has been quickly formed because of the persecution that has taken place throughout the world and primarily in the ISIS area.

Unfortunately I don't have charts that are big enough to project this issue well, but at least the President is there and can see them. This is the area where ISIS is working. They are not just in Syria and Iraq. They are in Jordan and other areas. It is a very large area. They are not confined to any particular area.

One of the problems that is being addressed--we know about what they are doing. We know they are probably the strongest force and greatest threat against the United States we have ever faced.

I was very proud of the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Hagel. He was very outspoken when he talked about the threat we are facing. He characterized it as a great threat.

Why is it a great threat? It is a great threat because they have already declared war on America, and that is why I stood here yesterday to get support in the Senate for authority to use military force--that is AUMF--and we are going to make every effort to get that done.

Tonight the President is going to speak about this issue. Hopefully he will come out stronger than he has in the past and say something meaningful about how he, as the President of the United States, is going to win this war. I am not expecting it, but I am hoping for it. There is no doubt that once we pass this resolution, he will have the authority to do it. This group is concerned with that matter, but the reason they are together is because they are concerned with the Christian and religious persecution that is going on.

I have a lot of background in this area. Way back--before a lot of you guys were born--in 1979, I was mayor of the city of Tulsa, OK, and I remember a man named Boris Penson. Boris Penson was sent to a Siberian gulag prison for 9 years. He was there because of the fact that he would not relinquish his Jewish faith. He was persecuted because of his faith, and we were able to get him out. That was a long time ago.

I had another experience in 1988 in Damascus. There was Christian persecution going on at that time. We were able to get them to change the geography a little bit so the people there could openly pray to their lord and savior Jesus Christ. That was unheard of in Syria. It was not like it is today. Today they are killing them. Back then they were putting them in prison.

I think it is important for people to understand that ISIS is the most well-organized, well-funded terrorist group in history. More than 1 million people have fled their homes in Iraq after being given the ultimatum by ISIS to convert to Islam or be put to death. Since they invaded Iraq, hundreds and thousands of men and women have been enslaved and have been beheaded as a result of the ultimatum to Christians. I will read it to my colleagues because I don't want to be misquoted. They issued the ultimatum to Christians living in the region I just showed: ``Convert to Islam or face death by the sword.'' That is what is going on today.

As I told this group a few minutes ago, now and then we have a happy ending. I have been active--and a lot of people know this--in Africa now for 20 years. I have actually made 135 African country visits. I have seen all kinds of things take place in terms of religious intolerance, persecution. But I remember very well being in the new country called South Sudan. South Sudan is to the south of Sudan. Sudan is up there near Khartoum. We are all familiar with that and the problems taking place there, and we know how intolerant they are there.

It happened there was a lady there named Mariam Ibrahim. I am going to show my colleagues a picture. We have never seen a prettier lady in her life. That is in her wedding dress. She is beautiful. She is Sudanese. She had been a Muslim. However, she renounced that and she now is a Christian. So they went to this beautiful young lady who had one baby and she was 8 months pregnant with her next baby, and they said, We are going to put you on trial. You have to renounce Christianity. She said, I can't do it. They said, Well, you have to do it. So she was found guilty of not renouncing her Christianity. She was sentenced to 100 lashes, which would kill her, and then they would hang her up by her neck for public display as an example of what happens.

Several of us were involved in this. We had a lot of cooperation from some of the surrounding African countries, including Uganda, President Museveni came through; President Kagame from Rwanda; President Kabila from Congo, and our State Department and others, and we were able to get them to have an appeal. As of today, she is now out of prison. She is back. She has two children, and she and her husband and children are living in the United States.

If it hadn't been for seeing what Mariam Ibrahim was facing and knowing that was going on and seeing the beautiful picture of her and a few of us finding out about it, she would be right now still hanging up for display.

This is what is happening. A lot of people out there are saying, Well, ISIS is a very serious thing, but this isn't our problem. Yes, it is. I can remember 3 months ago I made the statement that ISIS is a threat to our homeland and people didn't believe that was the case. There is a poll that came out yesterday that I thought I had with me and I don't. But the ABC poll shows that 71 percent of the American people believe ISIS is a direct threat to the homeland of the United States of America. That is 71 percent of the people. They also believe--the same 71 percent of the people--that our President does not have the strategy to win this war. So tonight we are hoping to hear something that is out of character for him. We are hoping it will be something strong that will allow us to win the war.

Let me wind up by welcoming those over 1,000 people who are downstairs right now in the Visitor Center who are from the Defense of Christians Summit that is taking place as we speak. We have a lot of people out there. They are doing the Lord's work and they will be richly blessed for it.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is my honor to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Army SPC Derek A. Calhoun, of Oklahoma City, OK who died on June 23, 2007, of wounds suffered when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device while serving his Nation in Taji, Iraq.

Derek was born on September 8, 1983 in Oklahoma City, OK and attended Moore High School. After completing high school, he enrolled at Wright Business School where he received his associate degree. In 2005, he enlisted and was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX.

Derek had been in Iraq for 8 months and was on his first tour of duty when he was killed. He was injured several months earlier when a car bomb exploded outside a building he was in. He had shrapnel in his wrist, abdomen and shoulder and spent the several months in the hospital having two surgeries. Because of his injuries, Derek was unable to use his right hand and was going through physical therapy to get his hands back to normal.

A funeral service was held on July 3, 2007 at South Lindsey Baptist Church in Oklahoma City, OK with internment in Moore City Cemetery with full military honors.

Derek is survived by his parents Alan and Lou Calhoun of Oklahoma City; one sister Lanesha Morris of Oklahoma City; grandparents Jean and JoAnn Calhoun of Choctaw, OK; three nieces Sierra, Cheyenne and Autumn Morris; and one nephew Takoda Morris. Derek is preceded in death by his grandparents Brooks and Eula Choate.

Today we remember Army SPC Derek A. Calhoun, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Specialist Ryan S. Dallam

Mr. President, it is my privilege also to honor the life and sacrifice of Army SPC Ryan S. Dallam, of Norman, OK who died with two other servicemembers on April 6, 2007, of wounds suffered from a roadside bomb while serving his Nation in Baghdad, Iraq.

Ryan was born September 22, 1982 in Norman and lived in Midwest City, OK for a time after his parents divorced. When his mother Laura went to teach on an American Indian reservation in AZ, he accompanied her and graduated from Show Low High School in 2002. He later attended Oklahoma City Community College.

His father Scott Dallam retired in 2003 after 23 years in the Army. A third generation soldier, Ryan joined the military during the early spring of 2005 and reported to Fort Leonard Wood, MO for basic training. As a member of the Headquarters Company, 1st/18th Infantry, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division Schweinfurt, Germany, Ryan deployed to Iraq in September 2007 and he was scheduled to come home on leave the next week. His family was enjoying making plans to spend time with him when the chaplain arrived at their home with the unwelcome news.

A memorial service was held at First Christian Church in Norman on April 12, 2007 with interment at Fort Sill National Cemetery in Fort Sill, OK.

``He really liked what he was doing,'' Scott Dallam said. ``That makes us feel pretty good. He really enjoyed it and the camaraderie of being in the military and being around other soldiers.''

Ryan is survived by his mother Laura Dallam; father Scott Dallam; stepmother Leslie Dallam; and a younger brother and sister.

Today we remember Army SPC Ryan S. Dallam, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Corporal Jaron D. Holliday

Mr. President, it is my privilege also to honor the life and sacrifice of Army CPL Jaron D. Holliday, of Tulsa, OK who died with two other servicemembers on August 4, 2007, of wounds suffered from a roadside bomb while serving his Nation in Hawr Rajab, Iraq.

Jaron always wanted to be in the Armed Forces and began researching which branch he wanted to go into when he was 11, his mother, Kelly Holliday, said. ``That was always his desire--to go into the military and serve,'' his mother said. ``When 9/11 happened, he was 15, and he said, `If I were old enough to serve, I would.' ''

The oldest of eight siblings--seven boys and one girl--Jaron was home-

schooled and graduated through the Christian Home Education Fellowship of Oklahoma in 2004. He joined the Army in 2005 when he was 19 and was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 40th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, Fort Richardson, AK.

Funeral services were held August 16, 2010 at Tulsa Bible Church with interment at Memorial Park Cemetery, Tulsa, OK.

Jaron is survived by his parents John and Kelley Holliday and seven siblings.

``He was a people-watcher,'' his mother said. ``He loved people. He was the kind of person who, if he saw someone sitting by themselves looking depressed or upset, he made it his mission to make them smile before he left, and usually accomplished that goal.''

``We didn't want to waste time going to an amusement park or sitting in a movie theater because you can't look at each other and talk to each other in those places. We decided to make memories by just being together,'' said his mother.

Today we remember Army CPL Jaron D. Holliday, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Specialist Thomas R. Leemhuis

Mr. President, I also wish to remember Army SPC Thomas R. Leemhuis who died along with four other servicemembers on June 21, 2007 of wounds sustained when their vehicle struck an improvised explosive device in Baghdad, Iraq.

Tom was born in Lawton, OK on August 2, 1983 and attended Binger-Oney High School in Caddo County, OK before moving to nearby Anadarko after he graduated in 2002.

In 2005 he was inspired to join the Army after the death of his uncle Melvin Jody Stevens, a Vietnam veteran. Upon completing basic training he was assigned to 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Schweinfurt, Germany.

About 500 friends, relatives and fellow soldiers attended a memorial service at Binger-Oney High School Auditorium with internment at Williams Family Cemetery in Binger. At the service, Tom was remembered as a fun-loving young man who enjoyed cracking jokes and playing video games. ``His No. 1 football team was the Nebraska Cornhuskers, and he loved to wear his Nebraska hat around the University of Oklahoma,'' said his mother. ``He loved to push it to the limit.''

Tom had first thought of becoming a teacher and basketball coach when he got out of the military, but then decided to become a police officer because he hated drugs. He had decided to return to Binger after he completed his commitment with the Army because he wanted to make a difference there. He was extremely proud of the military and being a Native American.

Tom is survived by his mother Patty Leemhuis; father Paul Whitehorn of Birmingham, AL; a brother Paul Whitehorn Jr. of Binger, OK; and three sisters, Stephanie Leemhuis of Dublin, CA; Renee Whitehorn of Anadarko, OK; and Dream Cox of Birmingham, AL.

Today we remember Army SPC Thomas R. Leemhuis, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.

Staff Sergeant William D. Scates

Mr. President, I would also like to honor the life and sacrifice of Army SSG William D. Scates, of Oklahoma City, OK who died with three other servicemembers on August 11, 2007, of wounds suffered from a roadside bomb while serving his Nation in Arab Jabour, Iraq.

Born March 8, 1976 in Oklahoma City, Dan was a graduate of Western Heights High School and had a lifelong passion to join the military. ``When he was a little boy, he was always drawing pictures of soldiers. That's all he ever wanted to be,'' said his mother. He had been in the Oklahoma Army National Guard before joining the Active Duty Army where he was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, GA.

A memorial service was held September 1, 2007 in Oklahoma City with interment in Fort Bliss National Cemetery in El Paso, TX. His mother Moreana Whitson said her son wanted to be buried there because it was in El Paso where he met his wife Raquel, while in training.

Dan is survived by his wife Raquel; daughters Jade 9, and 7-month-old Kendra; his mother Moreana Whitson; his stepfather Randy Whitson; and two sisters Courtney Champagne of Idaho and Shannon Scates of Oklahoma City. He was preceded in death by his father William Leon Scates, who died when Dan was a child.

At the memorial service, the Rev. Michael Jackson noted that Dan ``as a child protected kids in the neighborhood from the bullies'' and said he was doing the same thing in Iraq.

The minister read a poem that Dan's mother had written some time ago about her son, who was serving his third tour of duty in Iraq.

``A long time ago, when you were just a little bitty fellar,'' she wrote, ``little did I know the hero in you. We are not here today to mourn,'' Jackson said. ``We are here to celebrate a hero who is going home to receive his greatest award . . . his greatest honor.''

``I believe he was a hero before he was born,'' Jackson said. ``Then he lived up to that calling, not just as an adult, but through his whole life.''

I extend our deepest gratitude and condolences to Dan's family. He lived a life of love for his family, friends, and our country. He will be remembered for his commitment to and belief in the greatness of our Nation. I am honored to pay tribute to this true American hero who volunteered to go into the fight and made the ultimate sacrifice of his life for our freedom.

Private First Class Jerimiah J. Veitch

Mr. President, it is my privilege also to honor the life and sacrifice of Army PFC Jerimiah J. Veitch, of Dibble, OK who died with four other servicemembers on June 21, 2007, of wounds suffered when his vehicle was struck by a rocket propelled grenade while serving his Nation in Baghdad, Iraq. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO.

Born in Moore, OK, Jerimiah moved to San Jose, CA and then back to Dibble, OK with his mother Valorie Sanchez and stepfather Tony Sanchez before high school. According to his sister Amanda Testerman, he gave his all at Dibble High School where he graduated in 2005 so that he could play football and use the weight room.

A memorial service was held at Union Hill Baptist Church with interment in Dibble Cemetery in Dibble, OK.

At the funeral, LTC Steven Michael said that Jerimiah was only 5 foot 4 inches, but was ``strong as an ox, tenacious.'' One year he took second place in a State weightlifting competition, lifting more than 1,000 pounds in three lifts in the 132-pound weight class. More than 400 pounds of the total he lifted with a single deadlift.

After returning home from the Army he planned to go to Dibble, buy some land and build a house. He wanted to go to work for his stepfather in the roofing business. ``He is more of a son than anyone could ask for,'' his father said. ``He was my partner. He was the heart of our family.''

Jerimiah is survived by his mother Valorie Sanchez; stepfather Tony Sanchez; his sister Amanda Testerman; and two brothers Caleb and Jacob Veitch.

I extend our deepest gratitude and condolences to Jerimiah's family. He lived a life of love for his family, friends, and our country. He will be remembered for his commitment to and belief in the greatness of our Nation. I am honored to pay tribute to this true American hero who volunteered to go into the fight and made the ultimate sacrifice of his life for our freedom.

Sergeant Ryan M. Wood

Mr. President, it is my privilege also to honor the life and sacrifice of Army SGT Ryan M. Wood, of Oklahoma City, OK who died with two other servicemembers on June 21, 2007, of wounds suffered from a roadside bomb while serving his Nation in Baghdad, Iraq.

Born June 11, 1984 in Oklahoma City, OK, Ryan graduated from Putnam City North High School in 2002 and signed up for the Army after the September 11 terrorist attacks. ``The war gave Ryan a mission,'' said his sister, Candice Bunce. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Schweinfurt, Germany. ``He accomplished his mission and left this world with dignity and honor.''

Ryan was an accomplished artist who had received an acceptance letter from the University of Central Oklahoma to study art and political science. On his second tour to Iraq, he had the names of two other soldiers who died in combat tattooed on his chest.

His stepfather Scott Vincent said he hoped Wood's death will remind others that American soldiers are dying for their country in Iraq. ``The majority of them are proud to be there,'' he said. ``They don't want to be forgotten. They want to have the tools to do their job.''

Funeral services were held at the Church of the Servant in northwest Oklahoma City, OK.

Speaking at the funeral, Ryan's uncle Army Maj. John Litchfield said his nephew had a noble spirit that his men could sense. He spent 607 days in combat, his uncle said. ``Even as a teenager, that noble spirit would not allow you to sit by and accept the injustices of the world,'' he said.

``Ryan felt Iraq was a job we had to finish. It wasn't something we could walk away from,'' Scott Vincent said. ``He was dedicated to being there, and he was extremely well-loved by all his men.''

Ryan is survived by his mother Renee Wood-Vincent; father Bonner Wood; stepfather Scott Vincent; sister Candice Bunce; and numerous other relatives and friends.

Today we remember Army SGT Ryan M. Wood, a young man who loved his family and country, and gave his life as a sacrifice for freedom.