Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I think everyone is aware that we have a lot of differences on both sides of the aisle. Quite frankly, I just had a meeting with some of the House people. There are some problems right now. I am anxious for Chairman Levin to come back, perhaps after our conferences, and I will do the same thing, and hopefully we will be able to do it. I understand there has already been a statement made about the Ayotte amendment on Guantanamo. She is ready to debate, and I think Senator Levin has a side-by-side amendment he is ready to debate as well. So that, in my opinion, is about as far as we have come as far as progress. I will withhold any other comments I will make until the chair has made his comments, which will probably be after lunch.

By the way, I ask our Members to continue to file all amendments they have in anticipation that we will, as we have in the past, ultimately come to that conclusion, that we will have amendments.

Madam President, first of all, let me say I appreciate all the help the chairman has given us during the course of this very difficult time. I also suggest we have gone through this same thing other years in the past.

One of the things is there are so many people demanding or wanting to have a system where we could have more amendments. I encourage anyone who has amendments to go ahead and send them to the floor. It doesn't do any good to talk about them unless you have them down here and in front of us. Then I hope the chairman and I could get together and we could have, actually, more amendments. Those people who want to be heard on this, we have adopted this timing, so we encourage you to come down and be heard.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I have been listening to the discussion. I agree wholeheartedly with everything that has been said. The amendment we are going to be voting on is part of three different amendments. I had one of them, as do my two colleagues. One thing that hasn't been said is the part I put in where I constructed a provision to prohibit transferring of detainees for emergency medical treatment, which is just another way of getting them there.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 more minutes.

The other thing is, when you transfer someone here for incarceration purposes, is it not true these are not criminals, these are terrorists, and what terrorists do for a living is train other people to be terrorists? To commingle them in our prison system is something that would be of great danger to this country. That is something my colleagues would agree is one of the major reasons we want to keep them from the United States.

Parliamentary inquiry: The Chair has said the time on our side has expired. Of course, I know----

I know the chairman wants to use some time here too.

I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his remarks, if all time has not been consumed, I be given a few minutes.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that at 4:00 there might be a unanimous consent which will lead us to a vote at 5:00. Is that correct?

Mr. President, it seems we are going to have an opportunity a little later on to discuss this tonight. In the capacity of the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, I have to say that I can't imagine having a chairman with whom I cooperate and agree with on almost every issue like Chairman Levin. I really appreciate the work we have done together. We both recognize this is the most important piece of legislation each year, and we both recognize that, for 51 consecutive years, we have had this legislation. Nothing has come up to obstruct it. We also realize Republicans would prefer to have more opportunities to have amendments, and Chairman Levin has been very helpful in helping us to get that.

The area on which I don't agree is in the area of Gitmo and how it should be used. Every time I go to Gitmo, I shake my head and I say: Why in the world would we not use this resource? We don't have another resource like it. We heard the Senator from Georgia make the statement that he asked the chairman: If we don't have Gitmo to send these people, where are we going to send them? I believe it was Secretary of Defense Panetta who said: We don't know. There is not another place. We have used it successfully since 1904.

I often have said, and said yesterday, that we don't have many good deals in government. This is one that is. Since 1904, our rent on that territory has been $4,000 a year. I don't think anyone can come up with a better deal, and besides Castro doesn't collect it about half the time.

It is argued that we can use it for interrogation. The information we received which led to Osama bin Laden's demise was received from interrogation which took place at Gitmo.

When we talk about the treatment of people, the one thing that I discover every time I go down there is one of the chief problems they have in Gitmo is obesity because they are eating better than they have ever eaten at any other time in their lives. A primary care provider is there for every 450 detainees. They have never had that kind of treatment at any other time in their lives. The detainees receive age- appropriate colon cancer screening, TB screening, annual dental procedures, physical therapy, and all these things.

The idea that we would not be able to bring them to the United States for some more serious personal care I can't buy because we have the U.S. Naval Hospital at Guantanamo Bay. I have been there. They have approximately 250 personnel there who support the base's population of over 6,000.

When I look at this and I think of the options they have and this obsession the President seems to have to bring these terrorists into the United States, I have to share this one story. I know there is going to be a request here in just a moment. I can remember back 4\1/2\ years ago when this President first came in office--I am going from memory now--he had 17 places in the United States where he could put these terrorists. One happened to be in my State of Oklahoma, Fort Sill. He went down to look at the facility. The major who was in charge of it told me she had several tours of duty at Guantanamo. She said: Go back and tell those people in Washington we do not need to be spreading these terrorists throughout the continental United States when we have that great facility. She said she had been there twice and it is state- of-the-art.

I have a great fear, and that is that once we get a different administration here that realizes the value of Guantanamo Bay, it will be too late to go back and get it again. That is the reason we have been holding on to it with white knuckles.

The amendment we are going to be voting on in another hour or so, whenever it is set in, is going to be an amendment that will allow us to continue to use what I consider to be one of the most valuable assets we have in the system.

I yield the floor.

On behalf of Senator Ayotte, myself, and others, I call up amendment No. 2255 and ask the clerk to report by number.

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

Mr. President, during this pause, if someone comes down to talk about the two amendments that will be voted on at 5 o'clock, I will be happy to defer to them. But I think it is important that we understand we are finally making some headway in getting into this Defense authorization bill. It seems as if every year for 51 years now we have been able to get it through. While other bills become controversial, get to a point where they cannot go any further, that does not happen with the Defense authorization bill. It is one that has to take place.

As the Republican ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, let me say, as I have said before, I thank my friend and colleague the chairman Carl Levin for his leadership in marking up this bill. It has always been difficult. In most cases we agree with each other. We happen to be looking at an amendment now where we disagree. But I always consider the NDAA bill as the most important piece of legislation in Congress every year. It contains authorizations that support our men and women serving in harm's way, all the way in Afghanistan and around the world. It supports the training of our servicemembers and maintenance and modernization of their equipment. It authorizes research and development; that is, R&D efforts that will ensure that we maintain technological superiority over our enemies and can defeat the threats of tomorrow. Most important, it provides for the pay and benefits for the brave men and women who have made their sacrifices and are putting their lives at risk for our benefit. However, it is important to note this year--and this has not happened before, in my memory--the bill provides all of these vitally important efforts only as the reduced spending levels would allow.

In an era increasingly defined by bipartisan gridlock, the NDAA is one of the rare occasions where Members of both parties can come together. This enduring commitment was exemplified again this year by the overwhelming bipartisan support we had for the bill that came out of our committee--bipartisan support. We want, of course, to have that same bipartisan support here on the floor. Hopefully we will be able to get this done by the end of this week.

Consideration of this year's NDAA comes at a time in our national security when we face more volatile and dangerous times than we ever have in the history of this country. Chaos and violence are on the rise in the Middle East and north Africa. Al Qaeda is growing and establishing new safe havens from which to plan and launch attacks against the United States. We have rogue nations, such as Iran and North Korea. It is not the way it was in the old days--I have often said the good old days--of the Cold War where we had an enemy and that enemy was predictable. We knew that enemy.

Remember, we used to have this thing called mutual assured destruction. That meant something then, but it doesn't mean anything now because our potential enemies out there want to be destroyed. They have a different mentality than they used to.

Iran and North Korea are developing their nuclear capability and delivery systems. Our intelligence has told us that Iran will have a weapon and a delivery system. All the way back in 2007 they said they would have it by 2015. That is a year and a half from right now. I tell the Chair that they are going to have that capability. The threats are much more serious to us now.

When I say this is the first time we have faced the crisis we are facing now, it is not just because the enemy is out there. I am talking about an enemy who will have the capability of sending a weapon over and delivering it to the United States, but at the same time over the last 5 years of this administration the military has already endured a

$487 billion cut. That is $487 billion out of the defense budget. That is before sequestration.

Now we have sequestration--an outcome once thought to be so egregious, I can remember that as recently as less than a year ago, we thought: We are not going to have this. After $487 billion being pulled out of the military, we cannot also have sequestration, which will be the $\1/2\ trillion that will come out in the next period of time. So we didn't think it would happen, but it did happen.

We are now into what, our seventh or eighth month of sequestration. In total, our military men and women stand to endure over a $1 trillion slash from their budget. These cuts are forcing a dramatic decline in military readiness and capabilities.

I talked to General Odierno yesterday. He is Chief of Staff of the Army. He recently said that his forces are at the--I am going to quote now--``lowest readiness levels I have seen within our Army since I've been serving for the last 37 years'' and that only two brigades are ready for combat. That is our U.S. Army. We have never had that confession made. It is a level of desperation where they are willing to come out and talk of it. We cannot sustain another $\1/2\ trillion in cuts.

Admiral Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, said that ``because of fiscal limitations and the situation we're in, we don't have another strike group trained and ready to respond on short notice in case of emergencies. We're tapped out.'' That is the CNO of the Navy.

Our top military leaders now warn of being unable to protect America's interests around the world. Keep in mind, Admiral Winnefeld is the No. 2 person in line. He is the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Admiral Winnefeld, who has been there nearly 40 years, stated earlier this year that ``there could be, for the first time in my career, instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and we will have to say we cannot.''

General Dempsey, the No. 1 guy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned that continued national security cuts will ``severely limit our ability to implement our defense strategy. It will put the nation at greater risk of coercion, and it will break faith with men and women in uniform.''

This is why I am so troubled by the disastrous path we are on. In the face of mounting threats to America, we are crippling the very people who are vital to our security--the men and women in uniform.

To be clear, our military was facing readiness shortfalls even before sequestration took effect. Nearly 12 years of sustained combat operations have really worn down our forces and their equipment. In order to meet the spending caps mandated by sequestration, the military services are being forced to starve the accounts necessary to repair and reset their forces.

Rather than rebuilding the ability of our military to defend the country, we are digging ourselves deeper into a hole. The longer we allow military readiness and capabilities to decline, the more money and time it will take to rebuild.

We already know this is the case based on what happened in fiscal year 2013. For example, General Welsh, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, said that because of the first round of sequestration cuts he was ``forced to ground 33 squadrons''--he's talking about fighter squadrons--``including 13 combat-coded squadrons and an additional seven squadrons were reduced to basic `takeoff and land' training. It will now cost a minimum of 10 percent more flying hours to fully retrain the grounded squadrons . . . '' What he is saying is that when it was mandated that he take down 33 squadrons--which happened around April--then in July, 3 months later, they said, you can start working the squadrons again--he is saying that it costs more to retrain and bring these people back up in these proficiencies than it saved during that 3-month period of time.

He specifically said that it will now cost a minimum of 10 percent more flying hours to fully retrain the grounded squadrons than it would have to simply keep them trained all along. We heard that from several other top people as well.

I talked to General Amos yesterday. He is with the Marine Corps. He said he has approximately $800 million in critical military construction funding that they will be unable to execute under sequestration--assuming they go through with sequestration. By the way, I have not given up on stopping the military sequestration that is damaging our ability to defend ourselves.

General Amos said that the military construction funding will be unable to execute under sequestration and will need to be deferred. Further, it will cost over $6.5 billion to buy back orders of the V- 22s, joint strike fighters, Hughes, and Cobras. Those are four platforms we would have to bring back at the additional cost of $6.5 billion that we otherwise would not have spent.

On Monday Admiral Greenert told me that under the current budget environment he will be forced to defer much-needed ship maintenance, costing a 15- to 20-percent increase in total costs.

In other words, the things they are doing now to meet these line-by- line mandates of reductions are not saving money but costing money. Under sequestration, we will lose one Virginia-class submarine, one littoral combat ship, one afloat forward staging base, development of an Ohio-class replacement submarine program. They will all be delayed, which again will result in an increased price.

So not only is sequestration gutting our military capabilities, it ends up costing American taxpayers more than it will save. We are falling victim to the misguided belief that as the wars of today wind down, we can afford to gut investments in our Nation's defenses. It is irresponsible and makes America less safe.

I remember going through the same thing back in the 1990s when the chant at that time was the cold war is over, so we no longer need that strong of a defense. We heard it from both sides, and now we are going through the same thing. History reminds us we cannot dictate when and where the next conflict is going to arise. Instead, if we allow the continued dismantling of our military, we will be less safe and less prepared to defend our country. If our military men and women are called upon, their ability to accomplish the mission will be undermined, and tragically, more will lose their lives unnecessarily.

We had the top military people in our Armed Services Committee, and I asked them about this issue. They talked about the loss of readiness-- risk equals lives. When you take on more risks, you lose more American lives.

General Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, testified that if he is tasked to respond to a contingency in the current budget environment:

We would have fewer forces, arriving less trained, arriving

later to the fight. This would delay the build-up of combat

power, allow the enemy more time to build up their defenses,

and likely prolong combat operations altogether. This is a

formula for more U.S. casualties.

Such an outcome would be immoral and a dereliction of duty. If we expect the men and women in our military to go in harm's way to protect America, we have an obligation to provide them with the training, technology, and capabilities that is required to decisively overwhelm any adversary at any time and return safely to home and their loved ones.

I can remember when they used to use a different term than they use today. Today they call it nature of military operations. It used to be defending America on how many fronts. Since World War II, there were always two fronts, and now we are down to where it would be hard to do it on one front, and that is why this bill is so important and why protecting the readiness of our military men and women remains my top priority. However, something has to be done to mitigate any devastating impact of readiness, so we must find long-term solutions. Every day that goes by without action will only increase the damage.

I do have an amendment that would phase sequester in a way that would allow our senior military leaders to enact reforms without disproportionately degrading our military so we can continue to train and prepare our military women and men.

My good friend the Senator from Alabama and I are joining forces. We have an amendment that is going to allow some degree of latitude and flexibility.

So while we are living under the same budget constraints we are under today, they can make some decisions where it is not just an online reduction. I have just finished talking about how much more that will end up costing us.

I see now we have someone else who has come to the floor to be heard. I want to repeat how much I appreciate the chairman of the committee Carl Levin for his cooperation with our side. He is trying to get this to become a reality and get this bill passed hopefully this week.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I do not object, but specifically we have a request by the prime author of this amendment to be under consideration at 5 o'clock to have 5 minutes. So I assume the thrust of the Senator's UC request is to give her 5 minutes, even if it happens to fall starting at 5 o'clock.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, will the Senator amend his request and add the following language: following the disposition of the McCaskill-Ayotte amendment, all pending amendments be withdrawn and the Republican manager or his designee be recognized to offer the next amendment in order, followed by an amendment offered by the majority side, and that the two sides continue offering amendments in alternating fashion until all amendments are disposed of.

I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend floor privileges to MAJ Richard Anderson, our Army fellow, for the remainder of this calendar year.

Mr. President, the majority leader should go ahead. My remarks will be longer.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 10 minutes might be extended by about 10 more minutes.

Mr. President, let me start off, before the leader leaves the floor--and I was hoping to do this before the Chaplain of the Senate, Dr. Barry Black, left. I had a horrible loss eight days ago, losing a son. It was so touching to me--and I thank Barry Black, who included a good bit of some things about my son and about me in his opening prayer. Also, the comments that were made, the very gentle comments, and very helpful, that were made by the majority leader. So, through the Chair, I wish to thank Harry Reid very much for the comments he made.

Mr. President, we have something coming up that we are going to be talking about this week, and I am a little disturbed because I don't know exactly when it is going to be coming up, and I don't know how many objections there are going to be. I just know there are some people who want to delay, since it is a must-pass bill, the National Defense Authorization Act. We have passed it every year for, I think, 51 years. We have never failed to pass it. This is not going to be the first year that we fail to pass it. But I am hoping our Members will recognize how significant this is.

First of all, as the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the committee, Senator Levin, for his leadership and for his cooperation, which we enjoyed during the committee markup of this bill. We got it through the committee in pretty fast order. People realized there are some things that had to be taken up on the floor--three very controversial issues. Fine. This is where it should be taken up. It will be taken up. There will be amendments I will strongly oppose and some I will support. But I have always considered the National Defense Authorization Act to be the most important piece of legislation Congress considers each year.

This bill contains crucial authorizations that support our men and women in harm's way in Afghanistan and around the world. It supports training of our servicemembers and maintenance and modernization of their equipment to ensure they are prepared to overwhelm any adversary and return home safely to their loved ones. But--and this is a big but--it does so only as the reduced defense spending will allow.

It authorizes research and development efforts that will ensure we maintain technological superiority over our enemies and can successfully defeat the threats of tomorrow. But, again, it does so only--this is different; this has never happened before--when we are facing a reduction in our military spending. It is so unacceptably low that it has caused our leaders in all core services, which I will read in just a moment, to talk about how this is life-threatening.

But, most importantly, one thing we will continue to do is provide for the pay and the benefits of the brave men and women who are in harm's way to defend this Nation. In an era increasingly defined by partisan gridlock, the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--is one of the rare occasions where Members of both parties can come together out of a shared commitment to our military men and women. This enduring commitment was exemplified this year again by the overwhelming bipartisan majority that supported the passage of the NDAA from the committee in June. I look forward to continuing this tradition and this cooperation until we get this bill passed.

Consideration of this year's NDAA comes at a pivotal moment for our national security. The global security environment we face is more volatile and dangerous than any other time in my memory or, I suggest, in the history of the country. Yet our ability to protect the country against these growing threats is at serious risk. After losing $487 billion--that just came out of the defense budget through the first 4\1/2\, 5 years of this administration--we now are looking at sequestration. Sequestration is an outcome thought to be so egregious and irresponsible that it would never be allowed to happen. None of us believed it would happen, that we would--after already losing $487 billion from our defense system--have to be facing sequestration.

I never can say ``sequestration'' without reminding people why it is only 18 percent of our budget goes to defending America. Yet they have been forced to endure 50 percent of the cuts. It is wrong. But, nonetheless, that is what has been happening over the last--it has been in effect for 8 months. Its drastic across-the-board cuts are exacerbating the effects of an already declining national security budget.

As a result, the military is experiencing a dramatic decline in readiness and capabilities. I have a chart in the Chamber.

General Odierno, the Chief of Staff of the Army, recently said that his forces are at the--I am quoting now--``lowest readiness levels I've seen within our Army since I've been serving for the last 37 years'' and that only two brigades are ready for combat--only two brigades. This is General Odierno.

The reason I wanted this chart put up is because it tells us where we are today. The part shown in orange, which is the huge cuts coming from sequestration, is far greater than the rest of it. That is readiness. That is what we are talking about.

We do hear a lot about the cost of personnel and all of that, but that is shown in the lower colored blue. So you are not talking about if you are able to do away with those actually coming up with any major reductions. The part shown in yellow is force structure. Now we are talking about, as General Odierno said, being down to only two brigades that are ready for combat. That is because of what has already been happening in the last 8 months in the force structure.

The modernization is shown in green on the chart. Modernization is always the first to be cut when force cuts come in because they figure that is something you don't feel the pain of today. But I want you to concentrate on the part shown in orange because that is where it really would hurt us.

So we had General Odierno saying his forces were at the lowest readiness levels he has seen in his 37 years in the U.S. Army. I was in the Army many years ago, and I can remember back then when it always had priority over everything. Defending America seemed to be the thing.

Admiral Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, said:

. . . because of fiscal limitations and the situation we're

in we don't have another strike group trained and ready to

respond on short notice in case of a contingency. We're

tapped out.

That is our Navy.

Our top military leaders now warn of being unable to protect American interests around the world. Admiral Winnefeld--he is the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the next-to-the-highest military person-- said earlier this year: ``There could be, for the first time in my career, instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and we will have to say we cannot.''

General Dempsey, the No. 1 military person, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned that continued national security cuts will--and I am again quoting--``severely limit our ability to implement our defense strategy. It will put the nation at greater risk of coercion, and it will break faith with the men and women in uniform.''

That is why I am so troubled by this disastrous path we are on. In the face of mounting threats to America, prolonged budgetary uncertainties and the mindless sequestration cuts are crippling the people who are vital to our security, our men and women in the military.

To be clear, our military was facing readiness shortfalls even before sequestration took effect. Sequestration has only been in effect for 8 months. We never dreamed it would, after all the cuts we have gotten out of it from, quite frankly, this administration.

So the equipment, the problems we have--rather than rebuilding the ability of our military to defend the country, we are digging ourselves deeper into a hole. The longer we allow military readiness and capabilities to decline, the more money and time it will take to rebuild.

We are falling victim to the misguided belief that as the wars of today wind down, we can afford to gut investments in our Nation's defense. This is an irresponsible and dangerous course. I remember back during the middle of the 1990s. They talked about a peace dividend at that time. I can remember them saying: Well, the Cold War is over. We no longer need that strong of a military. Now, in this day and age, it is so much more serious than it has been in the past.

Our top military leaders agree. In testimony before the Armed Services Committee last week, General Amos--he is the Commandant of the Marine Corps--testified that if he is asked to respond to a contingency in the current budget environment--I am quoting--``we will have fewer forces arriving less-trained, arriving later to the fight. This would delay the buildup

of combat power, allow the enemy more time to build its defenses, and would likely prolong combat operations altogether. This a formula for more American casualties.''

That is the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

Such an outcome would be immoral and a dereliction of duty. If we expect the men and women of our military to go into harm's way to protect America, we have an obligation to provide them with the training, technology, and capabilities required to decisively overwhelm any adversary at any time and return safely home to their loved ones. Under this sequestration, we cannot do it. That is what we are talking about right here when I say we are talking about our obligation to provide the training, technology, and capabilities. That is shown in all that orange on the chart. That means that is what we are not going to do.

This is why ending sequestration and protecting the readiness of our military men and women remains my top priority. However, something must be done now to mitigate the devastating impacts to readiness until we can find a long-term solution.

Again, I am just talking a little bit about the significance of having our Defense authorization bill come to the floor, get it started, start working on amendments. This is what is important. But in order to address the shortfalls we have, I have an amendment that would phase sequester in a way that would allow our senior military leaders to enact reforms without disproportionately degrading our ability to train and prepare our military men and women to protect this country.

Let me say quickly, one of my closest friends in this Chamber is one of the Senators from Alabama, Jeff Sessions. Jeff Sessions, as we speak, is on a plane on his way back from California, so he cannot be here. Jeff Sessions has come up with an amendment. He is on the Budget Committee. He is a real budget hawk, and he still is willing to increase the military by 1 percent with a proposed amendment he might have. When Jeff Sessions gets back, I am going to talk to him about going together on his amendment so we can maybe merge the two amendments.

My amendment seeks to leverage what General Odierno refers to as ``ramping,'' a rephasing of the sequestration cuts that reduces the impact in fiscal year 2014 and 2015 to a more manageable level and shifts the remainder of the required cuts across the remaining years. So we are talking about that you would not feel it as much in these first 2 years, and yet we would make up for it, and that is why it is budget neutral. The Congressional Budget Office has told me this amendment will not score. That is very important to a lot of people.

Let me be real clear: I remain committed to ending sequestration of our military men and women. My amendment does not fix sequestration nor will it impede my continued push for fixing sequestration. We are going to continue to do that. It is immoral that we are not doing it. However, the damage being done to our military is so egregious and reckless under the current sequester mechanism that I have no choice but to take this step to avoid an even greater readiness catastrophe that would seriously damage our national security.

I talked just a few minutes ago to General Odierno. He is the Commander, the top person in the U.S. Army. I made a couple of notes here. I want to make sure I do not misquote him because he said if we can do what we are trying to do with this amendment--in other words, backload some of this stuff--it would actually save money 3 or 4 years from now because if you start cutting right now across the board, as would be mandated by sequestering, then you are going to be cutting in areas where it is going to cost you more to come back and do that. So I think you will find most of the military is very anxious to do that.

Again, I am not going to offer this until we have a chance to talk to Senator Sessions and hopefully come up with something that will be sellable to this body.

In addition to my concerns about sequestration, this bill contains several provisions that I find deeply problematic. In particular, I strongly oppose the sections that would loosen restrictions on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay into the United States or to countries such as Yemen that remain vulnerable to Al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates.

I have to ad-lib here a little bit because I cannot remember how many years I have been trying to save one of the greatest assets this country has, and that is Guantanamo Bay. I say to my good friend, the Presiding Officer, this is one of the few good deals we have because we have had Guantanamo Bay since 1904, and it has cost us--I think the total is $4,000 a year--and Castro forgets to collect about every other year. So it is one of the few good deals we have out there.

It is the only place you can put these combatants where they are in a position where they can be interrogated and we can save American lives, and I do not know why this President, President Obama, has this obsession to turn these people out of Guantanamo Bay back into the United States. He first did this his first year--4 years ago. He had a plan. He had located, I think it was, 17 places in America where he could send these terrorists.

One of them happened to be in my State of Oklahoma at Fort Sill. I will always remember that. I went down to Fort Sill, I say to the Presiding Officer, because I found out we have a small prison down there. And the major, a female who runs that prison, said to me: I can't understand what is wrong with you people in Washington. You have that perfectly good facility down there that will save American lives, and people are treated better than they have ever been treated before. One of the major problems we have down there is obesity because they are eating so much. So it is not a matter of not being treated fairly.

Well, for some reason this President has had a--and one of the problems with turning these people back in to America into our system is that a terrorist is not a criminal. A terrorist teaches others. They are in the business of teaching other people to be terrorists. You put them in our prison system and they are going to be working on the people who are there. That is why I have such strong feelings about the closing of Guantanamo--or the President trying to do that. We have stopped him from doing that for 4\1/2\ years now. We will continue. However, they are trying to make it easier for them to take people out of Guantanamo Bay and send them to my State of Oklahoma and throughout America. Hopefully we can defeat that part of this bill.

While I am pleased the bill fully funds the budget request for missile defense and includes a provision that would establish a radar site on the east coast, I remain concerned that we are vulnerable to a growing ballistic missile threat from the Middle East.

Let me comment here. I was upset. The first budget that President Obama had, I knew--and again, when you say ``liberal'' and ``conservative'' that is not name calling. ``Liberal'' simply means you want government to have more involvement in our lives, and he is a liberal person. And most liberals do not think we need a military, to start with.

I always remember his first budget. I went over to Afghanistan so I could be there when he announced his budget, knowing if I was doing it from there with tanks going back and forth, I would get some attention on it. Sure enough, it worked.

In that first budget, the President, in his budget, did away with our only fifth-generation fighter, the F-22; did away with our lift capacity, the C-17; did away with our future combat system, which had been the first advance in ground capability in probably 50 years.

But I think the worst of everything was, he did away with the site that we were building in Poland and the Czech Republic to be a ground- based interceptor that would take care of something coming from that direction into the United States.

You see, we have 33 ground-based interceptors. They are all located on the west coast. Our intelligence has told us since 2007 that Iran is going to have the capability of a weapon and a delivery system--by weapon, I am talking about a nuclear weapon--and a delivery system by 2015. We are talking about in less than a year and a half from now. He is going to have that capability. So we were building that for

the purpose of being able to catch something coming from that direction. Well, he took that out, and we stopped that.

There are other problems with that too because I remember when we were trying to sell Poland and the Czech Republic on the idea. They said: Are you sure now? If we agree and we make Russia angry at us by agreeing to have a ground-based interceptor in Poland and the radar in the Czech Republic, are you sure that some President is not going to come along and pull the rug out from under us?

I said: I am absolutely positive.

That is exactly what happened.

I only mention that because the radar site on the east coast certainly would not be effective by the time they are going to have that capability. Nonetheless, we are addressing it.

I am pleased that under Chairman Levin's leadership the committee was able to reach a compromise during the markup to address the scourge of sexual assault in the military. The Senate bill includes 16 provisions that are specifically targeted to improving the tools the Department, the services, and the commanders have at their disposal for fighting sexual assault. It includes an additional 12 provisions to make important improvements to the military justice system and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is a comprehensive, targeted legislative initiative that would address that. That is going to be controversial. I understand that.

I think a lot of us served in the military. It happens that I was in the military court many years before most of you guys were born. At that time the one thing I learned--and this was way back then--was that the commander's influence in discipline is necessary. We are all going to keep that in mind as we look at some of these amendments.

I look forward to bringing this to the floor as soon as we can, getting these controversial issues out of the way. I am hoping I will get favorable consideration on my amendment that is going to make it much less devastating to the military.

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me first say to my good friend the leader that I wholeheartedly agree that arguably the two most significant amendments and most controversial amendments that have to be addressed would be on Guantanamo and then, of course, the Gillibrand amendment on sexual assault. I think we probably have different views and positions, but I think we agree that these need to be addressed immediately.

My wish has been that we could do that and line up some of the other amendments but at the same time put ourselves in a position where we could have open amendments on our side. There is a great demand in our conference to have open amendments. I would like to get to the point where we could do that and have them somehow regulated so that they be relative to the subject matter of the bill, S. 1197.

So that would be my concern, and for that reason I would object.

Would the leader yield?

I hope the leader is aware that I have just as strong feelings about these amendments. It is a starting place. And the leader said we need to be talking about it. I came down today and talked about both of these amendments at some length.

While I say we may not be in agreement with the amendments, they need to be debated. Historically, every year since I have been here, I say through the Chair, we have had a lot of amendments. We have always been able to get it through--50, 51 years-- Mr. REID. It was 52, I think.

Fifty-two, and we are going to do it this time and I hope satisfy some of the concerns in our caucus at the same time.

I thank the leader for his comments, and I want him to know we are in agreement on getting to these amendments.

Mr. President, while not many people know about the Federal Housing Finance Agency, it has become one of the most powerful and important government agencies. Following the financial crisis and massive bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and all the big banks, the Federal Government took a primary position in the mortgage market. Right now, 48 percent of all outstanding U.S. mortgages and 77 percent of those issued last year were guaranteed by the Federal Government. This is a problem in and of itself, but the FHFA is the agency that oversees all of them.

Mel Watts is the guy President Obama has nominated to lead the agency. I know Mel from my time both in the House and the Senate, and I am deeply concerned that he will push the Federal Government further into the mortgage business, instead of moving us away from it. He has shown his colors during his time here in Washington, and he is not the right guy to lead the agency. I am opposed to his nomination and urge my colleagues to oppose him.

Mr. President, earlier this month, I expressed my opposition to S. 1569, which allowed our debt limit to increase through February 7, 2014. Today, the Senate considers S.J. Res. 26, which would reject the suspension in the debt limit and immediately halt any new debt issuances by the United States. I support this resolution.

My position remains unchanged from earlier this month. Our national debt is topping $17 trillion and has nearly doubled since the beginning of the Obama administration. If we allow the Nation to continue on its current path, it will only lead to economic destruction. Allowing the debt to continue increasing without any commonsense solutions to rein in the federal government would be irresponsible and reckless.

The recent increase in the debt limit is President Obama's sixth since coming to office. In that time, no significant action has been taken to reduce the long term trajectory of the debt. If we continue to do nothing to rein in spending, the national debt will skyrocket to $25 trillion in the next decade. Even the President agrees with these numbers. We cannot allow this to happen, which is why I support the resolution prohibiting a continued suspension of the debt limit.

Mr. President, I am opposed to S. 1569. Our national debt is nearly $17 trillion and has nearly doubled since the beginning of the Obama administration. If we allow the Nation to continue on its current path, it will only lead to economic destruction. Raising the debt ceiling without any strings attached would be irresponsible and reckless.

The President has already increased the debt limit five times since coming to office. The first occurred just a month after President Obama took office. At $789 billion, the increase was provided to pay for his massive, unsuccessful stimulus package. With supermajorities in the House and the Senate, the President was able to push nearly everything he wanted into law.

Because the stimulus package ended up being more expensive than expected, the President got another increase of $290 billion just 10 months later. Then, just 2 months after that, the President pushed another increase through, this time for $1.9 trillion. Thirteen months into his Presidency, President Obama had already increased the debt limit by nearly $3 trillion.

Then, following the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans in Congress welcomed reinforcements, which changed the dynamic. With control of the House and an increased margin in the Senate, Republicans were able to force spending cut concessions from the President before agreeing to any debt limit increase.

In August 2010, after nearly exceeding the debt limit, the President agreed to increase the debt limit by $2.1 trillion in exchange for $2.1 trillion in spending cuts, including what has become known as sequestration. While I supported the total reduction in spending enacted by the bill, I voted against it because I believe the cuts should have been allocated in a different way. In total, nearly $1 trillion was cut from national security spending, which is having a very real, hollowing effect on our ability to protect the Nation. Further, these cuts did not include anything from mandatory entitlement programs like food stamps, and too little of it came from other domestic programs that are better suited for the States to run.

Earlier this year, the President demanded another debt limit increase. He received it, but only after agreeing to force Senate Democrats to consider a budget, which until this year had never been done during the Obama administration. This bill also suspended Congressional pay until a budget was agreed to. I oppose this bill because I do not believe that simply passing a budget was enough. Real spending cuts with real reforms to our permanent programs are needed.

Today we find ourselves in the same situation, and my position has not changed. Spending is continuing to spiral out of control, and if we do nothing to rein it in, our national debt will skyrocket to $25 trillion in the next decade. Even the President agrees with those numbers. We cannot allow this to happen, which is why I oppose S. 1569.

Mr. President, I do have time right now that is scheduled. However, my friend from Alabama had one other point to make. I would like to yield 2 minutes of my time to the Senator from Alabama.

I agree with my good friend from Alabama. He has done a great job on this subject.

I would like to say, one of the things I enjoyed about the presentation that was made by my good friend from Texas Senator Cruz was that we were in a position that is very rare in this body, where we could talk as long as we wanted to. In fact, we actually tried to talk longer. We were looking for different things to fill in. We may have forgotten some.

That is not where we are today. We are confined. But I have to share with my good friend in the chair that something I am going to say now is going to be very offensive to a lot of people, but I really don't care. At my age and being here, I think I know what this country is all about and I think I know that we have the obligation to express our true feelings.

I have written a speech and have put it off. I am not going to give it today. But I was rereading it this morning. I had no intention of coming down and talking because I talked long enough during the course of the Cruz talk. But I went back and reread the speech I was going to give. What it is is to answer the question one of my sons asked me, and everyone has been saying this over a period of time in Oklahoma. I don't think Oklahoma is that different from other States. But they ask me over and over again, they say: What happened? Why is it that we have an administration--people in government, not just the Obama administration but others--who are praising Islam and trashing Christianity, trashing the Judeo-Christian values and other things that are happening today?

We all know it is true. How do you answer that? It is a tough answer. So I am preparing and later on I will give you a little warning, I am going to make a little talk.

There is a guy named Paul Johnson who wrote a history of the American people. He talks about how we got to where we are today. This is going to tie into ObamaCare. He says that the Puritans were devoted and single-minded to their ambition of creating a colony that was built on the foundation and teachings of Jesus Christ. The Mayflower compact is evidence of that. Paul Johnson, the guy who wrote the book I told you about, is right to observe the document was not just a ``contract . . . between a servant and a master, or a people and a king, but between a group of like-minded individuals, with God as a witness and symbolic co-signatory.''

Why is this important? It is important because William Bradford and the other Puritans understood that while forming a civil government was fully within their rights, there were limitations to what they could and could not do. Not talking about government here. Those limitations were established by God and enumerated in the Bible.

I go on. When I make my talk on this, I quote the Apostle Paul in Romans, but there is not time for that. I go on to say it is within the foundation of Biblical authority that the Puritans crafted the Mayflower compact and their system of government at Plymouth Colony. Paul Johnson rightly observes that this line and model of thinking was critical to laying the foundation for a successful United States of America. Ultimately, it is a morality derived from God that had its strongest enduring influence over the Nation, and this is what has crafted our history as a strong nation.

I say all this as a predicate to the answer to the question people ask me: Why is it that we are trashing our Judeo-Christian values in favor of something that was not American to start with? Sadly, our Nation does not have the same belief today that we had during that time in our history. We have become arrogant, inward-focused individuals. Rather than submit to God's authority and definitions of truth, justice, and goodness, as we conduct our government's business, we have replaced them with our own ideals defined on what feels right at the time. As Americans, we now look inward to ourselves to define with fluidity the foundation of truth. We have allowed ourselves to become ultimate arbiters of what is right and wrong instead of the higher moral authority of God.

Lastly, what was going to be in this talk, this time getting back to the subject at hand, today, instead of having leaders who are protecting the church from government, we have leaders who

believe it is government's job to impose on churches what should be universally upheld as truth. Instead of leaders who are protecting an American's freedom to practice his or her religion of their choice-- here I am not talking about the choice you may be thinking about--they may instead be using government institutions and law to force them to do or buy things that are in very violation to their religious beliefs and conscience. That is the issue we are talking about now.

Government has become so strong and influential in our lives that we are losing our powers, and these are our ordained powers that we know are a part of this country. There is not a person in here who didn't study the Pilgrims coming over on the Mayflower and having that meeting in the captain's chamber and making these decisions and now we are where we are today.

I have an example. I have a friend in Oklahoma whose name is David Green. David Green started a company called Hobby Lobby. David Green and his wife started this company by making picture frames in their garage. They were able to open their first store, which was 300 square feet, with the profits they made in their little garage operation making picture frames.

Over the years their business has grown to 550 stores. It has an annual revenue of $2.5 billion, and David Green has had success despite running his business in a very countercultural way. For instance, all of the retail stores close at 8 p.m. each night and all day on Sunday so employees can spend time with their families. This is appreciated by the company's 16,000 employees--remember, it all started in a garage-- who are paid at a minimum $12 an hour, even though they could be paying a much lower legal rate.

At one point, the company was challenged by a competitor who said they would bury Hobby Lobby with their money, so their firm opened their doors on Sunday, ultimately earning the company $150 million in revenue each week. Eventually, David Green said he was challenged by God to trust in him with his business, to go back to his policy of closing on Sundays and he did and his business has prospered. It is one of the largest businesses in America today.

David's Christian faith runs deeper than his desire to have a profitable, successful company. When he was faced with a decision to make more money or obey God, he chose to obey God, whatever the consequences.

Keep all of that in mind and listen to this. This is what I am getting at. Recently, he was faced with a new test. It didn't come from a competitor. It came from the U.S. Government. Part of the ObamaCare law requires employers not only to provide health care insurance to their employees but also to provide free access to the pills that terminate pregnancies.

David, as I do, and many others believe--and some don't believe that we believe--that life begins at conception, and offering an option to end that life would be in violation, in his case, of his moral compass as defined by his faith in Jesus Christ.

As a result, he said he would rather pay the $1.3 million a day in daily fines from the Obama administration than comply with the law. Here is a guy who feels so strongly in his beliefs--that I think are consistent with the beliefs that made this country great, but that is just my belief--that he would pay $1.3 million a day in fines from the Obama administration rather than comply with this law.

Today the Obama administration is vigorously opposing Hobby Lobby's legal challenge to the mandate, claiming that this privately owned business is waging a war on women for not agreeing to provide these treatments for its employees free of charge. That is just one example of what is happening. By the way, I don't think my State of Oklahoma is that different from most other States.

Last week, four universities in my great State of Oklahoma filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government over the ObamaCare mandate to provide certain types of contraception to their employees. These are four universities which are joining with this one great American named David Green. So we have the faith of an individual and what he is willing to do for his faith. He is willing to stand up to this abusive government that we have today and to this ObamaCare law and is willing to pay $1.3 million a day. My feelings are just as strong as his on this issue, but that is a subject for another day.

My wife and I have 20 kids and grandkids. Back in the old days, when we were having our kids, there was kind of a rule where you couldn't go into the hospital, I say to my good friend who is occupying the chair. Back then we couldn't see this and we had to wait outside and we didn't have notice of what the baby was going to be and all that.

But in the case of my first grandchild, my daughter called me up and said: All right, Daddy. Come on over. It is time. I went over to the hospital delivery room. What a great experience that was. I never dreamed that would ever happen. We are talking about a number of years ago--17 years ago. So I watched this take place, and I honestly--a tear did come out from my eye.

At that time we were talking about partial birth abortions and the fact that they could have taken little baby Jase and jammed scissors into his skull and sucked his brains out. That could have happened, but it didn't happen.

I feel just as strongly as David Green does. I can make all the arguments I want about this, and I made arguments on the floor during the Cruz debate.

I remember Hillary health care, which was about 19 years ago and it was the same thing. It was government taking over the health care system, and I had my friends in Parliament and Great Britain who would call and say: What is wrong with you guys over there? Don't you realize we are just getting away from this thing that hasn't worked? Don't kid yourself and think this is not a road to socialized medicine if we end up not doing something about ObamaCare. It is.

I have a great deal of respect for the leader of the Senate, Harry Reid. Senator Reid himself said: Yes, I believe this is leading to--and I endorse it--the single-payer system. So we are talking about socialized medicine.

They called and said: What is wrong with you guys? It hasn't worked in Great Britain, it hasn't worked in Denmark, and it hasn't worked in Canada. Yet you think it is somehow going to work there.

That is the big issue. We have an abusive government, and this is probably the greatest single step we have witnessed in the last 4\1/2\ years as to the abuse that has taken place. We need to look at the big picture and do something about this. They say it can't be done now. It is too late. They are probably right, but they said the same thing about Hillary health care 19 years ago, and I will never forget it because I was on a plane going back to my State of Oklahoma and had a stop in Chicago.

I thought we finally drove the final nail in the coffin and killed Hillary health care. Yet I picked up the Wall Street Journal, and there was a full-page ad by the AMA endorsing Hillary health care. They had given up, and that was the day before they gave them that story.

Anyway, it is never too late. This is something that needs to be stopped. I have faith in the American people that somehow we are going to win this thing.

I thank the Chair. I know my time has expired.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

A lot of people have forgotten the cost of this. I would like to go over a couple of things if it is all right with the Senator. First, I wonder if the same thing is happening in his State--which is to the south of Oklahoma--of Texas that is happening in my State of Oklahoma. We are just a week away from when people will have to start signing up for ObamaCare. I commend Senator Cruz for reminding the American people that this law doesn't have to be a new reality. It doesn't have to be that way. We can stop it. There are still lingering questions about exactly what this is all going to look like.

We do know this reform law, as they call it, continues to be expensive and overreaching. When it started out, it didn't sound too bad to the American people. It is estimated that the program will now cost as much as $2.4 trillion over the years.

As I have suggested to my friend from Texas, around here we know what $1 trillion is, but most people don't know what that means. It is hard to understand this as far as what is going on in America. It will cost $2.6 trillion over 10 years once this is fully implemented, assuming they are successful in doing it. The cost estimates have only continued to rise since the law was passed.

Most recently the administration asked for another $5.4 billion in discretionary funds next year for implementation. That is $5.4 billion in discretionary funds. Let's stop and think about that. One of the worst things about the Obama administration--and the Senator from Texas understands this since he is on the Senate Armed Services Committee--is how this President has been disarming America. The discretionary money that would be coming out of this is money that otherwise could be used for our systems and to support our warfighters over there. That is just the cost of the Federal Government. It doesn't include the lost hours, wages, and employees who have lost their jobs and the cost it will be to their families.

Everyone agrees the premiums will rise. In my home State of Oklahoma we have a guy named John Doak. After talking to the insurance companies, he said Oklahomans' insurance will increase by a minimum of 30 percent and up to 100 percent. He also said that one in four insurers in Oklahoma will have their rates vary from $143 a month for a 30-year-old with basic coverage to $673 a month for a 64-year-old who wants the best coverage.

Remember, the President promised to lower the premiums by $2,500. What I want to do, if I could, is share a little bit of good news. I know the Senator from Texas is aware of it, but I don't know how many other people are aware of this. We have a great attorney general in the State of Oklahoma whose name is Scott Pruitt. I suspect the Senator from Texas has met Scott Pruitt. Before we voted on this issue, we had a question on whether some of these subsidies would go any further. Scott Pruitt, through the courts, filed a lawsuit and is leading the charge to dismantle ObamaCare and put an end to it.

Last month the judge overseeing the lawsuit ruled against a motion filed by the Obama administration to dismiss the case, which means the case will proceed. That is huge. If this goes through, this whole thing will be dismantled. That is why we need to go ahead and fight this as best we can, recognizing that there are other areas where the American people are speaking. Certainly Scott Pruitt is doing great things.

I heard the Senator mention Congressman Louie Gohmert. Congressman Gohmert is a very close friend of mine. We have been together on a lot of things. I was visiting with him. He is in the Chamber right now and would like to share some of the things that are happening in his district, which is eastern Texas.

These are some of the letters that he gets from constituents. This says:

To get setup on the software was too expensive. She also

didn't want to be limited on the time she felt she needed to

spend with her patients. Therefore, she stopped taking

Medicare. Had to go on strictly cash basis.

This text says:

My wife's doctor has just retired because he did not want

to deal with ObamaCare.

This is a letter that came from someone whose name is Katy Smith. She goes through quite a bit, and then says:

The explanation from IBM was that they ``projected that

health care costs under the current IBM Medicare-eligible

retiree plan options will nearly triple by 2020.''

This is another letter from Riverside Cottages. I guess that is someplace in eastern Texas.

We were notified July 15, 2013 that my husband's insurance

coverage, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana/Montana

Comprehensive Health Association will terminate December 31,

2013. When my husband contacted Blue Cross Blue Shield, they

told him that this policy will no longer exist due to Obama

Care. He will need to find new coverage.

And it goes on and on.

The interesting thing--and the reason I am reading Texas letters right now--is that we receive a lot of them, and they are up in my office someplace. So this hits home and hits home hard.

I ask my friend from Texas if he has received a lot of these anecdotal letters from people who are suffering serious hardships and are now anticipating what will happen when this becomes a reality?

Before that happens, I think it is important that the people of this country have to know what this is all about. This is socialized medicine. A lot of them didn't believe that. Last week majority leader Harry Reid was on the PBS ``Nevada Week in Review.'' He was asked whether his goal was to move ObamaCare to a single-payer system. His answer was: Yes, yes. Absolutely yes. Do a lot of the people know what a single-payer system is? That is essentially socialized medicine.

I was around during the Clinton administration when there was a thing called Hillary health care. Does my friend from Texas remember Hillary health care?

That is exactly what did happen. I can remember going from Washington to my hometown of Tulsa. Normally I have to go through Chicago. Chicago is where the AMA has their headquarters, and it is probably still there. I will always remember this. I was rejoicing. I was coming back after the long fight against Hillary health care or socialized medicine. I remember saying the question on the Senate floor: Try to explain this to me: If socialized medicine doesn't work in Great Britain, Sweden, or Canada, why would it work in this country? They never said it, but what they were thinking was: If I were running it, it would work. We got that point across.

They started way ahead with Hillary health care, and then we started to catch up. Just like now people are realizing this is a failed socialized medicine effort. We had won.

That kind of relates to what is happening today. I was on that plane going through Chicago to Tulsa, and I picked up the Wall Street Journal, and there was a full-page ad by the AMA supporting Hillary health care. Of course, when I stopped in Chicago, I went and visited the AMA. This is an organization that represents a lot of real smart doctors and others who were saying that we can't win. We can't win this and therefore let's go ahead with it. We had already won when they ran that ad. I don't know how many days before that they put the ad in, but nonetheless we had won.

I don't know if my friend remembers that because my friend was not in the Senate at that time. That is exactly what happened, and it is very analogous to a lot of things that are happening today.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that anytime desperation starts to set in, there are a lot of things that go around to confuse people. Let me tell everyone what happened in Oklahoma today. This will surprise my friend from Texas. There are 14 people who started this-- the Senator from Texas, myself, and 12 other people about 6 weeks ago. During this time we have been in lockstep to see what we could do to stop this from happening to my 20 kids and grandkids and the rest of America.

People realized I was there from the very beginning, as the Senator from Texas mentioned, and yet we have some of the Obama people who are doing robocalls in my State of Oklahoma posing as tea party people and saying to call Inhofe because he is for ObamaCare.

I say to my good friend, I can't believe something like that is happening. It shows a level of desperation where they are trying to get people confused as to what the issue is and want to get to these deadlines so we can get past this and have this thing as a reality. Every liberal in America is probably for it.

If the Senator from Texas will yield, because he said something that is so profound.

Of course. The Senator from Texas said if you don't have logic on your side or the facts on your side or the public on your side, what do you do? It is not just pounding the table. It is name- calling.

I went through this, I would suggest to my friend, 12 years ago when the Kyoto treaty was up and everyone thought global warming was coming and that was going to be everyone's trip to the White House to support global warming, until we realized what the cost would be. I was the bad guy

because I stood and said: No, this isn't true. First of all, it is a hoax; and secondly, even if it is not, we couldn't do it. That is when all the name-calling started. I can remember being called--in writing and by a fairly prominent person--I should be hanged for treason at that time. That is what they get, and that is what my friend is going through right now with a lot of people who don't agree with him.

Twelve years later, what has happened? People realize I was right. I am not suggesting it is going to be 12 years before they realize the Senator from Texas is right on this, but it means the behavior of people today is something that has happened many times in the past.

So I would just ask my friend to remember that and to realize that quite often, when a person is right on a controversial issue, they are going to be the subject of a lot of criticism, a lot of cussing, a lot of name-calling, and a lot of violence. So this isn't the first time.

Will the Senator yield for a procedural question?

Last night at 10 o'clock I was privileged to be down here with the Senator and we went over a lot of things. Something happened this morning. I went home, I went to bed, I ate. I am back here now.

The Senator from Kentucky has been waiting 40 minutes. I am not going to use his time, but what I would like to do is this. Something happened after I left last night, after a statement I made having to do with Hillary health care. I want to share that with the Senator. But I do not want to do it now on his time. Hopefully, if you are going to be here at 9 o'clock I would like to get back in line and share what happened last night after I left here. Is that all right?

I appreciate the Senator from Kentucky allowing me to come in front of him.

Will the Senator yield?

I mentioned a few minutes ago, when I was here last night something was said, and I went back and I got some phone calls because people did not believe it. I say to my good friend Senator Cruz, I think sometimes people like you who are living this issue 24 hours a day--literally 24 hours on this day--may assume people understand the significance of some things that they do not. Because I got these phone calls last night when I was talking about--and I quoted our leader here in the Senate, Senator Harry Reid. A couple days ago on the PBS program ``Nevada Week in Review,'' Senate majority leader Harry Reid was asked whether his goal was to move ObamaCare to a single-payer system, and his answer was: ``Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.''

I know I said this last night. But a lot of people did not realize that because there is--and if the Senator does not mind, I am going to take a few minutes here to kind of set the question up because I think it is important.

As the Acting President pro tempore will remember, since he was in the other body when I was elected many years ago to the House of Representatives--I recall at that time nobody thought the Republicans would ever be a majority of anything, the House or the Senate. I know that would have pleased the Acting President pro tempore. It is kind of interesting because we became very good friends, and yet we are philosophically apart from each other.

But I observed four things, and I did not think about this until this morning and how this subject fits into this. At the time Republicans were totally insignificant in the House of Representatives, so I spent my time sitting on the floor, and I listened and I observed some things, and I actually wrote a paper about this. I am going from memory now, but I recall in this paper I said there are, in my opinion, four flawed premises on which Democrats' policies are based, and I listed those four flawed premises. They were: The cold war is over. We no longer need a strong military. Punishment is not a

deterrent to crime. Deficit spending is not bad public policy. And then the fourth one: that government can run our lives better than people can. Well, I kind of went through that.

I remember so well that one time there was an amendment on the floor--and I know those who were there at the time will recall this-- that we were going to take some of these closed bases, because of the cost of incarceration for prisoners, and we were going to take those and take the fences and turn them around to keep people in instead of people out. Well, that made sense.

So I had an amendment on a bill, and it was a bill that I remember was a big punishment bill that became very controversial at that time. But I had that amendment to do that, and they defeated the amendment. The reason they defeated it was they said: We cannot expect our prison population to live in such substandard housing. Then I remembered, wait a minute. I was in the U.S. Army. I lived in that housing. I know a little bit about that. So that was kind of the punishment.

Then at the end of the Cold War--you know, so we do not need the military--a lot of them were saying: We need to cut back. And we did. We actually cut back, and Republicans and Democrats agreed at that time. But now it has changed because what we are doing now--I call it the Obama disarming of America. I can remember--and a lot of times when you talk about people as being liberals or conservatives, you are not name-calling, you are saying: What is the involvement of government? A liberal believes the government should have a greater involvement in our lives. Conservatives believe the government has too much control and, therefore, we do not need to do that.

Anyway, I went to Afghanistan when the first budget 4\1/2\ years ago came out.

I stood over there knowing I would get national attention, knowing this would be the first step in what I call the disarming of America by Obama. So I stood over there. I recall in that very first budget he did away with our only fifth-generation fighter, the F-22; he did away with our lift capacity, the C-17; he did away with our future combat system, which would have been the first advancement in ground capability in 50 years; and he did away with the ground-based interceptor in Poland. By the way, we are paying dearly for that now because we realize now, with Iran having the capability they have and our intelligence saying they are going to have a delivery system by 2015, we need to have something to defend that coast. Then we went through, and, of course, if you extend the budget of the President, it took $487 million out of the military.

So I just wanted to say that is true. This is after several years, way back when I was in the House of Representatives. Deficit spending, not bad public policy--that is something we have heard quite often from some of our more liberal friends on the other side.

But the fourth thing is that government can run our lives better than people can. Now, I tell my friend from Texas, this goes all of the way back to the late eighties; this observation was made by me. That is exactly what we are looking at today--a recognition by some people that somehow government can run this system better than people can.

So last night when I was honored to stand with my good friend from Texas--I recall having been here back during the Clinton administration. We had a thing called Hillary health care. That goes right along with the same thing. So a lot of the phone calls I got last night after being on the Floor with you were people saying: Well, I do not even remember that. I did not know we tried that before.

The big point here is that they thought it was over, it was done. They were going to have Hillary health care; as Senator Reid said, yes, a single-payer system. This is what they want. That is what they wanted back in the early and middle nineties. So we had Hillary health care. They thought it was over. They said: It is over; we are not going to win this. Consequently, you know, a lot of people actually believed that.

Last night I talked about after we finally had victory. It happened that there was a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal by the AMA saying that we embrace Hillary health care because they thought they were going to lose it.

That is kind of where we are today. At that time they thought there was no way in the world we were going to win this. They were going to be able to defeat it because it was a done deal.

That is why I admire our good friend Senator Cruz for having the tenacity to stay in here and recognize that we went through this once before. If we did it once before, we can do it again.

The reason Hillary health care lost way back in the middle nineties was that people realized it as socialized medicine. Again, you ask the question. It does not work anywhere else. It does not work in Sweden, Great Britain. Why would it work here? And the answer? I know they will never say it, but what they are thinking is, well, if I were running it, it would work. It is kind of a mentality that government can run our lives better than people can.

So I want to say one thing before I ask my question; that is, I have had a great blessing in my life, which is getting to know a great American whose name is Rafael Cruz. Rafael Cruz came to this country the tough way. He recognized from his past experience what real freedom is.

I have some quotes here that I wrote down because I use these quite often. He said: ``Our lives are under attack. ObamaCare is going to destroy the elderly by denying care, by even perhaps denying treatment to people who are in catastrophic circumstances.'' I hear people say all the time that this will never happen in America. It is happening in America. It is happening in America, and our rights are being eroded more and more every day.

In one of his speeches he gave not too long ago, he said:

I think the most ominous words I've heard was in the last

two State of the Union addresses, when our President said,

``If Congress does not act, I will act unilaterally.''

Scarily reminiscent of how things were done in Cuba. A law that no Republican voted for is now the law of the land; governing by decree, by Executive order, just like Cuba, the country he left behind.

This is Rafael Cruz, who happens to be the father of our own Senator Ted Cruz. He is one who came over. He escaped the very overbearing power of government to come here for that reason.

So I look at that, and I remember one of the greatest speeches--I have said this often. I know a lot of people do not agree with it. Probably the greatest speech I have heard in my life was ``A Rendezvous With Destiny'' by Ronald Reagan. In his speech, he tells the story of someone who could have been Rafael Cruz, someone who was escaping from Communist Castro Cuba to come to this country and risking his life.

In his speech ``Rendezvous With Destiny,'' Ronald Reagan said--this is way back when he was the Governor of California. He said: The boat came up. It washed up on the shore in southern Florida. There was a woman there, and he was telling the woman about the atrocities in Communist Cuba.

When he was through, she said: Well, we do not know how fortunate we are in this country.

He said: No, we are the ones who are fortunate because we had a place to escape to.

Does that not tell the story? That was a government running everything. They escaped that and came to this country, risked their lives, and they are over here.

I know that my kids--Kay and I have 20 kids and grandkids. I was listening last night when the Senator was reading a bedtime story to his little kids. Ours are not little kids anymore, but my grandkids are. The Senator stopped and said: What kind of America, what kind of America are these kids going to be inheriting? Why is it popular now? Why would someone who believes government should have a larger role in our lives be reelected? What has happened to the American people and the values we held for so many years so close to us?

Well, that is a hard thing to answer. But I know there are several of them--people who have experienced that, leaving slavery to come to this country.

By the way, last night when I was reading the various things, I did not have any statements from the people from Oklahoma, so I was reading from

Louie Gohmert, who represents the eastern part of Texas. He had a lot of anecdotal stories from people in East Texas--just like Oklahoma. We are not that far apart. But since that time, someone called last night and they said: You should use stories from Oklahoma.

K. Matheson said:

Stand with Senator Ted Cruz. Defund ObamaCare. A single-

payer health care system is nothing more than a socialized

system.

She is from Bethany, OK. I do not want to give her last name. She did not want it given.

Sue said:

Thank you. What's to protect people from being victims of

identity theft with all of these so-called advisors having

access to people's financial and health care records? Why

aren't members of Congress, the White House and their staffs

included?

Well, they should be included. We have been talking about that. The Senator from Texas has been talking about that.

We had a tweet that came in this morning. It said:

What allows the executive branch to pick & choose who must

follow ObamaCare & what parts to enforce?

So we have got a lot of that stuff. But the thing I wanted to bring up last night--one of the things--is that something really good is happening. We are talking about the bad things, but there is another opportunity. We have a great guy in Oklahoma by the name of Scott Pruitt. He is our attorney general. In fact, I tell my friend Senator Cruz that while he was running for attorney general, I flew him around. Aviation is kind of my thing. I was flying him around the State. I got to know him quite well. He told me at that time that he saw this threat coming. So what he has done is he has filed a lawsuit.

I am proud to say that Oklahoma and the attorney general, through the courts, are leading the charge to dismantle ObamaCare and put an end to its onerous taxes. Just last month a judge overseeing the lawsuit ruled against a motion filed by the administration to dismiss the case, which means the case will proceed. Well, that was a major obstacle. No one thought he would be able to overcome this motion to dismiss. So it is still out there.

The law is a train wreck. We know that. There have been several proposals to prevent further damage. We need to defund the law. We need to make sure no additional taxpayer money would be used.

If he is successful, that will affect some 34 States that are in the same situation as Oklahoma. If he is successful, that is going to pull the funding out of ObamaCare, and it could be that just one guy in the State of Oklahoma will be responsible for that. So this is happening.

Yes, there are all of the efforts that are taking place here, primarily by my good friend from Texas, but we are in Oklahoma. We are involved in this too. We are hoping to be able to have that opportunity.

I want to mention one other thing because this came in. I am going to read this. It is a letter. It is not all that long, but I think it is really revealing. It says:

I cannot tell you how distressed I am with regard to the

Affordable Health Care Act--

This came from Lynn in Oklahoma. This came in last night--

Obama-care. I am fearful for my kids, now 18 and 20. There

is the effect it is having right now--employers are not

allowing their workers to have full-time hours. They are

hiring more part-time workers to make up the difference for

the company so they won't be penalized for not providing

health insurance. Both of my kids are unable to get full-time

employment. For a year, my daughter was able to work 40-plus

hours a week. Then, with the implementation of the ACA, no

one can work over 29 hours a week. Instant pay cut. My son,

who just graduated from high school, finally found a job at a

restaurant, and they give him 4 hours a day. He is still

looking.

Additionally, I have adult friends whose hours are being

cut at UCO so they don't get penalized for not providing

health insurance to their part-time people, adults with

families getting their wages cut--

This is just a normal citizen out there. This is not a professional. This is what people are thinking, at least in my State of Oklahoma and I think throughout the Nation.

--adults with families getting their wages cut so the

employer does not have to pay for health insurance. Did you

not think employers would not find a way out of this at the

expense of the American people? Is everyone in Washington so

blind or is it selfish?

My husband's employer now wants to penalize us if I choose

to stay on his health coverage rather than take the inferior

health care package at my employment.

Mr. Inhofe, I dedicated my life to raising my kids and

taking care of my family. I currently make $12.25 an hour. I

have a bachelor's degree. It would be senseless for me to pay

for health care on a salary when my husband's health care is

so much better, and I have been on it for the last 13 years.

Thirteen years. She would have to give that up.

He takes care of me as my husband. I should not be

penalized for wanting to work full time at this juncture of

my life. If his company pushes the issue, I feel as if I will

not be able to stay employed full time, which is a violation

of my basic human rights. Now that my kids are grown, I need

and want to work. At 52 it is highly unlikely that I am going

to make a wage that is going to allow me to pay for health

insurance. It is against my constitutional right to force me

to purchase health insurance I do not need. The law is

unconstitutional and un-American. Please tell me what we can

do. The American people deserve to be able to work full time

without being penalized.

I am tired of Washington and its dirty politics. Everyone

in Washington should be held to the same laws it passes for

the American people.

Amen.

Each one of you need to have the same health coverage

expenses that we have.

I feel as if our country is headed, at lightening speed,

for a major breakdown. What are you going to do to stop it

and how can I help? I am frightened for the future of my

children and the future of America. I am tired of DC

politics.

That was Lynn from Oklahoma City. This came in last night. I have several others that just came in overnight.

But I think the thing that people did not realize and that we were able to talk about last night was the fact that this has happened once before, and they came dangerously close to pulling it off back in the middle nineties.

You know, I have to say this. There is a brilliant strategy going on right now. I didn't realize it until yesterday. There are some pro- ObamaCare people who are doing robocalls. I know the occupier of the chair knows what robocalls are, but a lot of people do not. These are automated calls where they call and a voice comes on and it gives a message. People listen to that. Sometimes they believe it, sometimes they do not. Most of the times they do.

So there are robocalls that are going on by the pro-Obama health care people, going to the strongest opponents of ObamaCare and trying to make people think they are supporting it. It is to confuse the electorate. When you stop to think about it, that is pretty brilliant, and they did it.

All day yesterday there were calls going around my State of Oklahoma by someone. The message was something like this: This is Joe Smith. I am with the ABC tea party--these are not tea party people, but nonetheless that is how they identify themselves--your Senator Jim Inhofe is supporting ObamaCare and you have to call his office. This is what his number is.

We started getting calls and people didn't even know there were 14 of us who joined together with Senator Cruz about 6 weeks ago. I was 1 of the 14 and one of the strongest supporters of his cause. Yet they were trying to make people believe something else just to confuse them. Frankly, it is dishonest, but it is brilliant.

When we are looking and we are seeing what happened, what is going on today, I do applaud my friend. I feel guilty, I have to say to my friend, Senator Cruz, because I left him last night at 10 o'clock.

I went home, had dinner, and went to bed. I got up and he was still talking. That is the depth of his feeling about this. I believe what we learned, a lesson we can remember back in the middle of the 1990s, the lesson we learned there, when it was all over, we had lost, but we didn't lose because the American people came to our aid. We were a minority at the time, but they came to our aid and we turned this whole thing around. That is exactly where we are today.

My question to my good friend, Senator Cruz, is I believe that history could repeat itself. Does the Senator?

Before the Senator continues, would he yield for one followup question.

It was interesting. I don't think I have ever been referred to as the senior statesman, but I kind of like that. I wondered, when the Senator mentioned the four of us coming down--he put us in that category. We have been here for a while. There is one thing we all four had in common. We all had a career in the real world first.

One of the problems we have that I have observed, I say: What do you want to do?

The reply is: Oh, I want to be a Member of Congress.

So they leave the fraternity house and they move to Congress. They have never been in the real world.

People ask me the question: what should I do if I want to get into politics. I say go out for at least 15 years, live under this system, and learn how tough things are. In my case I spent over 20 years, did a lot of building and developing in the State of Texas where Senator Cruz is from. I have talked to his father, Raphael, several times about this.

I remember there I was doing things that Americans are supposed to do. I was making money, losing money, expanding the tax base.

Yet the obstacle I had all during those years was the Federal Government, and I was doing what Americans are supposed to be doing. I remember that is when I decided.

The last thing I did down in Texas, a pretty good-sized development, and I had to go to 25 governmental agencies to get a dock permit. I thought, wait a minute, they are supposed to be on our side. I decided I would run to come to Congress and try to save the free enterprise system.

That is what all four of us have in common. We may have been here for a while, but we are here with a cause and here with experience.

How abusive government can be. I have not seen a time when the abuse is greater than it is today on what is happening to us, to think that we have a policy by the President, as he has been able to sell the idea, get the votes, get it through, and it is socializing medicine. It is something that has failed year after year after year in every country where they have tried to do it.

Does my friend from Texas see anything different about the United States of America, how socialized medicine would work here when it hasn't worked anywhere else?

Would the Senator yield one last time for a question?

I hope my wife will forgive me, because I know she is watching, or I suspect she is watching because she has an equal interest in this issue for a totally different reason.

Kay and I have been married--our 54th wedding anniversary is coming up. We have 20 kids and grandkids.

She went through an experience, and our whole family went through the experience with her a short while ago, less than 1 year ago. She discovered she had a serious heart problem with the aortic valve. I have to praise her for not telling me anything about it for 4 months. She knew she was going to have to have this very serious operation. She is only 1 year younger than I am. She knew she was going to have the operation and she didn't want to say anything because she didn't want to worry me. She was writing things out about what things would go to what kids because she didn't think she was going to make it. She thought there was a good chance she wouldn't. We went through that experience with her.

I will tell you what is funny. All our grandkids call us--my name is Inhofe, so ``I'' is for Inhofe so they called us Mom I and Pop I. That is how they have referred to us. Since she had a valve put in her heart that was from a cow, instead of calling her Mom I, they call her Moom I. She went through this very difficult procedure with the best medical care in St. John's Medical Center in Tulsa, Dr. Robert Garrett, all the nurses, all the people all the way down.

I was thinking, that is my first experience at my age, my senior age, of seeing this system work.

Where would she have been in Canada? I have talked to people and they said: No. At her age she would have waited in such a long line that she probably would not have been able to make it.

It is serious things she is going through. I don't think I am the only one who has had this experience, but that was a wakeup call. I would hope and suggest to the Senator that other people speak up, even though it is somewhat uncomfortable. I thank God we had the system that allowed Kay and me to be able to look forward to our next 54 years of marriage.

Mr. President, I can't disagree there is politics here. This is the Senate. But let me say one thing. I strongly support this amendment. Let me ask in the order of things right now, does the Senator from Texas still have the floor?

Very good. I appreciate that.

One thing, as I read this resolution that my good friend Senator Cruz has, I thought it really does not go far enough. I think all that people are talking about now is how can we preclude this from happening again, what happened and all that. To me that is not even the issue. The issue is the coverup.

I sat there as the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I watched the day that this happened, 9/11, then of course the annex came after that, 9/12, the next day. When that happened there was never any doubt but that it was an organized terrorist attack-- never any doubt.

I happened to know Chris Stevens. He happened to be in my office right before he was deployed there. He was telling me in my office how dangerous it was over there. He said, you know, there are threats, there are terrorist threats. Al Qaeda has a presence over there and we do not have a lot of security, and he started requesting security. This is a long time before this happened. I have all the dates. I did not bring them down with me because it would be redundant. It has been in the Record so many times, that he knew this was happening. We knew there was this kind of activity in that part of the world and he wanted to do something about it, offer more security.

He is dead now, and he knew what he was getting into at that time. When the threats came for what happened on 9/11, people were aware of that. Remember the Brits, they left and several others just up and left because they knew what kind of threat was out there.

Anyway, what we did right after 9/11--and it is just a matter of hours after that they attacked the annex. They cannot say for certain that the original attack was organized. I think it was; it was an organized terrorist attack. But they can say with certainty, and I will not use my words, I will use their words, it was ``unequivocal,'' unequivocal that we knew at that time it was an organized terrorist attack.

I remember when Secretary Panetta came forward and he used the same word ``unequivocal.'' Then the CIA Chief Brennan, at that time--that was his job--said, sitting in my office and then again before a hearing, it was unequivocal that we knew it was an organized terrorist, Al Qaeda-related attack. We knew it.

The coverup is this. I have studied coverups for a long time. Iran- Contra, I went all the way through that. I remember that well. The Pentagon Papers, Watergate, all of these things were coverups. But this one, where 5 days after all of our people and the top security people knew it was an organized attack, to send Ambassador Rice to the talk shows to say, for purely political reasons and cover up the reality of it, that this was due to some video--I will only say this. I would like to pursue this in terms of the coverup, which is not covered in the resolution we are discussing right now. I think it should be--it should have been. I was not part of drafting it. I strongly support it. I know where we are coming from, and I think we need to get to the bottom of it. All the questions need to be answered. But the big issue that needs to be discussed, that nobody likes to talk about, is the coverup.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be acknowledged as if in morning business.

I do want to accommodate the Senator from California. I have three different subjects I want to talk about----

I need 9\1/2\ minutes.

Is that a unanimous consent request?

The Senator from California would follow the Senator from Washington?

Mr. President, point of inquiry: Is this after I speak now or is that starting now? In other words, we would have four Democrats before I speak?

The Senator already had one and then Senator Coons.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if two of them speak now and then let me speak and then the Senator can speak after that, that is still 2 to 1.

Mr. President, when we were establishing our time, I would say to my good friend and colleague from California, I was joking around a little bit about using 9\1/2\ minutes. Is it all right if I make that 19\1/2\ minutes, maximum?

OK. I will do that. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from California I be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, first of all, I wasn't going to do this, but since my good friend from California is on the floor and it is our favorite subject to talk about, I thought I would. I wish to take the opportunity to talk about the first round of the major global warming regulations the President is set to release this week. These rules will govern the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from powerplants and they are the first round of rules following the President's major speech on global warming in June.

The rules represent the most aggressive representation of the war on fossil fuels we have seen in this administration, and we have seen a lot of them. We know the rules will require any coal-fired plant to have carbon-capture and sequestration technology; that is, CSS technology. While the Clean Air Act only allows feasible technology to be mandated, the CSS technology is not feasible. It is really not there yet. No powerplant has ever been built with the technology unless it has been supported by massive taxpayer subsidies. The rule would kill the coal powerplant industry.

While the rules may be constructed in a way that allows natural gas- fired powerplants to meet the mandate, we have to know that is coming next. After all, natural gas is a fossil fuel as well. There have been several statements of people saying, Well, wait around until fossil fuel, which is going to be next. The only thing these new rules will do is cause energy prices to skyrocket. I expect the rules to be one of the key issues covered by the media this week.

While the exact details of the rule will not be known until it is published later this week, there are a few things that we know right now. First, the science behind global warming is now more uncertain than ever. I spoke about this this morning in our hearing. Just last week it was reported all over the media--the Telegraph--this is in London, one of their largest publications--the Guardian, also in London, the Wall Street Journal, and others, that this year there has been 60 percent more ice coverage in the Arctic than there was this time last year.

My colleagues might remember the hysterical people were saying at one time that there would be no more icecaps by 2013. Instead, we find out it has actually increased by 60 percent. This is the equivalent of almost 1 million square miles, and this is being observed before the winter refreeze has even set in.

What makes it more interesting is that in 2007, the BBC reported that global warming would leave the entire Arctic ice-free in the summers by 2013. The scientist who made this claim, Professor Wineslaw Maslowski, said, in the typical bravado we have come to expect from climate scientists, that ``This is not a cycle; not just a fluctuation. In the end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.'' That is in 2013. Well, here we are in 2013 and guess what. They are wrong again. There is 60 percent more ice than there was at

this time last year. A lot of the yachts and the ships that expected to use the Northwest Passage can't use the Northwest Passage; it is closed, closed because the ice is there.

This follows reports earlier this year, notably from The Economist, showing that global warming has been on a pause for the last 15 years. The Economist wrote: ``Over the past 15 years, air temperatures and the Earth's surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.''

The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not expect this development to occur, nor did its models predict that there would be a 15-year stall in global warming.

Professor Anastasios Tsonis, at the University of Wisconsin, recently concluded that:

We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will

continue for the next fifteen years at least. There is no

doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.

This reminds me of all the hysteria in the 1970s that a global warming trend is coming. I can't tell my colleagues how many times on the Senate floor I have talked about how these cycles come and go about every 25 years, and here it is, right on schedule, going into a cooling period. Starting back in 1895, every 15 to 20 years, they start out with the new Ice Age is coming, everyone is hysterical, and then in 2007--1970--1919, they went into a period of warming, and then in 1995--or 1945--they went into another cooling spell and that happened to coincide with the year they had the greatest surge in CO2 on our planet.

I only want to say this finally has come to our attention that we are looking at a situation that is quite different than we have seen in the past. I mentioned that later in this month the long-awaited event is going to happen. It comes up every 5, 6, or 7 years. That is when the IPCC comes out with its assessment. This just came up--I saw that it is dated today in the Wall Street Journal, and I will read this:

Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened

in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken

to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fifth assessment

report.

That is what we are talking about. They go on to say they have learned from some leaks what is in that assessment. ``There have already been leaks''--I am reading now--``from this 31-page document which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a senior climate scientist, I have had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document.

Keep in mind, this is IPCC, United Nations. The big news is that for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of manmade emissions from carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC expected.

This is something we did not anticipate would happen just as recently as a few days ago.

Real quickly, it is my hope we get to some of these amendments, and I am going to mention one that is a very significant amendment.

A few months ago, when we were debating the continuing resolution, the Senate adopted amendment No. 29, which prohibited the EPA from enforcing this Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure Rule. That is the SPCC rule.

As we all remember, they were going to enforce this against farmers. The reason we did this is clear: EPA first threatened to enforce this rule against farmers at the beginning of the Obama administration, but they did very little outreach. Most farmers do not even know today about this rule or what they would have to do to comply. The only reason other Members know about this rule is because of the work Senator Pryor and I have done to highlight the problem for what it is.

This rule was originally drafted for compliance by major handlers of oil--refineries, pipelines--players such as the ones that are shown on this chart I have in the Chamber.

This chart actually shows part of Cushing, OK, which is a major hub of oil pipelines. Millions of barrels of oil are transported through and stored in this small town each day, and it is incredibly important that the handlers of the oil follow appropriate regulations to make sure accidents do not cause significant environmental damage. They understand why the regulations are in place, and they follow the rules with precision. And we are talking about the people in the adjoining towns.

These refineries and tank operators are who the rule was designed for in the first place, and that makes sense. But now EPA wants to enforce that rule against farmers.

What would it look like if we did this?

First, take a look at this second chart. This is a diesel fuel container on a farm. It is small. It does not hold that much fuel. But right now it is subject to the same regulations you would have for oil companies and refineries.

I asked a friend of mine, Keith Kisling, a wheat farmer in western Oklahoma, what it would take for him to comply with this rule that was designed for refiners.

He said: First I have to purchase a new double-wall container that would cost thousands of dollars. EPA justifies this by saying it would prevent leaks. Keith, like all other farmers I know in Oklahoma, thinks diesel is expensive. So Keith is not going to let his tanks leak, whatever kind it is. You would sit on a farm and realize that is leaking money. Obviously, they do not want to do that.

The next thing he would have to do is build a berm all the way around his tank to contain a spill if all of the diesel fuel came out of it. This would be expensive and difficult to operate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 3 more minutes and conclude.

Finally, Keith would have to hire and pay a professional engineer to certify his spill plan, if he can find one. In Oklahoma, farmers cannot find professional engineers because they are all working for oil and gas companies, which makes compliance with this particular requirement virtually impossible. All told, Keith would have to pay somewhere between $10 and $30,000 to comply with the rule, and the environment is not any better for it.

After we secured the amendment prohibiting the EPA from enforcing the rule back in March, Senator Pryor and I worked to secure a permanent exemption, and we did this. We put it in, as the Senator from California will remember, the WRDA bill, and, of course, it is not final law yet. This is the amendment that we have right now.

Last month, during the August recess, I received word from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association that producers in Kansas and other areas out West were hearing from EPA enforcement officers that they were at risk of having the SPCC rule retroactively enforced against them once the prohibition on enforcement expires on September 23. This comes despite the clear actions Congress has been taking to provide relief to farmers. I honestly do not know of anyone who wants to subject our farmers in the United States of America to the same requirements that refineries and oil companies and these operations have.

So I do have an amendment that would go on. It is my hope we will be able to get to the amendments on the bill, the underlying bill that is under consideration today, and I think this is one of two amendments I have that should be accepted unanimously.

With that, I thank the Senator from California for giving me that additional time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I sat through the speech given by the junior Senator of California. I have a long list of things with which I disagree and I am going to get to as many of those as I can in a minute. I feel an obligation to make a statement about some important policy issues that nobody talks about, certainly not partisan in any way. I wish to get that out of the way first and then I will have time, on the time that I have been given, to go back and cover as many of the issues that were misrepresented by my good friend, the junior Senator from California.

Sri Lanka

I wish to encourage the Obama administration to review its current policies regarding the country of Sri Lanka and seek further engagement to assist them as they continue their progress toward reconciliation and reconstruction after 30 years of a bloody civil war against the Tamil Tiger terrorists.

Just 4 years ago Sri Lanka defeated the Tamil terrorists and is currently recovering from economic, political, and social upheaval caused by this destructive civil war. I think there are a lot of people who didn't expect this to happen with this new administration, but it is. Good things have happened. Peace has brought historic postconflict recovery and Sri Lanka is bringing the dividends of peace in an exclusive manner, particularly to those in the north and to the east of the country, from where Tamil suicide bombers and other terrorist attacks were once launched.

Specifically, since the war ended, those two areas have seen an economic growth of 22 percent compared to an average of 7.5 percent for the rest of the country.

Sri Lanka has removed half a million antipersonnel mines, resettled 300,000 internally displaced people, and reestablished vital social services in the areas of health and education.

It is also conducting local elections in the formerly Tamil- controlled north on the 21st of September. I see this as an important step toward political reconciliation. Such processes take time, as we learned from our own Civil War.

It seems to me that Sri Lanka is developing into a key economy, both in its own right and as a gateway to India. A lot of people don't know where Sri Lanka is. It is that little island at the bottom of India and that part of the world.

Sri Lanka's geostrategic location, the deepwater ports, could be vital to the long-term financial and national security interests of the United States. We want them on our side. Some 50 percent of all container traffic, for example, and 70 percent of the world's energy supplies pass within sight of Sri Lanka's coast.

U.S. diplomatic efforts there, however, have lagged. As a result, I believe our long-term economic and national security interests are suffering. At a time when the United States is pivoting or rebalancing toward Asia, we may be giving this island nation reason not to consider the United States a friend and strategic partner.

Understandably, the policies of the United States toward Sri Lanka have focused on accountability for what happened during the last phases of the civil war, as well as on steps toward political reconciliation and respect for human rights. While these aspects are very important and deserving of support, I also believe there is the opportunity to engage in a wider simultaneous approach that also takes into account economic and national security consideration. Maybe this wider, dual- track approach would have a positive influence overall and make up for lost ground.

I have expressed these views in letters to both Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel in recent months. While both of them agree with me about Sri Lanka and its economic and geostrategic importance to the United States, both still point to the lack of political transparency and poor human rights record to reject a review of the administration's position, which restricts military-to-military relations and foreign assistance funding.

I take Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel at their word and believe the upcoming September 21 provincial council elections in the north can be a meaningful act of political reconciliation that would be between the Sinhala majority and the Tamil minorities. If they are conducted in a free and fair manner, free of human rights violations, I will strongly renew my request to the administration to reassess our current policies toward Sri Lanka.

I know it is a little bit controversial, but we have watched what has happened over the years. We have watched the civil war. Then when you consider the very strategic location of Sri Lanka, it is very important, in my view, that we establish these relationships and recognize them.

Let me mention a few things I took issue with. Some of them I had a hard time understanding what the junior Senator from California was talking about when she was singing the praises of this administration.

First, I agreed with her on the tragedy at the Navy Yard. I have been down there many times. I was envisioning as I was coming from Tulsa up here on Monday--at that time they said Ronald Reagan Airport was going to be closed. They thought it was going to be closed down because of the proximity to the Navy Yard. It didn't turn out that way and we ended up landing there.

When I went down and I saw the scene, which I have seen many times before, and I looked at it, it was gut-wrenching to think that one deranged person could do this. We saw it before in Waco. We have seen it in Boston. We have seen it in other places. It is something that I assume is going to be with us. I don't know how it can be precluded.

I will say this, though. I fully expected several of my liberal friends would use that to try to come up with an excuse for more stringent gun regulations. I would only suggest that the District of Columbia has the most stringent anti-Second Amendment gun control laws anywhere in the country, and that is where this took place. You can't say this has anything to do with it, but I knew it was going to happen.

Another thing my friend talked about was the debt, all of this, talking about the other administrations. I would only remind you, this is something that is incontrovertible, the amount of debt this President has had up to today. He has increased our deficit by $6.1 trillion, which is more than all of the other Presidents from George Washington on up through recent administrations combined. You wonder where is all of that money, where did it all go? It went to his social programs.

My major concern--the Presiding Officer may have heard I was making quite an issue out of the fact the President wanted to send cruise missiles into Syria. I don't think there is anyone naive enough to believe you can do that and not have repercussions.

We have heard from Iran, which I consider to be the greatest threat to the United States, in that our intelligence has told us since 2007 Iran would have the nuclear weapon and the delivery system in place by 2015. That is a year and a half from now. Yes, it is something where we would be going in.

However, in the disarming of America, as I have referred to, I remember going to Afghanistan 4\1/2\ years ago. It was after the President's first budget. I went there because I knew what was going to happen to the military in spite of all this spending that has given us new debt, $6.1 trillion. Where did it go? I can tell you a lot of places where it didn't go. It didn't go to defending America.

I went over there. In that very first budget the President had, the first thing he did was do away with our only fifth-generation fighter, the F-22. He did away with our lift capability, the C-17. He did away with our future combat system, the only advancement of ground capability in some 60 years. He did away with the ground-based interceptor in Poland, which now puts us in a position where we are hustling all over trying to figure out where we can get a third site to protect the United States of America against a missile coming in from the East. We have 33 of them out there but they are all on the west coast. That doesn't help us here.

On top of that, this administration, in its extended budget, has taken now already $487 billion out of our defense

budget and is talking about another $\1/2\ trillion through his sequestration.

I know nobody believes this, and that is why none of the Members on this floor will talk about it, but this disarming of America puts us in a very serious situation.

The junior Senator from California was praising this President and all of the things she felt he has been doing, but it is time to hear the truth. She was praising him on ObamaCare and how wonderful this is and how thankful everyone is. Why is it the most recent polling showed 88 percent of the people in America want to do away with the individual mandate, and the vast majority of them say it is a bad idea? Those are the words they use. So it is not working.

I can remember back when we were going to have Hillary health care, back during the Clinton administration, and we asked the question--and you can ask any liberal who wants to get to a single-payer system or ultimately have socialized medicine, which I think will be down the road in the vision of this administration--if this hasn't worked in Great Britain, it hasn't worked in Denmark and it hasn't worked in Canada, why would it work here? They will never tell you this, but they were saying if they were running it, it would work here.

Anyway, this is something that is not popular, as was misrepresented by the junior Senator from California. Then she said: ``The news is great coming out of Detroit.'' That is fine, except they filed bankruptcy last week.

So when we hear all the things that are stated, just keep in mind this is still America, we still have certain values that have been completely reversed by this administration, and it is time to keep that in mind and to move on ahead.

With that, I yield the floor.