Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my friend Senator Leahy from Vermont in introducing, the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2013.

As I stated when we introduced this bill in the 112th Congress, our bill seeks to identify and eliminate unhealthy and unsafe prison conditions found in developing countries like Haiti and on the African continent where millions suffer inhumane conditions as well as to address the dysfunctions in their legal systems.

The introduction of this bill comes at an appropriate time because Jon Hammer, the imprisoned U.S. Marine being held in the Cedes Prison in Matamoras, Mexico was freed this past December 21st.

Corporal Hammer, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, was arrested in August and charged with a Federal weapons felony--facing up to 15 years in prison, for carrying an antique gun into Mexico on his way to Costa Rica for a hunting trip, despite, as I understand it, having a required permit and attempting to declare the gun. During the past 90 days, he faced the same harsh conditions that our bill is trying to address. Namely, Hammer was housed in an overcrowded and unsanitary prison, beaten by fellow inmates who were members of the murderous Mexican drug cartels, threatened with death in an extortion attempt by these inmates and chained to a bed.

I had been involved in seeking Jon's release for several weeks, and I was heartened when he was released. His treatment, however, serves as an excellent example of the deficiencies found everyday in foreign prisons worldwide from Africa to no further away than our southern border.

Our bill focuses on eliminating excessive pre-trial detention and dysfunctional justice systems which frequently result in prisoners and other detainees spending years in unhealthy prison conditions before their cases are even adjudicated. Tragically, inadequate, misplaced or lost records often result in the incarcerated being held indefinitely because their cases have never been heard. Unbelievably, such poor recordkeeping has kept many in prison long after their sentences have been served. Our bill also encourages these nations to provide humane and sanitary prison conditions so that prisoners can be released in good health, and thus stem one of the causes of the spread of HIV and tuberculosis among the general public.

Our bill calls upon the Department of State to submit to Congress an annual report for five years that describes inhuman prison conditions at least 30 countries receiving U.S. foreign assistance. It gives the Secretary of State and Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development the discretion to restructure, reprogram or reduce U.S. foreign assistance to these countries based upon whether they are making ``significant efforts'' to eliminate inhuman conditions in their prisons and other detention facilities.

The goals of this bill are noble, but it will take close monitoring and hard work by our U.S. Foreign Service personnel on the ground overseas to fulfill this work. That is why our bill directs the Secretary of State to provide training to these embassy and consulate personnel so that they can effectively investigate and assess prison conditions in foreign prisons as well as assist these foreign governments to adopt substantive prison reforms. The Secretary is also directed to designate and task a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State within the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor with the responsibility for gathering the information for the annual report and make recommendations to the Secretary based off its conclusions.

I have made 128 African country visits over the past 16 years, and I believe that given the chance, the majority of Africa's leaders will welcome the opportunity to interact with our embassy and consulate personnel and adopt the best practices for achieving the elimination of unhealthy and unsafe conditions in their prisons and other detention facilities. It is also my hope that our neighbors to the south will adopt safe and sanitary prisons conditions and correct the dysfunctions in their justice systems so that another U.S. citizen does not have to spend 90 days in prison for a paperwork error.

The task at hand reminds me of the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 25:39:40 when he said, `` `When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' ''

We are all our brothers' keepers.

Will the Senator yield?

First of all, as a cosponsor of the amendment, I am glad the Senator is getting around to the merits. Yes, it is a great injustice the Senator is going through right now, not getting his amendment heard. I have to say, though, as probably the only active commercial pilot in here, I jumped on this bill because a lot of people don't realize that the contract towers are just as in need of control as the noncontract towers.

The Senator is aware that the University of Oklahoma in northern Oklahoma is contracted out. I have gone in there before where they are using all three runways at the same time. It is a huge issue.

But what I want to ask the Senator is, why is it that when the bureaucracy is opposed to something they, No. 1, won't tell you about it; No. 2, they go whispering to the President; No. 3, they go whispering to other people around here?

I went through this same thing, I suggest to my friend from Kansas, when I passed the Pilot's Bill of Rights. I had 67 cosponsors in the Senate, and they wouldn't bring it up. For an entire year they never would bring it up, and we had to rule XIV it on the floor. That is what is wrong. When we have something everybody is for, it is a good thing, but somehow--in this case, I know what it is: the same thing that happened to me. I got mine passed. It took me a year to do it.

Best of luck to the Senator from Kansas. I would only say to him that this is a time to stay in there and fight for this because this is a great example to use. Everything that is being cut in government right now--all of these people who had to wait in line to get in here, there is no reason to do that. Everything people really want and the things that are popular, this is what they cut. So the Senator from Kansas is a victim of that. Just hang in there and try to make it happen.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I know something about this being the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. We went through this.

Is the Senator aware that in one purchase the administration--now, I am talking about the White House--forced the Navy to buy 450,000 gallons of fuel at $29 a gallon? You can buy it on the open market for $3 a gallon.

Secondly, I think the Senator does know this because I heard him mention the Department of Energy, when we formed the Department of Energy, they were supposed to do all this stuff.

But I would have to make one observation. We have a President, an administration, that has been cutting dramatically, and we are all concerned about what has happened to our military, our ability to defend ourselves. They do it in three ways. No. 1, they cut; No. 2, they delay; but, No. 3--and this is what we are getting to now--they take the agenda, and in this case this green agenda, and put it not where it should be but under the defense budget. So for every dollar that goes to the green energy programs, the Senator and I would like-- since I am cosponsoring the Senator's amendment--every dollar is something we cannot spend for our fighters in the field.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 72 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the amendment.

Mr. President, I am perfectly willing and I know some of the Democratic sponsors of the bill, Senator Hagan and others, would be in agreement to go ahead and accept this by voice vote.

What this does is reverse the decision from the Department of Defense that took away some of the abilities our troops, when they are brought into service, have in terms of subsidizing their tuition. So this would return it to the way it was before.

I have to say quickly and briefly, this is something I have talked about to our troops in the field. Many of them were so alarmed that it was even suggested they would take away the very thing that caused them to enlist in the first place.

I think this is one that is going to enjoy wide bipartisan support for a voice vote, and I ask for its adoption.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 7 minutes.

Madam President, we have been listening to our good friend from Kansas concerning this contract air traffic control tower amendment. I think there is no better example to use when talking about a bureaucracy taking something that everybody wants, that is very inexpensive, and using that to try to force people to do something that should never have happened.

In terms of the contract air traffic control towers, this is not just a rural issue. This is something that can happen all around. It happens that I have six in my State of Oklahoma and up in Kansas I believe they have five, but the fact is this is a major safety issue. We have a huge, bloated bureaucracy in the FAA. Yet we are saying we have to close a handful of towers and let people be uncontrolled. I know a little about that; it is what I did for a living. It is totally outrageous.

So we have an amendment, Senator Moran and I, to redirect the money within the FAA budget. There would be no additional cost. It would rescind $23.8 million from FAA facilities and equipment. Now, I ask, are facilities and equipment more important than actually having an active control tower in these congested areas? Also, it would take $26.2 million from FAA research and development. Well, I can assure you this is more significant, and no one looking at this would rationally say it is not. So I encourage my good friend from Kansas to pursue this.

Similar to this is something that I, along with several Democrats-- the primary one being Kay Hagan--am concerned about, and that is what has happened in terms of a decision that was made by the Secretary of Defense to take out the tuition assistance. This is a very small amount of money for our troops who are over there serving now.

This is kind of interesting because I was a product of the draft. My service was not voluntary when I was in, and I thought a total voluntary force would not be effective. As I found out, it was. Well, one of the main reasons people do sign up--a lot of people say: Yes, I want to serve my country. A lot say: Yes, I want a career in the Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force. However, they also want to advance themselves. They want an education, and in many cases, the only way they can get one is to have this tuition assistance program.

I can recall being over in the mess halls in Afghanistan and actually out in the field in Afghanistan where we have some 200,000 Army troops there now who are participating in this program. This is not an expensive program. All we want to do is make sure we give what was taken away from those individuals who are trying to better themselves, trying to better their lives, perhaps work toward a career in the military.

Stop and think about the amount of money that could come out of, say,

some of the green initiatives. How many people know that our Navy was forced to pay $29 a gallon for 450,000 gallons of fuel when you can buy it on the market for $3? All these things. Do we have any business having a biorefinery built by the Federal Government? These are all things in this budget, and any one of them would be far more than the assistance we are giving our troops for their tuition.

We are circulating a letter that draws attention to this, and we have Democrats and Republicans--just about even--saying: Mr. Secretary of Defense, go ahead and rescind that. We have a lot of waste we need to get rid of, but this is not waste. Our troops' preparation for the future is not a waste of our taxpayer money.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I have a modification at the desk to amendment No. 29.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

I ask unanimous consent to be recognized at the end of the Senator's remarks.

Madam President, we have been discussing and debating ObamaCare for 3 years--several years anyway. I have not heard the argument before where they say you have the same government-run plan. That is not true. That is not true at all.

I have worked in the corporate world and been on the leadership part where we were making decisions and offered our employees the benefits of different companies. It could be Aetna, Blue Cross-Blue Shield or anybody else. We could make that determination as to what we wanted and then we paid for it.

I don't think that argument has ever been used, to my memory. I wasn't coming down to talk about that, but I will, since I am a cosponsor of the Cruz amendment. I think anything you are able to do to get rid of ObamaCare is in our interests.

Right now, the attorney general in the State of Oklahoma is Scott Pruitt. I spoke with him this morning. He has a lawsuit with an amended complaint challenging the implementation of ObamaCare. Scott Pruitt is arguing the IRS is attempting to redefine ObamaCare's mandate tax in order to hike taxes on Oklahoma employees. That is what is happening right now in my State of Oklahoma. I don't know how the polling goes. I would only say this: I sense an air of anxiety with a lot of these people trying to support ObamaCare right now, because people have caught on. People in the State of Oklahoma have caught on. In Oklahoma, we would have to spend an additional $400 million over the next 10 years on Medicaid in order to cover those who already qualify and will be forced into the program--this government program we are talking about--due to ObamaCare and the mandate. This money will be diverted from schools and from roads and other needs, public safety, in the State of Oklahoma. Our research shows that premiums in Oklahoma could increase anywhere from 65 to 100 percent due to the coverage mandates required by ObamaCare. It is as if we are having this debate all over again, but they are bringing up things now I have never heard of.

I want to mention one thing, and that is there is a friend of mine in Oklahoma whose name is David Green. David Green several years ago started with one store, a thing called Hobby Lobby--1 store in the State of Oklahoma--and now he has 500 stores in 41 States and he has, I don't know, I think it is over 50,000 employees. He is now facing a new type of intimidation he has never faced in his life, and it is the intimidation of saying because of David Green's religious convictions against providing his employees with abortion-inducing drugs his company now faces fines amounting to $1.3 million a day.

All those pro-abortionists out there like this. This is wonderful. But he is someone who has hired thousands of people in 41 States in this country and is now providing all these benefits for Americans, and all he is saying is his religious convictions don't allow him to participate in abortion-inducing drugs. So he is under the threat right now, if you do the math, of a $1.3-million-a-day fine. And I guess I am more sensitive to this than I should be because I have known him from the very beginning.

I want to speak briefly, because I know I have a couple of colleagues who wish to speak. Does the Senator wish to make a UC to get in line?

Yes, I just wanted to ask whether the Senator wanted to lock himself in with a unanimous consent request while I finish on another subject.

Madam President, I do cosponsor this amendment, and I will be voting for it at 2 p.m. today. But there is another one that will come up, amendment No. 28, and it could be coming up in a very short time this afternoon, and I was afraid I wouldn't have a chance to make a couple of comments about it.

I am cosponsoring this amendment by Senator Paul, and it withholds funding to go to Egypt until Egypt's President Morsi declares he intends to abide by the Camp David peace accords, which have kept the peace between Egypt and Israel for over 30 years.

If you talk to any of your Israeli friends, they will tell you this is significant, and I appreciate the fact he recognizes that. In fact, the bill I had

introduced back in--well, I actually introduced it earlier, but reintroduced it on January 25 of this year--S. 207--calls for the suspension of the shipment of F-16s and other military equipment and services to Egypt until Morsi agrees to continue to uphold Egypt's commitment under the 1979 Camp David peace accords.

A lot of people don't realize they have been our friend, and if you ask any of your Israeli friends, they will tell you they are. It happens that this President is a Muslim Brotherhood president. He is not like the ones we have had in Egypt before. People who think of other countries having the same kind of system we have, they do not. Right now the military is a military we trained. There is a Major General Elkeshky, who happens to be here now and who is a friend of mine, and he was trained at Fort Sill in Oklahoma. The majority of the middle-grade officers in Egypt have been trained in the United States. They are our friends. And that is what we are getting at here.

So I made that qualification when I said we want to reduce the things we are doing, and I was talking about military equipment--the F-16s-- way back in January, until they make that commitment. I think that is a very reasonable commitment.

The amendment that will be coming up, amendment No. 28, will be by Senator Paul and myself and it will talk about support for Egypt and go into other areas of support over and above military equipment, saying that until such time as they agree with what they have agreed to over the last 30 years or so--that they will continue to be our friends-- then we want to withhold this. It is the only leverage we have. I said this back in January, that the only leverage we have, in order to encourage them to come with us, is to say we are going to withhold some things, and that is what we are doing.

So when that amendment comes up--of course, I still have my bill, S. 207, and it is essentially the same as the Paul-Inhofe amendment. It is not necessary to have them both in terms of a vote, but I think on one we will have to have a vote, but it should tie in to what their behavior has been in the past, what it should be in the future, so that we don't have a Muslim Brotherhood guy running a country and we don't know how our equipment is going to be used.

Our F-16s and other equipment, our tanks, have been used to participate in the defense of our friends in the Middle East, primarily Israel and of ourselves. I am hoping we will get to that when we have a chance to have a vote on it.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside to consider----

Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment for consideration of my amendment.

No, I have the floor.

First of all, I would not object to a 60-vote threshold in order to get things to move along. I would say my good friend from California has seen this bill several times before, and several months ago we actually had a vote on it, but I have no objection.

This is something we are all familiar with. There is a spill prevention or an SPCC----

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

This is a bill that for years and years has come up. It was originally designed for refineries that have very large amounts of storage, of oil, of propane, of all that type of material, and it was designed for them to have the necessary safeguards in place. Then, later on, there became a gray area. I ask the question because it has never been answered: Should they now be able to apply this to farms? Farms may have perhaps a little bit of propane over here and over here, someplace else, something else. It might add up to the 1,320 gallons at one time. If that is the case, then they would be under the same requirements as we currently have for refiners. I am talking about them having to do volumes and volumes of paperwork. They would have to purchase new double-lined containers and build berms around their storage facilities. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars, and this could be an average-sized farm.

The EPA has not done enough outreach to farmers to help them get into compliance. When this came up before, we introduced this same amendment that would give them time, with the assurance at that time that they would do this. In fact, I recall personally visiting with Lisa Jackson and she had every intention to go ahead and make these notifications.

So the EPA shouldn't be allowed to enforce the rule against farmers at this time. What this amendment does is asks for an extension to give them time. I plan on talking to the new Director of the EPA about this very issue. This is not just exempting farmers. This is giving more time, in this case, until the end of this fiscal year.

So I would like to be able to pass this. I do urge its adoption and ask for the yeas and nays.

I am sorry, I could not hear the Senator.

No. We are asking for a vote sometime tomorrow.

Will the Senator yield?

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

I wanted to make sure that clarification was on the Record.

Yes. Let me make one comment for clarification.

We will have the opportunity to look at this closer, as the Senator from California suggests, tomorrow. We have talked about this in the past. This is extending that May 30 date to the end of the fiscal year. As you know, everything that would be an amendment adopted on this would expire at the end of the fiscal year. So it is just an extension of that time. Because by their own admission, the EPA has not had time to listen to the concerns of the farmers. And I am talking about farmers in both of your States there as well as my State of Oklahoma.

As far as making the determination as to where the oil might go, I think we all know that would be a very difficult thing to do. There has been an effort for quite some time to take the word ``navigable'' out, which would open it to anywhere.

So I think perhaps tomorrow we will have time to get into this. I really wanted to get it in the queue. I have done that, and we will have a chance tomorrow.

I thank the Senator.

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

I thank the Senator very much.

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

Madam President, since being elected, President Obama has been talking about the virtues of our Nation's potential to achieve domestic energy independence. In his State of the Union Message just a short time ago he said: ``After years of talking about it, we are finally poised to control our own energy future.''

This is something I have been saying now for years. We already have control over our energy future. The problem is we have an administration that has not allowed us to exploit our own capabilities in terms of developing the natural resources we have. In fact, we are the only country in the world that doesn't develop its own resources.

In fact, in each of the President's budgets he has proposed to kill certain tax provisions specific to the oil and gas industry. Even though he says these are subsidies for the oil and gas industry, that is not the case.

I would like to mention these because no one ever talks about the fact that he has specific provisions in his own budget. I will mention just three of them.

Intangible drilling costs--called IDCs. This is a provision that simply allows producers to deduct from their revenue the cost of drilling. You pay taxes on net revenue. So this is net of the expenses it takes to develop the revenue. Every business is allowed to deduct ordinary and necessary business expenses, and IDCs are exactly that for the oil and gas industry.

In other words, the cost of drilling should be deducted because a lot of times they drill and don't produce anything. So this is something everyone else has and we should be having also in the oil industry. If the President gets rid of these, the tax increase would be $13.9 billion over the 10-year period we have been talking about. This is interesting because that is not a tax that would be paid by them. It would go into the increased cost of energy. But we stopped that. We stopped that provision from becoming a reality, even though it was in the President's budget.

The second is called percentage depletion. Percentage depletion is simply a way the Tax Code has allowed oil and gas producers to account for the reduction in the value of their reserves. Let's say they are fortunate and they produced oil that is going to be income that will go to them. As that is depleted, the value of that has been depleted also.

Percentage depletion has been on the books as long as we have had the industry. If the President were successful in doing away with the percentage depletion, that would mean about an $11.5 billion tax increase on the energy we use in this country.

The last one I will mention--and there are actually two more--is called section 199. Section 199 is the manufacturer's tax deduction. It allows all manufacturers, including farmers, filmmakers, and the rest of them to take a small deduction in their taxes because they create products here in America. The President has always proposed canceling this out but only for the oil and gas industry and not for anybody else. Everybody else would have that same advantage.

Again, if the President were successful in doing this, it would increase the cost of energy by $11.6 billion over that 10-year period. The President's proposal to increase these taxes would prevent the industry from reaching its true potential, despite the fact of what we have out there and what we could do and how we could get it done today real quickly.

A recent CRS--Congressional Research Service--report stated that the United States has the largest combined resources in oil, natural gas, and coal of any country in the world. We have more than Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada combined. Yet we are the only Nation, as I said, in the world that doesn't allow ourselves to exploit our own resources.

Fortunately, oil and gas activities have increased over the past years. As much as the President may want to claim credit for this, he has no standing to do so because, as I mentioned, the tax provisions he has proposed in his budget have been very negative toward oil and gas. Last year we hit a 15-year high in oil production, producing an average of 6.4 million barrels a day, which was 800,000 barrels per day more than in 2011.

This increase is staggering and it is the result of the amazing advancements in oil and gas production technologies--things such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. These are things that have helped us get the oil and gas out of tight formations.

Nearly all of this increase has occurred on State and private lands. CRS confirmed 1 year ago that ``about 96 percent of the increase [in oil and gas production] since 2007 took place on non-Federal lands.'' That is critical, because as I have said twice already, we are the only country that doesn't develop its own resources. This means that is beyond the reach of the President's hands. In other words, he can't stop the private land production but he can the public land.

Adding to that--and this was just released yesterday, which is why I wanted to make this point today--the oil production on all Federal lands, including onshore and offshore, declined last year for the second year in a row, falling from 632 million barrels in 2011 to right at 600 million barrels in 2012. So the 800,000 barrels-per-day increase we saw last year took place solely on private lands, none of it on public lands.

During this boom time we are having right now, on that which the President has control over--the Federal lands--we have actually had a reduction. This makes sense, given what we know about oil and gas permitting on Federal lands. It still take 300 days to get a permit to drill.

This is something you can't talk about too much because they would always say: In a certain case, you need to do it faster. In my State of Oklahoma, you can get it done in hours. In North Dakota, you can get permitting done in an average of about 10 days. But no, it is 300 days on Federal lands.

I have a friend named Harold Hamm. He is arguably the most successful independent producer in America today. He is from Enid, OK. He does most of his production in North Dakota right now. I saw just a moment

ago the Senator from North Dakota, and he can be very proud of the fact that in North Dakota Harold Hamm has one huge problem: He can't find people to work. They have full employment up there. This is what the potential is for this entire country.

This chart shows all the potential, and I call to the Chair's attention this Northeastern part of the United States--Pennsylvania and New York. It didn't use to be the case that they had all that potential, but they do now, and it is spread evenly throughout the country with all the great new discoveries that are out there.

Anyway, one of the arguments the President has had when I have said over and over again for the last 4 years that we need to open our public lands for drilling, and if we were able to do that, good things would happen in terms of the market, the price of gas at the pump, is that if we do that--if we allow the drilling for gas and oil on public lands--it would be 10 years before we would feel that at the pump--10 years.

So I called Harold Hamm. He is a guy who I think everyone would agree could be considered the most knowledgeable person in this area, about 6 months ago I called him and said to him: I am going to be on a national TV show--I should tell you what it is, but I will not--and the President has been saying it will take 10 years before that oil will reach the pumps and so I would like to ask you a question. I said: When you answer, I am going to use your name live on national TV tonight, so make sure you are accurate. So I asked him: If you had a rig set up in New Mexico and you were able to lift the restrictions we have on public lands, how long would it take that oil and gas to hit the market? He said, without hesitating, 70 days. I said: Be sure you are right. I am going to use your name, and he proceeded to tell me what would happen each day for the first barrel of oil to actually reach the pumps and have an effect.

Anyway, no one has argued with that yet because it is pretty well documented. So by the time you have one Federal drilling permit completed, Harold Hamm could have four separate wells up and running, providing more jobs and cheaper gasoline for all Americans.

Fortunately, the President does not control the permitting process on State and private lands, and because of this the industry has had the opportunity to unlock tremendous natural gas resources. Not 5 years ago, many believed the United States faced a significant shortage of natural gas. Wellhead prices at that time were trading as high as $11 per thousand cubic feet--$11 per thousand cubic feet--and investors were racing to build liquefied natural gas import facilities. We were going to import liquefied natural gas. As you know, natural gas has to be liquefied to have some bulk before you are able to trade it internationally. Anyway, they were racing to try to get this done so we would be able to import from foreign countries to meet U.S. demand with foreign supplies.

The shale gas revolution changed all this. Our expected natural gas reserves are well over 2 quadrillion cubic feet, which is enough gas to supply our domestic needs in the United States for 90 years. That is right here in this country. Many industry observers believe this estimate is discounted to the Nation's true potential. This dramatic shift in natural gas markets has pushed prices down to below $4 per thousand cubic feet, putting the United States in a unique position to bolster both wealth creation and our foreign policy might by beginning natural gas exports. So we would be going from importing liquefied natural gas to exporting natural gas.

Right now there are currently 15 permits to export LNG pending before Secretary Chu at the Department of Energy. The Natural Gas Act requires the Department to ``issue such [a permit] upon application, unless . . . it will not be consistent with the public interest.''

What could be inconsistent with this for the public interest? This would be cheaper gas for us and give us total independence in a matter of weeks.

Congress, when it wrote the Natural Gas Act, understood that the export of American products is good for the Nation. It supports domestic industry, creates jobs, and transfers wealth from overseas back to the United States. It is all good for us.

A recent report commissioned by DOE to assist it in making its determination agreed with this. They stated:

. . . across the scenarios [examined by the study], the

U.S. economic welfare consistently increases as the volume of

natural gas exports increases.

So that is the opportunity that is out there.

Some in this body have raised concerns about allowing liquefied natural gas exports to move forward. They are concerned mainly that production would not be able to keep up with the rising consumption and exports and that the follow-on effects will be harmful to domestic industries. I can appreciate where these Members are coming from, but I want to point out something that many may be overlooking.

The Energy Information Agency, the EIA, releases an annual outlook for U.S. energy markets. In their most recent one, which came out just a few weeks ago, they estimated that between now and 2040, production of natural gas would increase by 40 percent, which will more than offset the expected 20 percent increase in consumption. So our consumption is going to increase. People say: How can we ever become independent. Our production will increase at twice the consumption level.

Today, natural gas is trading near an all-time low, and because of this many producers have completely abandoned new natural gas production projects. In 2008, when natural gas was trading at nearly $11 per thousand cubic feet, there were over 1,600 active drilling rigs. Today, that figure is down to 428. That is a 73-percent reduction. The rigs are still out there. They are still set up. They are just not operating. Overnight, you can have them operating again.

The industry is not moving forward with projects because it does not have the demand and certainty it needs to do so. Without demand certainty, it is impossible to accurately forecast whether the massive investments required to develop a project can be recouped. This stalls both job and wealth creation, keeping our unemployment rates and deficits higher than they should be.

Today the natural gas market is in a demand-limited scenario, and it will remain there for the foreseeable future. Supply is truly so abundant and readily available that as soon as more demand comes online producers are able to tap reserves and meet the market's needs.

The consulting firm Deloitte agrees. In its report, it stated ``producers can develop more reserves in anticipation of demand growth.'' They added that future LNG exports will have limited disruptions to natural gas markets because they ``will likely be backed by long-term supply contracts, as well as long-term contracts with buyers. There will be ample notice and time in advance of the exports to make supplies available.''

This should be of great encouragement to domestic energy consumers. In fact, the NERA Consulting Report concluded that across the board, industries would not be hurt by LNG exports, stating that ``no sector analyzed . . . would experience reductions in employment more rapid than normal turnover.''

The petrochemical industry is one that has been vocal in opposition to LNG exports, but the leftwing think tank, the Brookings Institute, stated in its LNG report that ``exports can be seen as providing a benefit to the petrochemical industry'' because it is primarily a user of natural gas liquids and not the dry liquids used to make LNG.

I can appreciate the fact that many people are worried about the cost of energy going up in this country. I am too. But those who are concerned that exports will be the cause of this have misplaced concerns. Rather, they should be focusing their attention on the cumulative effect of adverse government policies negatively affecting energy sources. Government regulations, largely those coming out of the EPA, are perhaps the greatest threat to this Nation achieving domestic energy independence. We have gone from 1,600 rigs out there that were operating down to 428 rigs.

Further, when considering the potential benefits of LNG exports, we can't dismiss the impact trade has had on

other sectors of our economy. Agriculture is a prime example. The Federal Government works diligently to open and maintain international market access for U.S. agricultural producers. This was highlighted very recently by the announcement that Japan would ease its restrictions on U.S beef imports. Certainly, this is meaningful to my State and the States of others who are in this Chamber right now. This has been a major goal of the current and previous administrations for years, and Japan's decision was hailed by the administration and many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Everyone knows it is a great deal because when you sell products abroad, you both generate wealth at home and expand the size of the market, thereby increasing opportunities for expansion.

The Federal Government should adopt the same perspective with LNG exports. LNG exports will create jobs across the country, bring more wealth to our Nation from abroad, and grow our economy--all at the same time. Meanwhile, we will be providing needed fuel for our allies-- Japan, Korea, NATO, and Thailand--who will consequently be able to reduce their reliance on the Middle East.

So it is something that is good for everybody. It is good for our country; it is good for our economy. And all you have to do is, if you want to see that, look up to North Dakota. As I mentioned, a great independent producer, Harold Hamm from Oklahoma, is up there right now, and his biggest problem is they are fully employed.

We have a similar situation in my State of Oklahoma. We have expanded our production to the point where we are not feeling some of the grief you hear in the discussions from the other people on this floor. So I would encourage us to look at this export to keep this market, to get those other 1,600 wells working. This is something that can certainly happen.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead Exposure Reduction Amendments Act of 2013.

In April 2010, an EPA rule governing work done in homes constructed before 1978 took effect. The aim of this rule is to protect at-risk populations, defined as pregnant women and children under the age of six, from harmful lead paint dust particles that may be generated during home construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling work. While lead paint was generally discontinued from in-home use in the 1960s and 1970s, the rule applies to all homes built before 1978 and requires all contractors to be certified by the EPA and be supervised by an EPA certified renovator while following rigorous and costly safe lead work practices.

Some of these requirements include sealing off the area where the renovation is occurring; removing all objects from the work area; covering any porous work areas with smooth, cleanable areas; using special tools that have emission exhaust controls; vacuuming all items, including people's clothes, who leave the work space; and generally cleaning the work area to ensure there is no dust following completion of the job.

I believe everyone in this chamber stands strongly behind the intent of the rule, which is to protect children

and pregnant women from the harmful effects of lead. With 20 kids and grandkids, I appreciate the importance of the rule, and the potential it has to further decrease lead exposure. But this rule does add significant cost to the completion of renovation jobs and adds significant regulatory hurdles to many small business owners in situations where it may not at all be necessary.

Fortunately, the original rule included an opt-out provision for homeowners who did not have any at-risk individuals living in their homes. Provided the contractor made them aware of the potential lead- paint risks, the homeowner could give the contractor permission to carry out the job without following the EPA's lead safe work practices. This makes sense because the health issues caused by renovation work in homes with lead paint are minor for adults and older children who are not members of the at-risk population.

But in July 2010, just three months after the rule took effect, the EPA removed this opt-out provision. By doing this, EPA more than doubled the number of homes requiring safe work practices and increased the economy-wide cost of compliance by well more than $336 million by EPA's own estimate, which is significantly less than reality.

Further, EPA has failed to meet the requirements of its own rule because there are no commercially available lead paint test kits. Test kits would allow contractors to see whether work spaces include any lead paint, and if none is detected then the contractor would not have to follow lead safe work practices, which makes sense. Unfortunately, the test kits that are currently available produce 60-percent false positives, requiring many homeowners to pay significantly more for home remodeling work, even though there may not be any lead to protect them from.

The bill I'm introducing today is simple. It would first require the EPA to restore the opt-out provision. If homeowners have no residents who are at-risk to lead paint contamination, then they should be able to waive the regulatory requirement.

The bill will also suspend the rule for homes built after 1960 if the EPA does not develop workable test kits, unless those homes include members of the at-risk population. The bill would also provide a de minimis exemption for first-time paperwork violations against contractors. The EPA has focused its enforcement efforts on these violations despite the fact that the contractors may be appropriately following safe lead practices.

Finally, the bill prohibits EPA from expanding this regulation to commercial and public buildings until it has completed a study to determine the risk of such practices. EPA is in the process of writing these regulations even though it has not yet completed the corresponding study. If there is no risk, why would EPA issue regulations? They would be a solution in search of a problem. EPA needs to do its due diligence and determine whether there would be any meaningful health benefits from extending this rule to other areas.

In closing, I want to reiterate my dedication to the cause of protecting the health of vulnerable populations, and particularly pregnant women and children. But it is important for EPA's regulations to be pursued in a way that make sense, and that is what my bill intends to do. This is an ongoing goal of mine as a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead Exposure Reduction Amendments Act of 2013.

In April 2010, an EPA rule governing work done in homes constructed before 1978 took effect. The aim of this rule is to protect at-risk populations, defined as pregnant women and children under the age of six, from harmful lead paint dust particles that may be generated during home construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling work. While lead paint was generally discontinued from in-home use in the 1960s and 1970s, the rule applies to all homes built before 1978 and requires all contractors to be certified by the EPA and be supervised by an EPA certified renovator while following rigorous and costly safe lead work practices.

Some of these requirements include sealing off the area where the renovation is occurring; removing all objects from the work area; covering any porous work areas with smooth, cleanable areas; using special tools that have emission exhaust controls; vacuuming all items, including people's clothes, who leave the work space; and generally cleaning the work area to ensure there is no dust following completion of the job.

I believe everyone in this chamber stands strongly behind the intent of the rule, which is to protect children

and pregnant women from the harmful effects of lead. With 20 kids and grandkids, I appreciate the importance of the rule, and the potential it has to further decrease lead exposure. But this rule does add significant cost to the completion of renovation jobs and adds significant regulatory hurdles to many small business owners in situations where it may not at all be necessary.

Fortunately, the original rule included an opt-out provision for homeowners who did not have any at-risk individuals living in their homes. Provided the contractor made them aware of the potential lead- paint risks, the homeowner could give the contractor permission to carry out the job without following the EPA's lead safe work practices. This makes sense because the health issues caused by renovation work in homes with lead paint are minor for adults and older children who are not members of the at-risk population.

But in July 2010, just three months after the rule took effect, the EPA removed this opt-out provision. By doing this, EPA more than doubled the number of homes requiring safe work practices and increased the economy-wide cost of compliance by well more than $336 million by EPA's own estimate, which is significantly less than reality.

Further, EPA has failed to meet the requirements of its own rule because there are no commercially available lead paint test kits. Test kits would allow contractors to see whether work spaces include any lead paint, and if none is detected then the contractor would not have to follow lead safe work practices, which makes sense. Unfortunately, the test kits that are currently available produce 60-percent false positives, requiring many homeowners to pay significantly more for home remodeling work, even though there may not be any lead to protect them from.

The bill I'm introducing today is simple. It would first require the EPA to restore the opt-out provision. If homeowners have no residents who are at-risk to lead paint contamination, then they should be able to waive the regulatory requirement.

The bill will also suspend the rule for homes built after 1960 if the EPA does not develop workable test kits, unless those homes include members of the at-risk population. The bill would also provide a de minimis exemption for first-time paperwork violations against contractors. The EPA has focused its enforcement efforts on these violations despite the fact that the contractors may be appropriately following safe lead practices.

Finally, the bill prohibits EPA from expanding this regulation to commercial and public buildings until it has completed a study to determine the risk of such practices. EPA is in the process of writing these regulations even though it has not yet completed the corresponding study. If there is no risk, why would EPA issue regulations? They would be a solution in search of a problem. EPA needs to do its due diligence and determine whether there would be any meaningful health benefits from extending this rule to other areas.

In closing, I want to reiterate my dedication to the cause of protecting the health of vulnerable populations, and particularly pregnant women and children. But it is important for EPA's regulations to be pursued in a way that make sense, and that is what my bill intends to do. This is an ongoing goal of mine as a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I would like to introduce a piece of legislation that I believe is of great importance to the unity of the American people--the English Language Unity Act of 2013.

That English Language Unity Act of 2013 recognizes the practical reality of the role of English as our national language and makes English the official language of the United States government, a status in law it has not had before, and calls on government to preserve and enhance the role of English as the official language.

Let me be clear, nothing in the bill prohibits the use of a language other than English. The bill specifically exempts certain actions from requiring English, such as actions necessary for national security, trade, and protecting the public health and safety. The English Language Unity Act is an attempt to legislate a common sense language policy that a nation of immigrants needs one national language. Our Nation was settled by a group of people with a common vision. As our population has grown, our cultural diversity has grown as well. This diversity is part of what makes our nation great.

However, we must be able to communicate with one another so that we can

appreciate our differences. When members of our society cannot speak a common language, misunderstandings arise. Furthermore, the individuals who do not speak the language of the majority miss out on many opportunities to advance in society and achieve the American Dream.

The English Language Unity Act of 2013 requires the establishment of a uniform language requirement for naturalization and requires that all naturalization ceremonies be conducted in English. I want to empower new immigrants coming to our nation by helping them understand and become successful in their new home. I believe that one of the most important ways immigrants can achieve success is by learning English.

There is enormous popular support for English as the official language according to polling that has taken place over the last few years. A large majority of Americans support making English the official language of the United States. There is also widespread and bipartisan support for this legislation, and I hope that you will join me this Congress in supporting the English Language Unity Act of 2013.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I would like to introduce a piece of legislation that I believe is of great importance to the unity of the American people--the English Language Unity Act of 2013.

That English Language Unity Act of 2013 recognizes the practical reality of the role of English as our national language and makes English the official language of the United States government, a status in law it has not had before, and calls on government to preserve and enhance the role of English as the official language.

Let me be clear, nothing in the bill prohibits the use of a language other than English. The bill specifically exempts certain actions from requiring English, such as actions necessary for national security, trade, and protecting the public health and safety. The English Language Unity Act is an attempt to legislate a common sense language policy that a nation of immigrants needs one national language. Our Nation was settled by a group of people with a common vision. As our population has grown, our cultural diversity has grown as well. This diversity is part of what makes our nation great.

However, we must be able to communicate with one another so that we can

appreciate our differences. When members of our society cannot speak a common language, misunderstandings arise. Furthermore, the individuals who do not speak the language of the majority miss out on many opportunities to advance in society and achieve the American Dream.

The English Language Unity Act of 2013 requires the establishment of a uniform language requirement for naturalization and requires that all naturalization ceremonies be conducted in English. I want to empower new immigrants coming to our nation by helping them understand and become successful in their new home. I believe that one of the most important ways immigrants can achieve success is by learning English.

There is enormous popular support for English as the official language according to polling that has taken place over the last few years. A large majority of Americans support making English the official language of the United States. There is also widespread and bipartisan support for this legislation, and I hope that you will join me this Congress in supporting the English Language Unity Act of 2013.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Would the Senator yield for a question before she starts?

Yes, of course. The question is this--and I know the Senator already knows this, but others may not know, and I want to make sure they are aware.

I am in support of the Senator's bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill and have been since way back when the Senator first started with Jon Kyl a long time ago.

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

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

Madam President, I thank my friend from Utah for his comments. I think it is important, since we have two votes coming up starting in less than 30 minutes, that we talk a little bit about the background, where we are today and what we are going to be faced with in these votes and what the options are.

Back about 5 weeks ago, when it looked as though sequestration was going to kick in, there was concern. I understand there is a lot of concern on the domestic side and on the defense side, but my concern is mainly on the defense side. I am the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I am concerned about what has been happening under this administration in the last 4 years, the disarming of America and the devastation that has taken place already. A lot of people do not realize, under this administration we are now projecting cuts already to hit $487 billion in defense.

If sequestration should come in, it would raise that to $1 trillion, and $1 trillion over that period of time is, in fact, devastating. The Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, came out immediately and said: This cannot happen; we cannot adequately defend America if we allow this to take place. He was talking about sequestration.

Sequestration, I think people kind of lose sight of what it is. It is the equal cutting all the way across all of these accounts in order to come up with a savings, which I think is kind of interesting. Here we are talking about all this anguish we are going through right now just for $1.2 trillion, when you stop and realize in the President's own budget, over 4 years he has a $5.3 trillion increase. So we are talking about 10 years to come up with $1.2 trillion when he was accountable for $5.3 trillion in 4 years. That is not even believable. When I say it back in my State of Oklahoma they shake their heads and think there must be some miscommunication, it cannot be right.

The problem has been, in this administration, over the past 4 years all the cuts have come from the military. They have not come from anywhere else. It is an oversimplification, but you can make the statement that they are cutting--I will yield to my friend from Utah because I understand he has a unanimous consent request. I will be happy to do that, but I ask unanimous consent the floor be returned to me.

Will the Senator yield?

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

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

Right after his time, yes.

I appreciate that.

Prior to the time we propounded the unanimous consent request, I was talking about my frustration about what has been happening fiscally in this Senate during the last 4 years and the mere fact that under this administration we have increased deficits by $5.3 trillion. Now we are trying to come up with something far less than that in a period of 10 years. To me, people look at that and say: What is this all about? But that is not the reason I bring this up.

I bring this up because the amount of money that has come out of the military is actually a reduction. If you look at the increase in the spending in the last 4 years, it has all come out of defense accounts, so it is defense that has taken the hits on this. Government has expanded approximately 30 percent across the board. At the same time our military has been reduced in terms of our budget for defense accounts.

Anyway, when this came up a few weeks ago, I thought it was not going to happen. I thought we were going to have something come up and change this whole idea of having to make these reductions. So what I did at that time was draft a bill. The bill merely said if we are stuck with sequestration, let's allow the chiefs--speaking of the military--to reevaluate everything that is included so they can look and see where we can take cuts and it will not be as devastating.

In fact, I called each one of the five service chiefs and I said: Would it be less devastating if you were able to take the same amount of money out but take it out selectively, out of accounts where it would be not as significant?

They said: Yes, it would.

I said: Would you be able to prepare for this in the next 4 years?

The answer is yes. That is where we are today. They said they are able to do that.

The frustrating fact is this President--I am getting criticized on both sides. People are saying you are giving too much to the President. We are not because we have safeguards in here, which I will explain in a minute. But at the same time, the President comes out and says he will issue a veto threat against this bill. What does this do? It gives flexibility for the President.

I am going to read something. This is a statement that President Obama said on February 19, 2013. He said:

Now, if Congress allows this meat-cleaver approach to take

place, it will jeopardize our military readiness; it will

eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy

and medical research. It won't consider whether we are

cutting some bloated program that has outlived its

usefulness, or a vital service that Americans depend on every

single day. It doesn't make those distinctions.

He goes on to say that he wants that flexibility. This is the President asking for it on February 19, 2013. Here we come along with a bill that gives him that flexibility with certain restrictions so that he can't pick and choose areas that we find are against the policy that has been set. I will give an example.

We had the National Defense Authorization Act. It was one that took months and months to put together. It took a long time to put together, and we made evaluations, with a limited budget, on what we could do. All this does is say if we have to make some changes from the across- the-board cut, let's make them consistent with the National Defense Authorization Act.

In other words, all those weeks and months of work by the Senate Armed Services Committee and, I might say, the House Armed Services Committee would not be in vain. Those cuts would be consistent with the intent, to make sure the President would do this.

A lot of people say we can't trust the President; he is going to put more cuts in places where it would not be in keeping with what the Senate Armed Services Committee wants. But we have a provision called a congressional disapproval mechanism. That means if the President doesn't do what the intent of this legislation is, then we can go ahead and disapprove it.

We have those two safeguards. One is they have to follow the criteria that is consistent with the Senate Armed Services Committee, the national defense authorization bill, which is the House and the Senate. To be sure we will be able to do that it has the disapproval mechanism.

People do not realize the costs of this. If you take the same amount of money that we are talking about in sequestration and allow the service chiefs to massage this and make changes, give them flexibility to go after programs that are not as significant as some that might otherwise be cut--the bill allows the President to listen to the advice of his military leadership and offset some of the devastating impacts of sequestration. If the sequester is allowed to take place and the congressional resolution is not fixed, the Department of Defense stands to waste billions of dollars through the cancellation of contracts.

People don't think about this. We make commitments backed by the United Sates of America that we are going to do certain things. A lot of these are contracts such that if they are terminated it could cost quite a bit of money.

The termination of multiyear contracts is something that we would be concerned about. Providing the Department of Defense flexibility to determine how these cuts will be implemented will let us take this into consideration.

At this point, I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania how much time he would like for his concluding remarks.

Madam President, I appreciate that very much. He has been a great partner. I have given a background of what went on 5 weeks ago and our discussions with the service chiefs. I was hoping this day would not come and that we would not be faced with the continued devastation of our military, but the time is here. Tomorrow is the 1st of the month.

The Senator from Pennsylvania and I have come up with a bill that will be voted on, and it will minimize the damage and still preserve the cuts that are mandated and are out there.

One of the problems we have not talked about is the continuing resolution. When I was talking to the different service chiefs, one was General Odierno, who is in the Army. He said that just as devastating as how the CR is set up, this corrects that problem at the same time. We have something that is not going to cost any more money. Believe me, a lot of my closest friends--for instance, in the House of Representatives--think it is a good thing that we are making these mandatory cuts. They cannot argue with that, but we can at least minimize the damage in these cuts.

I will read something that shocked me when I saw the President had issued--I am not sure if it is a veto message. I am told it was a veto message.

Here we have a bill that gives him flexibility with the restrictions we

talked about. Yet he says he is now going to veto it. It is worth reading this again, and we need to make sure we get this in the Record.

This is his quote on February 19, 2013. This is the President speaking.

Now, if Congress allows this meat-cleaver approach to take

place, it will jeopardize our military readiness; it will

eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy

and medical research. It won't consider whether we're cutting

some bloated program that has outlived its usefulness, or a

vital service that Americans depend on every single day. It

doesn't make those distinctions.

We are now giving him a vehicle that makes those distinctions so we have that flexibility. It has the safeguards to take care of the problems that have been brought up. I think it is not a good solution, but right now it is the only solution.

With that, I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield?

Excuse me. Would the Senator from Michigan yield for a question?

Mr. President, first of all, I agree with a lot of what the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee has said. Certainly Senator Hagel has had a brilliant military career. I sometimes look at my time in the Army and his time in the Army and mine is very unimpressive. That is not what the issue is.

I do think it is interesting in the debate we have had on the floor, all the time from the Democrats has been talking about his military record. Nobody disagrees with that. That is a fact. But there are some things that have to come out because they are very significant.

First of all, what we are going to vote on at noon is the vote. There is not any other vote. The vote after that is merely a simple majority and that would be automatic. Those who are expressing where they are on the Hagel nomination must be reflected in the vote that takes place now, the cloture vote at noon today. Our time is equally divided. Leadership time did take up some of that so we are a little bit scarce on time. First, let me make it real clear this is the one vote that makes a difference. If they are able to get 60 votes for the Hagel nomination, it is history. It is over.

I do wish to say a couple things for clarification before others on our side start speaking. One is about the whole idea of a 60-vote threshold. I have been listening to some of the pundits on television. One of my favorites--I will not mention her by name, but she is kind of the leader of the far left on television. I was watching her a couple days ago and she was talking about how this is something that never happened before, we have never had a 60-vote margin on a Cabinet-level position.

This is not true. It happens all the time. It is normal. This is how significant this confirmation vote is. It is not something that would make it go for a long period of time. Actually, I have lists. Later on, if there is time, I am going to go over some of these. Kathleen Sebelius, for example, that was a 60-vote margin; John Bryson for Secretary of Commerce, 60-vote margin.

Here is an interesting one. Back when President Bush, who was a Republican, was President, he nominated Stephen Johnson to be the EPA Administrator. He was a Republican. The President was a Republican. Stephen Johnson was a Democrat. Of course the other side was saying, no, we are going to demand to have cloture, and they finally did get 61 votes on that; Dirk Kempthorne, same thing, Secretary of the Interior.

This idea that this is the first time is just not right. I would appreciate it if people would be a little more honest when they are looking at that issue.

They also have said we are in the middle of the wars, which we are. I am the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee. No one is more sensitive to it, no one spends more time talking to the troops than I do, and we do need to have confirmed a Secretary of Defense. Leon Panetta has said he will serve until such time as one is confirmed. But if we go ahead and if this should for some reason not be able to come up with 60 votes, I suggest they go ahead and nominate someone else and we will run it through. I would even help them.

I called Leon Panetta not too long ago--I guess I should not say this on the floor--and asked: Why don't you agree to serve again? He has, of course, family reasons, and I certainly understand he was unable to do it. Michele Flournoy, I commented, would be one. I don't agree with her philosophically on a lot of things, but I think she is one who would not be controversial. Ash Carter--we have a number who could be confirmed in a matter of minutes, and I would be right there with them in order to help that take place.

I do wish to say something about advice and consent. Sometimes people do not understand it. I had someone go back and research this. It started back in 1787. At the Constitutional Convention they talked about it. Back then they used the term ``approbation or rejection of the Senate.'' It means the same thing. This has been going on for a long period of time. Certainly, in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton talked about it as long as he talked about any other subject. So ``approbation or rejection of the Senate'' is the rejection language that was used at that time that is advice and consent today.

Where are we today? Certainly, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, from whom we just heard, is one of the strongest supporters of advice and consent who has said: ``It is shocking and sad to me that the Senate may vote on this nominee''--it doesn't matter, it could be any nominee--``while Senators are being denied critical, relevant information.''

The leader of the Senate has also said many times, he said ``raising the impression that the nominee and the White House have something to hide.''

This is exactly what now is going on in reverse. It goes on and on with different ones who have stated over and over again the significance of the role that the Senate has in advice and consent.

John Kerry said: What the Senate has to decide is whether it is going to stand for the rights of the committees, the rights of advice and consent. The Senators ought to respect the fact that both the chairman and ranking members had requests and those requests had not been fulfilled.

That is exactly what happened. We have one of the new Senators for whom I have a great deal of respect, Senator Cruz. I was talking to him last night. I said: You ought to come down and let them know why it is you are not speaking on this. He said: Look, what else can I do? I have requested over and over and over again for information on our nominee for Secretary of Defense and I have been denied. I have been stonewalled. What else can I say?

I said--maybe it sounded a little extreme the other day when I said I would walk through fire for the ability of our members on the committee to get all the information they are entitled to. Senator Cruz has not received that information. That is something that I think is very critical.

What I want to do, in the short time I have left over--by the way, I ask unanimous consent, if following me, if Senator Coats could be acknowledged for 5 minutes.

After the remarks of the Senator from Illinois, I have no objection.

The problem I had is not with information I had. I didn't need any additional information. I didn't request additional information. Many of the members on the Republican side of our committee did not receive the information they asked for. That was the case with Senator Cruz.

I had a different reason. My reason is that while I think so highly of Senator Hagel and the work he did while he was in the Vietnam war-- he was, in fact, a hero--I have to also look at nominees and ask what their philosophy is. Senator Hagel was one of only two who voted against sanctions for Iran. He was one of only four who voted against an effort to designate the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, and one of only four who refused to sign a letter of solidarity with Israel.

The Global Zero movement advocates a nuke-free world. That sounds so good, and it is something President Obama has talked about. He wistfully looks to the day when we have a nuke-free world. That sounded good back in the days of the Cold War. I look wistfully

back at the days of the Cold War. Back then we had two superpowers. They were predictable. We knew what they had. Mutual assured destruction meant something to them. Mutually assured destruction doesn't mean much to some people in the Middle East, and I think we all understand that. So Global Zero sounds good until we realize that we have countries such as Iran--even our nonclassified intelligence says it is going to have the nuclear capability and delivery system by 2015. I am concerned with that.

I was in shock--and, first of all, I have to thank the chairman of the committee because in the years I served on the Armed Services Committee, I have never seen this done before--when the chairman agreed to allow Senator Cruz, a member of the committee, to use a video that had the Al Jazeera interview where Senator Hagel agreed with Al Jazeera's position that Israel has committed war crimes, that Israel has committed sickening slaughter, and that America is the world's bully. These are things which concern me about the attitude toward Israel. I understand we can go back and get a lot of people in the past to sign a letter, but I have to say that is still very much a concern of mine.

With that, I will yield the floor to my good friend from Illinois.

Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, wishes to be heard. He is not on the floor now, so I think it is acceptable to go ahead with another Republican now; is that correct?

I recognize the senior Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.

I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. President, it is my understanding we each have about 11 minutes. I will take my time and request to be acknowledged when I have 2 minutes remaining.

Mr. President, this has been a good debate. We have repeated a lot of things that have been said before. There are just some things I think are worth repeating.

I need to say over and over again, as often as I can, that nobody is impugning the integrity of former Senator Hagel. Everyone is very complimentary of the great service he has performed in military service. That is not the issue. That has nothing to do with it.

The thing that is important is the fact that they have said continuously, over and over again, this is a filibuster. They have said this is the first time that there has been a filibuster on a Cabinet nominee. That is just not true. This happens all the time. In fact, in recent history there have been six demands for cloture on the Democratic side as opposed to only one on the Republican side. This is not a filibuster.

Rather than take my word for it, take our Vice President Joe Biden's word for it when he said this is not a filibuster. He was talking about a controversial appointee. A letter was sent by him to his colleagues arguing that opposing cloture was not a filibuster. He said: ``It is a vote to protect the Senate's constitutional power to advise and consent to nominations.''

This is worth repeating. Vice President Joe Biden said it is not a filibuster. ``It is a vote to protect the Senate's constitutional power to advise and consent to nominations.''

This expresses the frustration of our new Senator from Texas, Senator Cruz, who finally just gave up. He said: You know, I have been wanting to exercise my constitutional rights all of this time. Senator Cruz said, I have said it over and over again, and I have requested over and over again the information to which I am entitled and to which I have a constitutional right.

I am in a position to quote--I have already done it several times from this podium--our distinguished chairman, who also agrees we need to have those rights. Certainly, we have quoted Senator Kerry and others talking about the fact that requiring this information is simply something so ingrained in our system. This is not just Jim Inhofe and Alexander Hamilton talking, this is everybody throughout this country's history.

This is one of the things that people should consider: This is not a filibuster, and we have not received the information to which we are entitled. It is not just Senator Cruz, it is others too. It doesn't happen to be me because I am opposing this nominee for many of the same reasons that the previous speakers, Senator Cornyn and Senator Wicker from Mississippi, have stated.

I know we are close to running out of time. I think the senior Senator from

Texas, Mr. Cornyn, brought out and has probably talked more--and has in the last month--about the concerns he has regarding the Middle East, with the attitude of former Senator Hagel to the various Middle Eastern countries and how Hezbollah, Hamas, all of those work into it.

In the case of Iran, I am and have been concerned about the attitude of Mr. Hagel in terms of this group called Global Zero movement that wants to do away with nukes, even if it is unilateral.

This isn't the way it used to be in the old days. As I said a minute ago, I look wistfully upon those days because it is not that way anymore. Our unclassified intelligence says Iran is going to have nuclear capability and a delivery system by 2015. Why would we want to bring down our nuclear capability in an environment like that? We also know and have watched recently what North Korea has done, all of them trading with China, Syria, and these other countries. It is not like it was in the old days.

I need to mention this also because three of the previous speakers spoke about Iran, their concern about the statements that have been made in support of Iran by Mr. Hagel. If you look at some of the quotes that come from Iran, you need to remind people those guys are bad guys over there. One of their statements from their ministry was that people of the Middle East--the Muslim region and North Africa, people from these regions--hate America from the bottom of their hearts. Then they go after, of course, Israel. They said Iran's warriors are ready and willing to wipe Israel off the map. The Zionists will receive a crushing response from the Islamic Republic's armed forces, which will lead to their annihilation.

This is the Islamist Revolutionary Guard, the same group which was to be declared a terrorist group when he was then-Senator Hagel, and he was only one of four Members of the entire Senate who objected to designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. This quote is the one that received my attention the most, and it has directly to do with Israel. Iran said:

They launched the myth of the Holocaust. They lied, they

put on a show and then they support the Jews.

This is interesting they would have that kind of a strong statement. I asked my staff this morning if they remembered a movie called ``Schindler's List.'' ``Schindler's List'' was a movie I never saw until it was on national TV 3 days ago, and I couldn't stop watching it. I couldn't turn it off. You need to look at the Holocaust from that perspective. Iran denies it even took place.

You will not find any country or any area we have dealt with in the past that is more anti-Israel than Iran. I have to say also, if anyone wants to know some of my feelings, I have made over five speeches more than 1 hour each on the floor of this Senate about Israel, and they are entitled to the land. All of these issues are very important--the mere fact Iran would say the Holocaust didn't exist.

Now, keep in mind--and I know the response to this is that we don't have any control over who supports him, but it is interesting, though-- that Iran supports Chuck Hagel's nomination to be Secretary of Defense. I mean, Iran arguably could be considered to be the greatest foe that is out there for the United States, recognizing the capabilities they are going to have and the statements they have made about the United States of America. That is frightening.

So those are the reasons I was concerned initially about this nomination--and I think it has been said and said very well by the Senator from Mississippi, who went over all the details--and I think it is something that has to be looked at and looked at seriously.

The idea that this process of requiring a 60 vote margin is new at a Cabinet level--I mentioned that a very prominent leftwing television station was talking about that over and over again, that this has never happened, there has never been a Cabinet position that has been filibustered. First of all, it is not filibustering. We know that because we heard that from John Kerry, Joe Biden, and all the rest of the people who have been concerned about the fact that there is something improper about cloture when it comes to nominees. There is nothing more important than a President nominating someone for these Cabinet positions, and it is very common that they are questioned by the opposition, by an opposition party to the President in the Senate. We are the ones who have that constitutional responsibility.

I remember because I was sitting here when Kathleen Sebelius went through the same thing. She, obviously, had to finally have a 60-vote margin. John Bryson, Secretary of Commerce--I remember what he went through. Also, I recall very well Miguel Estrada. I remember being down here with Miguel Estrada, and they rejected him seven different times. They required a 60-vote margin. He always got in the fifties. The highest he got was 55. But he was rejected.

So what we are saying is that this is not anything unusual. We all know about Dirk Kempthorne and Steven Johnson. Steven Johnson happened to be an appointee of Republican President Bush, yet he was a Democrat, and he was one where finally we were able to get the 60 votes. We got 61 votes. So, again, there is nothing unusual about this.

My only plea is that we consider some of the things that are in the background of this nominee to be Secretary of Defense, as has been stated before. The fact that he is one of only two who were against sanctions in Iran, one of only four who opposed designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists, one of only four who refused to sign a letter of solidarity with Israel, and the fact that--and I do applaud and appreciate the chairman of the committee for allowing Senator Cruz to show the video of an interview on Al Jazeera--Senator Hagel agreed with the comment that Israel made war crimes or the statement that Israel committed sickening slaughters and that America is the world's bully. These all underscore the fact that Senator Hagel is not the kind of person we need as Secretary of Defense for the United States of America.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me just say everything has been said, not everyone has said it. However, I would like to make sure everyone understands the actual statements were made by the former Senator Hagel in terms of the relationship of our country with Israel and Iran prior to the time he was nominated because many of those statements were changed at that time.

I encourage a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I am very pleased that we have just confirmed Judge Bacharach. He is going to make a great Federal judge. I have just been real pleased, I have to admit; I was literally running from the airport to get here because they had plane troubles, and I saw Senator Pryor was in the same situation. So let me, first of all, thank the leadership for holding that vote open so I would not find myself in the embarrassing position of not voting to confirm my best friend from Oklahoma. So we are in that situation.

Let me just say that I am very proud of him. He actually started on the Tenth Circuit as a clerk. So he really knows this stuff. He has been there for a long time. As part of his profile, as a future goal, he intended to improve. He has actually made that statement. I believe ``always working to improve'' has been a defining characteristic of Judge Bacharach's career.

He graduated in the top 4 percent of his class in law school. He received all kinds of academic awards and maintained memberships in the highest orders of law school students. He began his legal scholarship on Law Review and has continued writing in a number of law journals.

As I said, he actually started in the Tenth Circuit working as a law clerk for the chief judge. So he knows that circuit. I do not think there is anyone out there who would know it better.

Judge Bacharach has multiple years of litigation experience working for the firm Crowe and Dunlevy in Oklahoma City and in public service as a Federal magistrate for the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Oklahoma. As evidence of his career of distinction, when Judge Bacharach was chosen to be a magistrate judge from a pool of many well-qualified candidates, the chief judge characterized the decision as ``an easy one.''

Since that time his colleagues have characterized his service as remarkable, demonstrating superb judicial temperament, and being a real asset to the Western District family and the

legal community. As with any position in the judicial branch that comes with a lifetime appointment, the Senate must deliberate carefully; and we did and gave all the thought to this nominee, as was shown, clearly demonstrated by a unanimous vote for confirmation. You do not see this very often, but you saw it with Judge Bacharach.

So I appreciate the opportunity to support him today and to have been able to call and be the first to congratulate him in this new part of his career, of which we are going to be very proud. I can assure the Presiding Officer and all the rest of us this is a guy of whom we will always be proud.

So I say congratulations to Judge Bacharach. You are going to do a great job. We will depend on that, and we will be watching to make sure that happens.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, may I ask how much time remains on our side?

I ask unanimous consent that the last two speakers on our side--the last would be me, the next to last would be Senator Graham-- be given 5 minutes for Senator Graham and 7 minutes for me.

Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Cruz, is ill and unable to speak on this nomination. He has, however, expressed his concerns to me in the form of a letter. I appreciate his contributions to this debate throughout the committee process.

I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.

Madam President, let me start off by saying that I agree with almost everything they have said on both sides about Chuck Hagel. I agree that he was a hero. I think of my own Army career and I think of his and how much greater his was. That isn't the issue.

I think both Senator Graham and Senator McCain said it very well. Yes, his character is wonderful. We love the guy. He served his country. All of those things are true. The problem is the stances he has taken regarding Israel and countries like Iran. Israel has historically been a very, very close ally of ours and, I have often said, our only true ally in the Middle East we can count on. But we need to take a close look at Senator Hagel and how he would act, judging from his past performance, as the Secretary of Defense.

The vote that is coming up at 4:15 is the vote for or against Senator Hagel. All of this talk about a procedural vote and filibustering: no. This is the vote to determine whether Chuck Hagel should be the next Secretary of Defense.

This statement about filibustering has been made over and over again. They say this the first time this has ever happened. Look, we have people nominated all the time for Cabinet positions who are subjected to a 60-vote threshold. I will describe some of them right now, starting on the Republican's side:

Kathleen Sebelius is now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In 2009 there were a lot of people who didn't think she would be good, and so they objected to force a 60-vote threshold. That is what happened.

John Bryson was up for Secretary of Commerce. I didn't think he would make a very good Secretary of Commerce. I opposed him, and he was subjected to the 60-vote margin.

Here is the interesting thing. Today we have Barack Obama, who is a Democratic President of the United States, and then we have Harry Reid, who is the majority leader, so the Democrats are in control. During the last Bush administration, we had exactly the reverse. George Bush was President of the United States and a Republican, and the Democrats were in the minority--the same situation.

So what happened? First of all, we had John Vogel come up. It was the same thing--subjected to a 60-vote margin. We had Senator Dirk Kempthorne. There were a lot of people who did not approve of him. He was nominated by President Bush, a Republican, and the Democrats didn't like him. They subjected him to a 60-vote margin. That wasn't a filibuster then. This isn't a filibuster today.

People are trying to blame me as the bad guy who is causing a filibuster. That is not the case at all, any more than it was the case back in 2005, 2006, and other times when we had a nominee who was put forth by President Bush who was objected to by the Democrats.

When Dirk Kempthorne was nominated to be the Secretary of Interior, there was a lot of opposition to him by the Democrats. Of course they said: We have to subject him to a 60-vote threshold. The Secretary of the Interior is a Cabinet position, but they seem to be drawing a distinction, for some reason, between the Secretary of Defense and any other Cabinet positions. As Cabinet positions, they are the same. And the process of requiring a 60-vote threshold happens over and over again.

Senator Rob Portman--the same thing happened to him when he was appointed by President Bush to be the U.S. Trade Representative. The cloture motion was vitiated later on, but it was objected to first so that he would have been subjected to a 60-vote threshold.

One that is kind of interesting is Stephen Johnson. President Bush appointed him to be the EPA Administrator. Actually, he was a guy whom I thought a lot of, and he was a Democrat. So we have here President Bush, a Republican, appointing a Democrat who was objected to by the Democrats. Now we have President Obama, a Democrat, nominating a Republican who is objected to by the Republicans. It is exactly the reverse. There is no difference at all.

I am the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. I will stand up and walk through fire to make sure every member of the committee has all their questions answered. That is what advice and consent is all about. We want to look at the individual. In the case of our committee, we want to make sure every member of the Committee has a chance to look at the process and make sure everything is out there.

This is kind of a funny thing. The distinguished junior Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, lost his voice. For a Senator to lose his voice--what worse

can happen than that? So he is not able to speak, but if he could, I believe he would say: It is not so much my concern, the issues that have been articulated by Senator McCain and by Senator Graham. My concern is about the process.

Madam President, I give myself 3 additional minutes.

The fact is this new member of the committee, a new Member of the Senate, knew he was entitled to have all his questions answered. He has tried now for weeks. He was stonewalled. He can't get them. So this is about the process. Senator Cruz is not making any accusations. He says: I just want the information I have asked for.

I have the utmost respect for Carl Levin. He and I, despite what the media wishes, get along great. I love the guy. We disagree now and then on policy, but I really like him.

The other day, Carl Levin said:

Every member, every member should add his or her voice to

the demand for the production of relevant documents which

Senators need to decide on confirmation or for any other

legitimate reason.

I agree wholeheartedly with that, and that is exactly what these individuals are asking for. They are asking for that information.

Senator Cruz is very articulate. I regret that he lost his voice today.

In the past, every time the minority has objected and has wanted as a matter of procedure, to have a 60-vote margin, that is what has happened. It has happened with a consent agreement. I asked for that, and I think we have that now, but we had to force it.

This is not a filibuster. It is the same thing that was required and requested by Harry Reid, back when he was the minority leader, against John Bolton, against Stephen Johnson, against Robert Portman, and against Dirk Kempthorne. This is a normal way of operating.

A lot of us still don't have the information we want, but I am willing and they are willing. I have checked with the people who have not gotten all the information they want. They said: Let's go ahead and have the vote. So, in a way, are they caving in? In fact, they are just doing all they can to be conciliatory. I think we are doing everything we can. We are not filibustering, and we don't want to string this out.

I repeat one last time that this vote is the vote on Chuck Hagel. It is not on procedure or anything else. It is a vote on Chuck Hagel.

Madam President, I retain the remainder of my time.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary inquiry before the clock starts: I understand we have 3 minutes left on our side. How many minutes are left on the majority side?

I don't see anyone seeking recognition, so I will go ahead and take the last 3 minutes.

First of all, it is very interesting that all of those on the other side who are supporting Senator Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense, not one of them has said anything at all about the issues. They all talk about the things with which we agree. He was a hero; we said it. Senator McCain said it and Senator Graham said it. We all agree he was a hero in the war, and he is deserving of this type of thing.

Why is it that no one has mentioned that Senator Hagel is one of only two Senators who voted against sanctions against Iran? Why is it they don't mention that he was one of only four--in fact, all of them in the Majority signed a letter for solidarity with Israel. Senator Hagel was one of four Senators who didn't sign that letter of solidarity for Israel. The same thing with declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. He was one of only four Senators who did that.

I would only say this is not a filibuster. Everybody knows it is not a filibuster. I hope the media is listening: This is not a filibuster. This is the same process that was required by the Democrats in the case of John Bolton, in the case of Steve Johnson, in the case of Rob Portman, and in the case of Dirk Kempthorne. It is a prerogative of the Senate. It is not a filibuster. We merely want a 60-vote margin. We received it in all of those cases.

I commented earlier that when we had a Republican in the White House and a Democratic majority in the Senate they made that same requirement. I was here in the Senate for all four of them. I never objected to requiring a 60-vote threshold.

Then, of course, we had a 60-vote threshold for the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius, who is serving now in a Cabinet position. The same thing. This is a Cabinet position. We had the Secretary of Commerce, John Bryson. I objected to him. He passed the 60-vote margin. The only issue is the 60-vote margin, and that is what we are talking about. It is not a filibuster.

The last thing I will do is read--since our last speaker is my very good friend and chairman of the committee--what he said the other day. I wholeheartedly agreed with him when he said every Member should add his or her voice to the demand for the production of relevant documents which Senators need to decide on confirmation. I agree with that. What we object to is the process where we have Members who have made requests for information that is relevant to this appointment, and they have been unable to receive that information. So it is a process.

As the ranking minority on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will stand up for the rights of every single minority member of that committee. Senator Levin would do the same thing and stand up for the rights of every majority member of that committee in this process.

I thank the Chair.