Senate Proceeding on Apr 20th, 2009 :: 1:26:45 to 1:57:15
Total video length: 5 hours 14 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:97 Duration: 0:30:30 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

1:26:41 to 1:27:01( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: that is our prosecutors. watching what happens so we don't let another bernie madoff slip through the cracks. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the mr. inhofe: the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, it was my understanding earlier

1:26:45 to 1:57:15( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: James Inhofe

1:27:02 to 1:27:23( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: that i had about 15 more minutes than the 30 minutes that i understand are allotted to me now. if there's time at the end of the main message i want to i want toddress the problem of the david hamilton nomination. in fact, iould announce that i will filibuster that nomination. the e.p.a. endangerment findings, the obama gun control,

1:27:24 to 1:27:44( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and then the d.h.s. report that is very damaging to our veterans. first of all, the main reason i'm here is to speak out of a great concern that we're now heading down a very dangerous road leading to the gutting of our military and settling for

1:27:45 to 1:28:05( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: adequacy as opposed to supremacy. i first made my concerns known on a youtube video i did in afghanistan immediately following the announcement by the obama administration. my concerns drew an interesting reaction from the left. not only did they say i was wrong to say there were proposed cuts to the budget. they actually said the obama administration proposed to

1:28:06 to 1:28:29( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: increase the budget. i must confess it is a rare day that when liberals actually claim to support increasing our nation's military. msnbc with a so outraged with my video that three of their prime time hosts took aim at my comments from afghanistan that very same night.

1:28:30 to 1:28:50( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: ms. nbc host -- called my concerns absolutely false and said i was joining cheney and giuliani. keith oberman said i sho the math. and his guest, very unbiased speaker pelosi said my criticism of the obama defense budget was simply desperation and he was going to be spending more on

1:28:51 to 1:29:12( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: defense than in 2009. not to be left out, rachel madow said once again the budget was actually going to increase. then she brought eugene robinson, associate editor and columnist with the "washington post" who actually went so far to say that i was making stuff up and lying.

1:29:13 to 1:29:34( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: not to be outdone, cnn's rich sanchez saying that he was doing aact check, called my words ridiculous and brought on a liberal think tank policy wonk who sanchez referred to as a moderate to defend his claims. that's interesting that all of the liberal journalists were assailing me. but not the moderate ones.

1:29:35 to 1:29:56( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: i would ask that, at the conclusion of my remarks that you have this editorial from "the wall street journal" which essentially validates everything that i was saying. the problem is left -- is the left is focused on one number, one piece of military spending when they need to look at the total defense budget. what d.o.d. actually spends on its operations and how that

1:29:57 to 1:30:18( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: money is used to maintain our military capabilities. in actuality, thanks to the obama administration, overall defense spending has been cut b $10.7 billion in fiscal 2009 and will be cut again in fiscal 2010. might wonder about the second

1:30:19 to 1:30:40( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: half of the emergency such blements which were done by the obama a we have choose either to invest in modernizatioand readiness of our military or mistakenly kick the can down the r50d which we have been doing over and over again based on the projected defense budget for the next 10 years. it looks like this administration is taking us down

1:30:41 to 1:31:01( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: a path leading to a weaker military poorly equipped. two weeks ago on april 6, secretary gates announced a broad plan of cuts and adjustments for fiscal year 2010. the plan is intended to reshape "reshape the priorities of america's defense establishment and profoundly reform the,

1:31:02 to 1:31:22( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: d.o.e. does business." however the effects of the programs and. it is he intends to cut will severely affect ongoing effort to rebuild and mod military. i was in afghanistan at the time the decision was announced and all of the, most of the liberal journalists responded. this plan comes at a time in our history when we have

1:31:23 to 1:31:43( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: dramatically increased our domestic spending by trillions of dollars under the umbrella of emergency bailouts and stimulus packages. think about thrown away supposedly to buy assets and bailed out friendly banks. and, by the way, i have defend paulson a little bit

1:31:44 to 1:32:05( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: because i found out later it was tim geithner the architect behind all of this. now, i will elaborate on that if there is time later on. if you want to stimulate, there are three ways to stimulate the economy that we should have found in this stimulus bill. e is for military spending. defense spending. others, infrastructure investment, talking highway

1:32:06 to 1:32:26( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: construction and bridges a other tax cuts. this isn't what we had. sadly this president is on track to grow the obligations of the country he shrinks defense spending in relation to the, to g.d.p. to in 2019. now, this chart shows during the

1:32:27 to 1:32:48( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: clinton administration in the 1990's we took a holiday procurement of new weapons and modernizing aging this line here is the black line is what he inher going and if you just add inflation to it that's what it would have been. this was, this line was the clinton budget.

1:32:49 to 1:33:10( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: so normal inflation would be and it looks like that is where we are going from this many of us here in the senate and in the house repeatedly spoke on the floor during the 1990's and were concerned the massive personnel cuts and procurements. with few exceptions our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have been using the same

1:33:11 to 1:33:32( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: weapon systems while fighting a two-front war on terror for eight weapons and weapon systems designed to produce during, and weons and repeatedly over the past t decades around the globe and systems still in use today. now, we have been unsuccessfully

1:33:33 to 1:33:55( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: trying to wave created in the military budget was cut by $412 billion in research and development and acquisition and pushed the cost of kicking modernization down the road is two-fold increase in our cost to modernize, and increased costs to develop and field new weapons

1:33:56 to 1:34:17( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and weapon systems and in increased costs to operate and maintain aging equipment. it islso forcing the military to accept more risk as they decide how to operate with less equipment, how to fight with equipment increasingly difficult to maintain and what to do when weapon systems reach the end of service life without an operational replacement. the major combat systems that

1:34:18 to 1:34:38( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: our troops use today are those developed and procured during the 198 back to the 1950's in some cases. the reagan administration was handed a military a hollow force in many respects, low more raoul, low pay, unable to maintain the equipment it possessed. and ronald reagan expanded the

1:34:39 to 1:34:59( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: military budget, increased troop size and reenergized weapon procurement and revised our weapon capability returning us to the superpower status and guarantee the superiority of the u.s. capabilities through long-term investment and ensuring our tries were provided with the

1:35:00 to 1:35:21( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: most vapsed equipment available. as secretary gates said our military must be prepared for -- quote -- "a full spectrum of operations including the type of combat we're afghanistan as well as large-scale threats that we face in places like north korea and iran." by the way, i don't blame secretary gates for all of this.

1:35:22 to 1:35:43( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: secretary gates had to use the numbers that the house gave him. far too often we learn the hard way that we ball predicting what types of national security threats the nation will face. during the hearing in the house this actually happened, i think, i was in the house armed services committee back in 1994, we had someone testify and they

1:35:44 to 1:36:04( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: said in ten more years we will no longer needround troops. look at this. i mean, after seven years engaged in the war on terror they are wrong. the stricken environment has become increasingly complex, dynamic and lethal. today our military is fighting with equipment this is decades old and a force structure that

1:36:05 to 1:36:25( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: is 40% less than what we had in the 1980's. the air force has 2,500 few are aircraft and the navy cut the fleet size in half, down to 300 ships. the army reduced its force to half the number of divisions it had during the first gulf war. for 17 years, our military has been asked to do more with much

1:36:26 to 1:36:46( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: less and much old are equipment and it is taking a toll on our troops. unfortunately, what took less than a decade to field in the 1980's will now take multiple decades to field including up to 30 years to replace -- right now

1:36:47 to 1:37:07( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: we use kc-135's and the kcx program would modernize that. the kc-135, some are 50 years old and it is to the point where the sentence more than buying something that is new. so we, the united states is going to have to build a sustained required to respond to possibl future threats across the spectrum of conflict and there

1:37:08 to 1:37:28( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: are numerous potential threats that could impact our national security. the next war would not be like the last one. we cannot predict what it you sit around and talk to a lot of smart generals and say what do we have to prepare for 20 years from now and they are smart guys but they be wrong like the guy that said we would no longer need ground troops in ten years.

1:37:29 to 1:37:49( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: we depth know what the next war will be. in february of 2009 a marine general wrote to one of the quoting he said -- quote -- "you say the next conflict will be a guerilla conflict and i say it depends in my life we have been in six big fights and a budge of little ones. in only one of those big the desert storm, had we

1:37:50 to 1:38:14( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: prepared for the type of war we wound up having to fight. it is one thing to say that certain type of fight is more or less likely and it is quite another to say it is a certain to be one or the other. in war the only thing that is certain is uncertainty." we predicted the fall of the sovietnion, the rapid growth of ballistic missile capability

1:38:15 to 1:38:35( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: of north korea, or the warfare, and we were wrong in awful that and we did not predict that accurately. it doesn't matter how great our military leers, our thinking -- leaders, our strike t will be imperfect. in order to provide stability, america must be able to deter or defeat any threat, b it

1:38:36 to 1:38:56( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: insurgency or a challenge from the near competitor. we can no longer afford to fool ourselves that we are sending our kids with the best of equipment. quite often i would talk to people that are really not into this. people are working hard, paying taxes, paying for all this fun we are having up here and when you tell them that our kids are

1:38:57 to 1:39:20( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: going out there without the very best of equipment, they are outraged and cannot believe this could happen. unfortunately, that is the case. now let's do the math they are so critical of. i stated earlier we need to at the total that d.o.d. spends. this includes the national defense funds, d.o.d. independences, d.o.e. funds for nuclear ships and weapons, and

1:39:21 to 1:39:42( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: other defense-related such as selective service system and the war-type supplemental. first, there is a net loss in defense $10.7 billion. president bush increased the total defense budget in 2009 by $37.2 billion and he approved $65.9 billion in supplemental funds for the first part of

1:39:43 to 1:40:04( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: fiscal year 2009. president obama supplemental dense for defense spending is only $75.5 billion to c increase of 21,000 troops in afghanistan, increased operation in afghanistan, and continued operation in iraq and then withdrawing from iraq. a g.o.p. report on the cost of iraq

1:40:05 to 1:40:27( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: a massive and that costs would more than often increase the near term. well, what they're saying is that these things were not included in the obama budget but we will have to pay anyway. and so he comes out with a be more costly.

1:40:28 to 1:40:50( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: they say the costs of equipment repairs, replacement, closing and turning over installations in iraq and moving troops and equipment 8 likely be significant so this is what we call the cost of withdrawal. now let's compare 2009 to 2010 where i have been accused of not being able to do the math. defense spending increases from

1:40:51 to 1:41:11( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: 2009 to 2010 by $14.9 billion but according to president obama's letter to speaker pelosi on april 9 there is no more supplementals so that means that d.o. wartime operations out of the behind of d.o.d. and to the tune of $100 billion-plus. however, president obama does

1:41:12 to 1:41:32( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: fence off $130 billion for overseas contingency funds which could be used forgetting out of iraq and increased operations in afghanistan. even adding the entire $130 billion to defense spending, which is never the case, with supplemental spending, the overall increase in defense spending for 2010 is $3.5 billion.

1:41:33 to 1:41:55( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: if we estimate 2% cost growth of just the defense budget, defense spending actually decreases by $7.3 billion. now, add in the accelerated growth of the army and the marine corps, 65 thousand and 22,000 increase respectively costing approximately $13 billion to cover pay and health

1:41:56 to 1:42:17( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: care costs and you beginnings of o military modernization being gutted. d.o.d. has to do certain things: personnel, operations, ongoing wartimes contingency. with zero supplemental fund the

1:42:18 to 1:42:39( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: must-pays is taken from the dodd-based budget and the areas that are sit are research and development. look at what is being cut. if you question what i'm here in terms of dropping down the cut, the costs, look at the programs we have to have that they're cutting they are just totally eliminating the future combat system. this is something that we put together, started putting

1:42:40 to 1:43:00( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: together about eight years ago, the first transformation of ground operations and capabilities in, probably, 30 years. the c-17's right now we need more. they cut the c-17's. i'm proud we finally bit the bullet and realized we want to

1:43:01 to 1:43:21( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: send our kids out there this strike vehicles better than the ones they make in russia, that is the f-22, the fifth generation and they have stopped that. originally we were going to have some 750, f-22's and now they are stopping it and this budget at $187 billion. so historical defense spending

1:43:22 to 1:43:43( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: as a message of g.d.p. has been 3% in clinton draw down, and 4.6 trillion in the gulf war and 6% during the reagan buildup and 8.9% in vietnam during world war ii. when compared to a

1:43:44 to 1:44:04( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: annual defense investment of 4% of g.d.p. to modernize our military, the ten-year proposed obama defense budget is $1.3 trillion in the red. very similar type of chart we had here during the clinton administration. now, one thing the obama defense budget guarantees that the old of the military in the history

1:44:05 to 1:44:27( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: of the nation will get even maintain and separate. ships currently average 18 years old. na old. marine corps aircraft, over 21 years old. refueling tankers, over 44 years old. and air force fighting aircraft, 19 years old. special operations aircraft, 27 years old.

1:44:28 to 1:44:48( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: bomber aircraft, over 33 years old. in order to keep 40-year-old kc-135's in the air, d.o.d. has to reprogram almost $3 billion from the kcx program to repair cc-135's so that means the program that was there to pay

1:44:49 to 1:45:10( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: for modernizing by buyin aircraft, the kcx as it is termed, now we are drawing down from that just to repair the old, ancient, army the current need of combat vehicles were invested years ago and aging and an increasingly rapid rate.

1:45:11 to 1:45:34( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and the tank developed in the 1970's is currently on the third reiteration and update and used on the battlefield. the m-2 bradley fighting vehicle. also developed over 25 years ago is on the thirst significant modification and has been crucial in g.d.p.ing troops against rpg threats in iraq.

1:45:35 to 1:45:56( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: both of vehicle undergo reset programs because their rate of use in the war ontory rowr. the oldest combat vehicle in the army is a piece of that is part of the fcs, fther alistening right moscow in its

1:45:57 to 1:46:19( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: development. it is world war ii technology. when you fire it youet out and swab the breech and now there are five countries, including south africa that make a better cannon than our kids are using. over 19,000 are tillry rounds were shot from iraq in 2008 and

1:46:20 to 1:46:40( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: 27,000 shot in 2007. despite some parochial crit simple in the media and this congress, the fact remains that the u.s developed over 50 years ago and by the way, i us will with a topts put this in. people have accused me of doing something that's parochial. if you look at the footprint that we ve that the lead systems integrator, and

1:46:41 to 1:47:03( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: i want to ask unanimous consent this be placed in the record right after "the wall street journal" oklahoma in the bottom 20 in terms of funding, getting funding for the f.c.s. program. our artillery soldiers are are using this system that has

1:47:04 to 1:47:25( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: assis design that is slated to undergo its modernization. i believe the defense budget should at the very least continue the pin program -- that's to underdebate the paladin integrated program -- we should not

1:47:26 to 1:47:47( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: program with the f.c.s. program. even with the implementation of the p.i.n. update, the army expects to keep the pall dan in use until -- the paladin in use until 2060. our army is long overdue a thorough and comprehensive modernization program instead of throwing billions of dollars towards updating and maintaining

1:47:48 to 1:48:08( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: deducts of the proposed defense budget would cancel the manned vehicle portion of the army's future combat system. the modernization program intended to replace the paladin, the abrams and the next 25 years. the f.c.s.ehicles would bring improved armor to the state of

1:48:09 to 1:48:30( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: communication these life-and-death issues. these are our tools on the ground being able to have something that is actually enemies and that's whoa we're losing in this defense bucket. the air force, nearly two decades our u.s. air force has dominated the skies to ensure that our superiority around the world is there.

1:48:31 to 1:48:52( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: however, the most recent g.a.o. study sovereignty alert operations, the post-9/11 opetions that protect our homeland are at risk during the aging aircraft and insufficient equipment. i would say that the air force grounded 259 of its 441f-15

1:48:53 to 1:49:14( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: eagles in november. in january while it looked into the breakup of an f-16-c. last may the service parked 5 of its t-38 trainers. last october the air force ordered more than-of the 356a-10 fighters to stay because of cracks in the wings.

1:49:15 to 1:49:36( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: while we've enjoyed the benefit of the investment during the 1980's of the f-15, f-16, f-10, and the f-171 now retired and will be retiring 137 of the f-15's, 177 of the f-16's and seferlt a-18's. now, what we're saying is we're

1:49:37 to 1:49:58( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: already shutting down and the only way to replace them if we're generation competive fifth generation strike vehicle is the f-22. and we are supposed to have 750 of these f-22's. this budget stops the line at 17 17187.

1:49:59 to 1:50:19( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: that means if we have defense-orntsed administration coming in, it would cost much, much more. this is being done at a time when secretary gates told reporters that intelligence he's seen indicates that a russian fifth generation fighter could become operational in 2016 and

1:50:20 to 1:50:40( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: china's j-12, that's their fifth generation fighter, could be fielded by 2020. increasing the number of f-35's is not going to do the functions are different. their missions are different. navy -- the when it is being called on to

1:50:41 to 1:51:03( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: protect portions of the world more than ever before, secretary gates has recommended that the navy shrink its navy fleet to 10 aircraft carriers by 2012 and delay acquisitions of other portions of the fleet. reduction of the aicialt carriers goes further below the previous q.d.r. quadrennial report review --

1:51:04 to 1:51:24( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: that they had stated 20 c would be necessary to -- and required for moderate rask. when they use the term moderate risk, we're talking about lives of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. in the last three weeks we've seen ho how relevant and important the navy is while watching the various pirate activity off of somalia and some of those things that are going

1:51:25 to 1:51:45( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: on nowvment we didn't realize we needed these prior to that time. that shows how fluid in thing is in terms of our expectations and our needs. china, japan, australia, india, malaysia, pakistan, indonesia, bangladesh and north and south korea either now have oregon planning to acquire submarines to compete with ours. the navy would be left with less

1:51:46 to 1:52:07( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: than 300 ships and that's about half of what it was in the previous -- during the 1980's. missile defense -- anthis is one i wish -- i'm going to run out of time -- should have had this on before. but on february 3 we all know that iran launched a satellite on the 30th anniversary of the 1979 islamic revolution

1:52:08 to 1:52:28( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: demonstrating the key technologies for propulsion staging and so forth and two weeks ago north korea furthered thei missile by launching the taepo dong missile in the south china sea despite wild spread international condemnation. despite this, the has recommended a 16% cut in missile defense.

1:52:29 to 1:52:49( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: you know, this wou come along, right at the te, on the 26th anniversary of when ronald reagan put disci together. knowing when we are going to have to have a system, a technology that could hit a bullet with a bullet. we've got it n. here the cze republic, and poland, we've told them that

1:52:50 to 1:53:10( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: we're to be supporting them and putting together a radar testimony system and a launch system and now they don't know what we want because they has been delayed or either canceled. i suggest it lab and by the way, if you -- iran develops the capability of doing something from iran and aiming this is the only safeguard that

1:53:11 to 1:53:32( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: we would vsm the czech republic and us and now we're pulling the rug out from under so i gss the last thing i'd say on that is on the airborne laser program, i wish there was time t

1:53:33 to 1:53:54( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: these phases are necessary for a national missile defense system. i agree something on acquisition problem that's out there. we have been trying to do it for a long period of time. however, acquisition reform should be done with, not in lieu of, modernizing and proper equipping our across the full spectrum of warfare. i have stated many times in this

1:53:55 to 1:54:16( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: chamber that the greatest trust to place upon congress by -- placed upon congress fowsh the american people is to pry for i provide ago strong national defense. we can avoid this by ensuring a minimum level of funding for our military. i really believe when you talk to the average man on the street as to what is the primary function of the government, that

1:54:17 to 1:54:37( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: function should be to defend america. and that's what -- that's the threat that we're facing now. somehow this has taken a back seat be doing. as the congress considers the administration's budget and recommendations in the coming weeks, we have to ask several questions. are the forces being provided to our commanders in the field postured to counter the full spectrum of threats?

1:54:38 to 1:54:58( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: are we providing our troops with the equipment? certainly we're not today. and i -- can we afford to kick the can down further? the answer is a resounding no. and finally, the total cost of 2010 to reach this expectation would require an increase of $28 billion in 2010.

1:54:59 to 1:55:20( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: with the obama budget of social welfare that will triple the budget debt in 10 years we have already spent almost $2 trillion. $700 billion for a bank bailout we now know is tim geithner's plan to s in october of 2008 we gave $700 billion to an unelected bureaucrat to do with as he

1:55:21 to 1:55:42( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: wished, with no oversight whatsoever. and i have to say -- this is the time when we look at these -- the amount of money that is being spent on all the social welfare programs and say, why not defend america? clearly thats not the primary goal of this administration. i think my oklahoma congress

1:55:43 to 1:56:03( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: merntion my fellow congressman from oklahoma tom coe said it best, "president obama's charm and eloquence is no substitute for a strong national defense." i believe that's right. and i would hope that we have a chance to relook at this and make adjustments and i would also remind the administration, you can come out with all these

1:56:04 to 1:56:24( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: cuts, cutting the f-22's future combat system and the c-17's and the national missile defense system. but that still has to go through -- and thank god we have three branches of government so that we'll be able to get the house armed services committee, the senate armed services committee and review this and try to put america back into n. a position where its primary

1:56:25 to 1:56:45( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: goal is to defend america. d that's what this is all about. now, as i said in the beginning, if there was time, i was going to go over there is not time to do that. but i would only say that i plan to come back and talk about some of these appointments, about the e.p.a. endangerment findings, about the

1:56:46 to 1:57:06( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: obama gun control, and the department of homeland security report that was very insulting to our veterans. with that, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the time in a quorum call be equally divided

1:57:07 to 1:57:18( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: between both ses. the presiding officer: without objection. i suggest the absence of a mr. inhofe: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the