Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I would like to offer my congratulations to Susan McVey, a fellow Oklahoman, on her exemplary service to the State of Oklahoma as a dedicated librarian for the past 32 years. Ms. McVey's distinguished and honorable record of leadership within the Oklahoma Department of Libraries is a model for future generations. Her effort to bring access to online reference and information resources for all Oklahoma libraries and schools continues to impress. Additionally, thousands of Oklahomans have been granted access to library services through her work to reform the administration of State aid grants to public libraries. I am confident these efforts will reap benefits for generations. Ms. McVey's legacy will be an inspiration for many in the years ahead, and I am proud to call her a fellow Oklahoman. Again, congratulations to her on her well-deserved retirement, and I thank her for her commitment to the people of Oklahoma.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my honor to pay tribute to Fort Sill in Oklahoma in preparation of this great military installation's 150th anniversary on January 8, 2019. For 150 years, Fort Sill has played a critical role in our national defense, from an outpost to prevent border raids, to today as the home of the Fires Center of Excellence and Basic Combat Training site. The history of Fort Sill can be traced back to January 8, 1869, when Major General Philip H. Sheridan staked out the site of Fort Sill in a campaign into Indian Territory to prevent border settlements from being raided in Texas and Kansas. The garrison was initially named Camp Wichita and was later renamed after Brigadier General Joshua W. Sill, in honor of General Sheridan's West Point classmate and friend who was killed during the American Civil War. The first post commander was Brevet Major General Benjamin Grierson, and the first Indian agent was Colonel Albert Gallatin Boone, grandson of Daniel Boone. The last Indian lands in Oklahoma opened for settlement in 1901, and 29,000 homesteaders registered at Fort Sill during July for the land lottery. On August 6, 1901, the town of Lawton was established and quickly grew to become the third largest city in Oklahoma and was later renamed Lawton-Fort Sill. With the disappearance of the frontier, the mission of Fort Sill gradually changed from cavalry to field artillery as the first artillery battery arrived at Fort Sill in 1902, and the last cavalry regiment departed in May 1907. In 1917, the Henry Post Army Airfield was constructed for artillery observation and spotting. The School of Fire for the Field Artillery was founded at Fort Sill in 1911 and continues to operate today as the world-renowned U.S. Army Field Artillery School. At various historic times, Fort Sill has also served as home to the Infantry School of Musketry, the School for Aerial Observers, the Artillery Officers Candidate School--Robinson Barracks-- the Air Service Flying School, and the Army Aviation School. Fort Sill is the birthplace of military combat aviation, 1st Aero Squadron. It is home to Henry Post Army Airfield, the oldest airfield in the Army. In August 1917, Captain H.R. Eyrich surveyed a new airfield location at Fort Sill and established the airfield, which is named after Second Lieutenant Henry D. Post. Fort Sill remains the only Active Army installation of all the forts on the South Plains built during the Indian Wars and was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1960. Fort Sill serves as home of the U.S. Army Field Artillery School; the U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery School; the 428th Field Artillery Training Brigade; the 30th Air Defense Artillery Training Brigade; the 434th Field Artillery Basic Combat Training Brigade; the Marine Corps Field Artillery Military Occupational Specialty school, the 75th (Forces Command) Fires Brigade; and the 31st (Forces Command) Air Defense Artillery Brigade. Thousands of soldiers and marines have been trained for service in the field artillery at Fort Sill. Notable alumni include President Harry S. Truman, who during World War I became the commander of Company D, 129th Field Artillery, entering combat in the last few months of the war, moving his horse-drawn battery to engage the enemy and supporting the infantry, firing his last shot on the day of the armistice. It is also important to recognize the positive impact and connectivity of the Lawton-Fort Sill relationship. The connection between the community and the military installation is what makes Fort Sill so unique and successful. The community members and representatives are equally responsible for the rich history and successes of Fort Sill. Based on exemplary community support and vision, Fort Sill has actually benefited from five rounds of Base Realignment and Closure. Through these five rounds, the mission and importance of Fort Sill has increased. This highlights the fact that Fort Sill is more than just a military installation, for 150 years Fort Sill has been a part of the community. As Fort Sill turns 150, the senior leadership at the installation represent the long history of high-caliber military personnel who have set foot at Fort Sill. I would like to recognize the following personnel: the Fires Center of Excellence and Fort Sill commanding general MG Wilson Shoffner, Jr.; Fires Center of Excellence CSM John W. Folley; Fort Sill garrison commander COL Don A. King, Jr.; Fires Center of Excellence Field Artillery School commandant BG Stephen G. Smith; and Fires Center of Excellence Air Defense Artillery School commandant BG Brian W. Gibson. On behalf of Congress and the United States of America, I want to congratulate Fort Sill on 150 successful years and thank the men and women who have served their nation while assigned to Fort Sill for their continued commitment, sacrifice, and contributions to this great Nation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks by the ranking member, that I be recognized.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, Senator Paul be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a message to deliver this morning, but after sitting here and listening through and enjoying the comments that were made, I wanted to at least make one comment about the Senator from Texas. In my real life, for a number of years, I was a builder and developer in South Texas. I know South Texas very well. I know the border well. That is why I have been down there so much and am so interested in, of course, the border wall, which we are going to have. But we have a wonderful friend and a person who has been a good friend. You would think he is dead, but he is not. He is very much alive, and he is back doing his full-time job. I want to say that the time I spent with him down there in Texas long before he was even in the position he is in today--he has been a great hero down there not just to the people in Texas but people all over the country.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding previous Senate action on the House message to accompany H.R. 695, today's motions and amendments remain in status quo and the earlier motion to concur and the motion to refer with instructions and amendments Nos. 1923 and 1924 be withdrawn.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have talked about this recently more than we have in quite some time: Defending America needs to be our No. 1 commitment. To many of us, it has always been. That is why we have been coming to the floor, talking about the national defense strategy, the Armed Services Committee, and we have had the honor and privilege of hearing from some really well-informed people--Members and people from the outside--and they look and see the threats that we are facing. Now, they don't always agree with each other, but I really believe we are in the most threatened position we have been in as a country in the years I have been here. That will come as a little surprise because people know we have had threats, that we have been at war for two decades, and that we still have the threat of terrorism. It is out there. They have seen dangerous behavior in rogue states. I like the idea the administration came up with as we were looking at our peer competitors, which are China and Russia. These are countries that actually have passed us up in many areas. I talk to the American people when I go back to my State of Oklahoma, and they find out we have countries that actually have things that are better than what we have. There are quotes we have heard from our various top people on the types of artillery our competition has. Not only do we have peer competition from China and Russia, but we also have the rogue countries that are out there--North Korea, Iran, and all of them. So the threat is there. It is a very real thing. We need to have answers, so the Department of Defense has created a new defense strategy. This new defense strategy is one that, I think, has been done very well. It takes into consideration the problems of countries that are peer competition along with the rogue nations. I think it has really done a good job. We had a hearing about 2 weeks ago on the National Defense Strategy Commission that was put together. I have been here for quite some time and have seen a lot of Commissions and a lot of reports come up. I have never seen one that--I wouldn't even call it bipartisan--was just nonpartisan. One of the individuals, Gary Roughead, who is an admiral and was a cochairman of the National Defense Strategy Commission, said he didn't have any idea who on that Commission was appointed by Democrats and who by Republicans. There were an equal number of Democrats and Republicans from the House and an equal number of Democrats and Republicans from the Senate. It did come out just with the very difficult truth that we had to deal with. I think one of the cochairmen was Ambassador Edelman, and he said it was so bipartisan that there was no way of telling who had appointed whom. Anyway, this is something that has been put together, and the Commission report has a bunch of stuff that tells the whole ugly truth. It is an ugly truth to realize, particularly when you talk to people out there in the real world throughout America. They assume we have the best of everything. So to find out we have a real threat kind of makes you go back and remember the good old days of the Cold War, when we had two superpowers, because we knew what they had, and they knew what we had. Mutual assured destruction meant something. It doesn't mean anything anymore. One of the significant individuals on this report was Senator Kyl from Arizona. The reason I say that is, Senator Kyl, in my opinion and in the opinions of many people, has been historically in the U.S. Senate and has been, perhaps, one of the most--if not the most-- knowledgeable of individuals on the threats we face and on our capabilities we have in this country. It is unique that Senator Kyl is on this Commission because, when he got on the Commission, he was not a member of the U.S. Senate. He came back after the death of Senator John McCain and is serving for what appears to be just a short period of time. So he is in the unique position of serving on the Commission and of having been, for many years, in a position to help us meet something we have not met before that is a real challenge. Senator Kyl, why don't you kind of talk about, maybe, the Senate and its bipartisan nature and how this thing came together, which would be very similar as to how it was expressed when we had our meeting, I think, 2 or 3 weeks ago for this Commission. It has been very successful, and I applaud the Senator for his work on it.

Mr. INHOFE. That is one of the things I was really impressed with on this report. You guys didn't hold any punches. You said exactly what it was. In fact, I have a list of the quotes that were in there that I actually used on the floor yesterday. I guess they were from the different members--the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the rest of them--that showed very clearly it was not adequately reauthorized and that we were going to have to do something about it. I do want to ask what the Senator's recommendation was on the Commission to do it. Where is that chart? That is not the one I want. This is kind of a shocker for a lot of people. People don't realize this is just one element of it that shows that China is actually passing us up. By 2030, it is going to have a larger navy than we have. You and I have been on both the House Armed Services Committee and on the Senate Armed Services Committee and have watched. It is kind of hard to concede that the time we always feared was going to be there is there now, that we are now faced with that problem. What kind of recommendation did the Commission come up with to get us out of this hole?

Mr. INHOFE. I think that has been something we have talked about for a long period of time. I think we have to recognize the problem we had been in during the Obama years, during the last 5 years, which is a shocker. It kind of gives people an idea of how we got into this mess to start with. If you take and use the years 2010 to 2015--that would have been the last 5 years of the Obama administration--and use constant 2018 dollars, in 2010, the budget would have been $794 billion. In 2015, it would have been $586 billion dollars. That is a reduction of $210 billion over a 5-year period. Nowhere else in government did we have any kind of a reduction in any program, but that is where it really got into trouble. I believe we will have to face this and recognize what the problem really is and tell everyone what the problem is. Now, I say to my friend from Arizona that he has been active in nuclear deterrence, and we have not been so much. I can remember--and he can remember--back in the sixties when this was recognized as a problem. I think the last time we actually did any nuclear modernization was in the eighties. We had the triad system for a long period of time when China didn't have it and when Russia didn't have it, but they have it today, and they have actually done more. We have a chart for this that shows what we have not done and what they have been doing. So, in the area of a nuclear deterrent or of nuclear modernization, it might be a good idea to see what the folks on this Commission were looking at it in terms of that threat we are facing.

Mr. INHOFE. We have done a lot in recognition of what is coming up. I can't tell you how important it was to have this document. It is the first time I have seen everything written down so we understand it and the unvarnished truth about the threats out there. Right now we have this as the blueprint we are using. We are also doing what we did this last year on the NDAA. The National Defense Authorization Act is one which has to be done and done in a timely manner. We were able to do it last year. We are going to do the same thing this year, but when we talk about rebuilding the readiness, the brigade combat teams, up until about 2 years ago, we were only at 35 percent of what could actually be used. Of course, the Marines and the Navy use the F-18s, and only 31 percent of those were actually flyable at the time. We have a lot of that type of thing that is going to be necessary. You mentioned the triad. A lot of people don't know what that is, but now that both China and Russia know what it is, it is important we do the job we are supposed to do. Acquisition reform. I can remember when the Senator from Arizona and I were both on the House Armed Services Committee. At that time, 30 years ago, we were talking about acquisition reform. We haven't been doing it. We have some really dedicated people who have background in that, and we are going to try to get something done, but I think the main thing right now is going to have to be funding. The Senator mentioned the 3- to 5-percent increase in funding over and above the amount of inflation. When you stop and think about it, when we started out 2 years ago, in fiscal year 2018, we raised it to $700 billion; in fiscal year 2019, we raised the budget for the military up to $716 billion; then the first budget that came out from this President for fiscal year 2020 is $733 billion. If you do the math, between fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2033, it is only increasing it by 2.1 percent, which isn't even inflation. At that level, we are not carrying out the recommendation that came from the Commission and all those individuals who agree with it--the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and everyone else knowledgeable in the field. So we have our work cut out for us.

Mr. INHOFE. I have to say, the figure we are talking about right now came right out of this book. You guys did a great job. My hope is, you will continue to serve in some capacity because we desperately need you. It has been great to have you back, for however brief the time. We accomplished a lot during that brief time. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to finish up where Senator Kyl and I started off this morning and elaborate a little bit more about what responsibilities are concerning the nuclear modernization program. Defending America should be our No. 1 priority. In most all of the administrations throughout the years, it has been our No. 1 priority. Today we are talking about the need to modernize our nuclear forces. The reason I think this is important, there are a lot of people who say the nuclear forces are a relic of the past. This is not true. Some in Washington believe we don't need to modernize forces or that we can cut off one of the three legs--the three legs being the ICBM, bomber, and the submarine. It is not true. Our nuclear triad has to be kept intact. The arsenal is aging, and most of it has not been modernized since it started in the 1960s. In the 1980s, the last modernization actually took place during the Obama administration. They had a bet. They believed if we reduced our role in the number of nuclear weapons, the other countries would come along and do the same thing. That didn't work out. In fact, they have done just the opposite. As the Nuclear Posture Review said, very clearly, ``Since 2010 no potential adversary has reduced either the role of nuclear weapons in its national security strategy, or the number of nuclear weapons it fields.'' There is a comparison. The lighter color there is in development. In fact, Russia and China are both way ahead of us in that. In terms of fielding a system, we haven't even fielded a system. We are clearly behind in that respect. Russia is modernizing every leg of the nuclear triad, but it is not just that. They are also building a vast arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons in addition to their triad. We heard Putin talk about some of these things last spring, like the nuclear-armed hypersonic weapons. Those are the hypersonic weapons that react not like six per minute but many per tenth of a second. He claimed he is ahead of us in that respect; that they have a nuclear- powered cruise missile and nuclear-armed missiles and defenses. We are talking about in both offensive and defensive capability. That is what Putin has been doing. What is more, Russian doctrine emphasizes using nuclear weapons to coerce the United States and NATO. Putin threatens NATO allies with nuclear strikes. This is interesting. You have to keep in mind, we are a nuclear NATO ally. In fact, that is about the time Putin made the statement that if they were to declare war on NATO--and that includes us and Western Europe--they would win. That is how things have become more and more serious and how they are very proud of themselves that they have been putting together a program faster than we are. Meanwhile, there is China. They are also further along in modernizing its nuclear arsenal. I think they claim or others claim that soon they will have a complete nuclear triad, including an ICBM, a bomber, and a submarine. I suggest that they very well have that already. This doesn't even get to North Korea's capabilities, Iran's nuclear ambitions, or the threats from terrorism. It should be clear, looking at all of these, that nuclear weapons are no Cold War relic. We need to modernize them for the current threat of the environment we face. Some of the critics say nuclear modernization is too expensive. I will not say it is going to be cheap, but it is going to be affordable. At its peak, in 2029, nuclear modernization will cost about 6.4 percent of the military budget, the DOD budget. On average, over the next two decades, it will be about 5 percent of the DOD budget. I think that is a pretty good price, especially when you consider that we haven't been investing in it for over two decades. This investment will get us a new B-1 bomber with modernized cruise missiles and a Columbia-class submarine. With this necessity to increase our capabilities comes some good news and helps us with our buildup. It will also bring command control to the 21st century and will help revitalize the infrastructure, including the Department of Energy. Some critics also say we have to choose between nuclear forces and conventional forces; that we can't modernize both at the same time. This report we talked about this morning is the best report I have seen in showing where we are right now, where the other side is, what their capabilities are. They make it very clear that the nuclear and conventional forces are both indispensable to a balanced, effective defense. The Nation should not hollow out one set of capabilities to pay for another. I think we are in a position now to go forward, and people will recognize what we are now trying to do and keep up with what our adversaries are doing. In the past, there are some who have had very bipartisan support for our nuclear deterrent. In fact, some of the current modernization programs were started under the Obama administration when all the other parts of our national defense were deteriorating. Secretary Mattis said last year, it is not possible to delay modernization of our nuclear forces if we are to preserve a credible nuclear deterrent, ensuring that our diplomats continue to speak from the position of strength on matters of war and peace. I couldn't have said it better myself. We need to keep our deterrent credible. Let's keep in mind, though, that, yes, this is true. The only reason we are bringing up and emphasizing at this point the necessity for a nuclear modernization is that we have been neglecting it for so long. While we have been neglecting it, the other side has been paying attention to their capabilities. This book we talked about this morning--I didn't mention some of the highlights in the book that I think are important because we in the United States have to understand that we don't have the capabilities some of our adversaries have. Here are some of the highlights in this manual that has been lauded as probably the most accurate bipartisan manual on defense we have ever analyzed. It says, and these are quotes, ``assesses unequivocally that the NDS''--that is the defense system--``is not adequately resourced.'' Another quote: ``America is very near the point of strategic insolvency.'' Further, it says that ``America's military superiority has eroded to a dangerous degree'' and that ``America's combat edge is diminishing or has disappeared.'' That is all in this manual. But we knew that. We saw this coming. Remember, back in the early days of the Obama administration when Chuck Hagel was the Secretary of Defense, he said--and I read this to more people around the country back when the quote actually came out, which was 2014. This is a quote from our Secretary of Defense under the Obama administration: ``American dominance of the seas and the skies and in space can no longer be taken for granted.'' Mark Milley, the Army Chief of Staff, said: ``In terms of artillery, the Army is outgunned and outranged by our adversaries.'' The Vice CNO of the Navy, Admiral Moran, said that for our entire Hornet fleet--F/A-18 fleet--we have 62 percent that are not flyable today. So we are rapidly recovering right now. In fact, we are entering into a defense authorization bill, and one of the commitments we made is that we are going to have a defense authorization bill that will come up currently so that we will have it done well before the new year starts. That being the case, that will allow us to then go in with appropriations. One of the problems we have had before is that we are depending on renewing the previous year, and that is not going to work in this case. So I think we are coming out ahead. I think we have pretty much convinced most people who are making the decisions that we are going to have do something to renew our nuclear modernization and get on with the rebuilding that is taking place at this time. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have bad news and good news. The bad news is that it was suggested to me that there is some type of a rule at a time like this where the senior person in the Chamber speaks next, and that is me. The good news is that it is short, and the reason is because I didn't really think about this until I came down here to watch Senator Hatch. I remember so well that long before I was in the House--Orrin, long before then--you were the guy I always listened to. You would get phone calls from some obscure State senator out in Oklahoma who was complimenting you. You might even remember one time when you and I put something together where we were going to balance the budget and pass an amendment that we knew would pass because we were going to confirm everything before we got it passed, and that was a brilliant idea that didn't work. Nevertheless, we talked quite often about things, and you were the one I looked up to. The same thing happened. You had a way. When I was in the House, I would see you more than anyone else during the annual National Prayer Breakfast. You would be active on that from the Senate, and I would be from the House. So you kind of had a way of saying things differently, the things you have heard many times before that you don't realize you have been wrong on all the time. You did it a few minutes ago when you talked about Lincoln. You talked about ``the House divided against itself'' and drew that relationship to what is happening today. You said it. When you talk, you are talking history, and it meant something different than anything I had ever seen. The Scripture you have quoted, ``To whom much is given, much is expected,'' I didn't think about that. I just want to tell you, you have been given a lot and a lot was expected and you surpassed all expectations. I am going to wind up here with an experience I had a week ago today that was, I think, a violation of our rules, but I occasionally do that anyway. I remember my junior Senator, James Lankford, who said something at the conclusion of your remarks a week ago. He said: I have been here 3 or 4 years, and I don't remember one time that I have seen Orrin Hatch when he didn't encourage me and tell me I was a very special person, and I will always remember that. When he said that, I began thinking. I have been here about 24 years, and I can't think of one time you haven't been encouraging and an encouraging voice. I would come to a conclusion that there is a reason for this. You reflect, as much as anyone I can think of, the civility and love of Jesus, and I can assure you, Jesus is very proud of you this morning. I love you. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this has been the center of a lot of discussion, and it is a little confusing. I think there are a lot of things that everyone in here agrees with, but how we are going to express ourselves has to come down to all possibilities of the options that are there. I want to start off by saying that I oppose the Sanders-Lee provision. I think the resolution would have us find that since March of 2015, members of the U.S. Armed Forces have been introduced into hostilities in Yemen between the Saudi-led coalition and Houthis, including providing to the Saudi-led coalition aerial targeting assistance, intelligence sharing, and midflight aerial refueling. If enacted, Lee-Sanders could ultimately pull all U.S. support from the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. The Sanders-Lee resolution is, I think, fundamentally flawed because it presumes we are engaged in military action in Yemen. We are not. We are not engaged in military action in Yemen. There has been a lot of discussion about refueling. I don't see any stretch of the definition that would say that falls into that category. The truth is that with the exception of the defense strike in October 2016, the U.S. Armed Forces are not engaged in direct military action in Yemen. The limited military support and intelligence sharing being provided by the United States to the Saudi-led coalition does not involve the introduction of U.S. Forces into hostilities, nor is the U.S. involvement in hostilities imminent given the circumstances at hand. U.S. forces in support of the coalition do not currently command, coordinate, accompany, or participate in the movement of Saudi coalition forces in the counter-Houthi operations. As of November 11 of this year, the U.S. Armed Forces ceased refueling support. That is no longer an issue. Even if it were an issue, this is not one that would constitute the category we have been talking about. As for the Saudi coalition, the counter-Houthi operations in Yemen, even if the refueling support we were providing were going on today, it would not constitute involvement in hostilities. For that reason, I do oppose it. I don't know which of these resolutions is actually going to be on the floor for a vote and in what order they would be on the floor, but the resolution that has been put together by Senator Corker and our leader I think is the best solution to the problem we are confronted with now. Like many of my colleagues, I was deeply disturbed by the killing of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi at Saudi Arabia's consulate in Istanbul in October. I deplore everything in conjunction with that. While it may not be a smoking gun as such, I believe that Saudi Arabia's leadership is responsible for Mr. Khashoggi's death. Those responsible are going to have to be held accountable, and we must condemn this terrible and unaccepted event. That is clearly what the resolution says. The resolution also acknowledges the Trump administration's important decision to sanction 17 Saudis for their roles in Mr. Khashoggi's murder. At the same time, Saudi Arabia is an important Middle Eastern partner. Its stability is vital to the security of our regional allies and our partners, including Israel, and Saudi Arabia is essential to countering Iran. We all know that. We know how tenuous things are in that part of the world. We don't have that many friends. We can't afford to lose any of them. While we must be frank with our partners and let them know when they have done, in our opinion, something wrong, we must be cautious and avoid steps that would damage a strategic relationship that goes back over half a century. For this reason, I am hoping that the resolution will be introduced, in which case I will be supporting the resolution the leader and Senator Corker have introduced. It criticizes the Saudi Government for its recent behavior and encourages it to get on the right path--the right path to redouble its reform efforts, the right path to respect the rights of its citizens, and the right path to work toward a peaceful resolution in Yemen. You know, I don't like any of the choices we have. This is clearly the best choice that is out there. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, be recognized.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I don't know how, but a lot of people back home have gotten in their heads that defending America is a complicated issue and that it is the kind of issue they think is going to have to be decided in Washington by a lot of smart people and all that, but nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is, defending America is just common sense. It is called priority--something we didn't have in the last administration. We all-- every American citizen--need to be responsible for our own national security. I am going to be coming here each week to outline the common sense for our common defense--what we are working on here in Washington--for families back home. Today I will talk about how we face the urgency in funding our national defense. It is very simple. Again, it is common sense. Without action to exempt the military from sequestration or to reach a budget agreement, once again, we will have to face the devastating cuts of the Budget Control Act in our military. We could handle it in other areas, and I am very supportive of it but not in the military at this particular time. I will tell you why. We know what the result will be. We saw it during the Obama administration. Without sufficient, sustained, and predictable funding, we will squander the progress the military has made over the past 2 years, which is to improve readiness, increase procurement for critical capabilities, and investment in future technologies. This is just in the past 2 years. We need to continue to make progress. We also need to implement the national defense strategy. The Trump administration's national defense strategy correctly prioritized strategic competition--and that is with China and Russia--but the effective strategies are going to have to be matched with resources. This chart is from the National Defense Strategy Commission. That is this document right here. This is put together by a number of very top people chosen by Democrats and Republicans. In fact, Senator Jon Kyl was a member of this Commission before he got to the Senate. He and I will be talking about this and complementing each on this tomorrow. This chart we are looking at right now gives you an idea of what is happening with some of the other countries. We have China, which is actually increasing--they are passing us in terms of their number of ships. This is true with everything else. It looks like they will pass us in about 2023. In this country, we are kind of used to having the very best of everything. Ever since World War II, we thought that was our mission. There is a quote out of this document we have right here that has been so brilliantly described by so many people. It says: ``Put bluntly, the U.S. military could lose the next state-versus-state war it fights.'' These are the top military and nonmilitary people in our society who conducted this study. It has been heralded as the most accurate study by all parties having to do with our Nation's defense. At a minimum, next year's defense budget should at least be $733 billion. That is a floor, not a ceiling. I have to say, that represents a no-growth budget because, in fiscal year 2018, we went from $700 billion. Then, in fiscal year 2019, we went to $716 billion, and then this will actually be going up to $733 billion. If that happens--do the math--that is an increase of 2.1 percent, which is not even a growth. It is a no-growth budget. I have to say, General Dunford, Secretary Mattis, and the rest of them have called for fully implementing the national defense strategy, which would require between 3 to 5 percent of real growth. On both sides of the aisle, we have had some individuals who are advocating for cutting defense spending because of the increased deficit. I am concerned about the increased deficit, but we also have to have this priority. We have to have America catch up. We are not used to having to catch up defensewise, but we are now. Defense spending is not the primary reason for our increased debt. We could eliminate the entire Pentagon budget, and the deficit would actually grow. Here is why. Over the past 10 years, our national debt has grown 86 percent. During the same time, mandatory spending has grown 41 percent. All that time, defense spending has been cut by 3 percent. It has been cut by 3 percent. Meanwhile, constant dollar defense spending dropped $200 billion between the years 2010 and 2015. In 2010, the total budget was $794 billion. In 2015, 5 years later, it dropped to $586 billion. That is a drop of $200 billion. In percentage terms, it is a 24-percent drop. This hasn't happened since the end of the Korean war. We have to do something about the growing debt. The only way we can actually curtail it is to address the growth in mandatory spending. There are a lot of programs in mandatory spending that could be cut. Again, if you cut out the entire defense budget, it would not reduce or eliminate the debt. As mandatory programs drive spending growth to new highs, debt held by the American people has correspondingly increased. If we don't do something about this, interest on the debt will surpass defense spending by fiscal year 2023. As we see from this gray line here, this is the net increase in spending compared to the total spending of nondefense. It passes nondefense in 2023. The Obama administration viewed the world as they wanted to see it, not as it was. The assumption that Russia was a strategic partner was and is fundamentally flawed and profoundly misguided. It has cost us dearly. Today we are faced with the reality that those decisions not only weakened our national security by sacrificing our military advantages over Russia, but it will be costly to recoup the capabilities that President Obama had chosen to cut with his lack of priorities for the military. That is the reality. I think this President has done a good job in outlining who our pure competitors are. We are talking about countries that have things better than we have. We are going to be talking about that in some detail tomorrow. When the military is forced to reduce spending, it is going to have to take tradeoffs between lowering readiness, reducing force structure, and just not modernizing. In this case, we suffered through all three of those in the last administration. In the meantime, our adversaries--Russia and China--have increased their own military spending and focused on force structure and modernization. The size of the Chinese Navy will soon pass the size of the U.S. Navy. There it is right here. It shows we are almost ready for those lines to cross in 2018. They will cross in 2022. Over the 2000 and 2030 timeframe, the U.S. Navy is growing at an average rate of about one ship every 2 years, while the Chinese Navy is growing more than 20 times faster, at an average rate of about 10 ships annually. The quality and capability of those ships is increasing as well. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I see no bigger imperative than this: to fully fund our defense and to fully implement the national defense strategy. When I talk to people out in the real world--I am talking about going out to Oklahoma and talking to groups of people--and they find out it was true that ever since World War II, we have had the occasion of being No. 1 in all areas of our equipment, such as artillery and other things, they are shocked to find out that the Chinese and the Russians actually have equipment that is better than ours. We will be specifically talking about this tomorrow. With that, I thank my friend from Iowa. By unanimous consent, I think he is the next speaker after my remarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, on behalf of myself and Mr. Reed, as the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the cochairs of the Senate Army Caucus, it is our honor to pay tribute to a great leader and an exceptional officer of the U.S. Army, MG Brian E. Winski, the chief of legislative liaison for the Office of the Secretary of the Army, as he prepares to leave this position for a new post in the Army of even greater importance to our Nation. Major General Winski provides outstanding leadership, advice, and sound professional judgment on numerous critical issues of enduring importance to the Army, Congress, and this Nation. Major General Winski has served our Army and our Nation for more than 30 years. A native of Wisconsin, Major General Winski was commissioned in 1988 as an infantry officer from the University of Wisconsin. He has been a true professional, dedicated soldier, leader, and officer. Throughout his career, he has commanded our great soldiers at many levels and deployed to combat numerous times in defense of the nation. He has served in various command and staff positions over multiple combat tours to Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He was a rifle platoon leader in Desert Shield/Storm, infantry battalion executive officer during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, chief of operations for the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq, reconnaissance squadron commander in Iraq, Division Operations Officer for the 101st Airborne Division in Afghanistan, and brigade combat team commander in Iraq. Major General Winski has extensive joint and interagency experiences. He has served as the operations director CJ-3 for Regional Command East in Afghanistan, G-3 Chief of Operations for Multi-National Division North in Iraq, and as a military professor in the leadership department at the Naval War College. His other assignments included service in the 82nd Airborne Division, the 101st Airborne Division AASLT, the 3rd Infantry Division, the 1st Cavalry Division, the Joint Readiness Training Center, the Naval War College, and the Army Legislative Liaison office. Major General Winski recently served as the Director of Army Operations, Readiness, and Mobilization, HQDA G-3/5/7. For the past 18 months, Major General Winski has implemented and enhanced strategic partnerships with Congress. Through his leadership, the Army significantly advanced relationships with both legislative chambers and improved and broadened congressional support for Army priorities. Major General Winski managed complex issues through multiple legislative cycles, enabling the Army to receive the necessary resources to improve readiness, accelerate modernization, and reform processes to support combat operations, sustain the all-volunteer force, and improve the quality of life for soldiers, Army civilians, and their families. On behalf of Congress and the United States of America, we thank Major General Winski, his wife Kim, and their entire family for their continued commitment, sacrifice, and contributions to this great Nation. We join our colleagues in wishing him future successes as he continues to serve our great Army and Nation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, there was a lot of media attention on the caravan from Central America coming up through Mexico and making its way to the United States intending to declare asylum or to cross the border illegally. This is kind of interesting because people don't realize that we have within our laws that if a person declares asylum, it has to be acted upon as a matter of routine. We have heard all about people declaring asylum. They get a court date, and then they are not showing up for court. We know that happens--it is really a no-brainer--but nonetheless it has been going on and on and on. In fact, the law prescribes that anyone coming to this country to seek asylum will be coming into the country through other countries, and they must first go to whatever country they go through before coming to the United States. In other words, someone coming from Central America, if they are coming through Mexico, should not go to the United States but to Mexico to seek asylum. Now, asylum is not very well-defined. Anyone can come in and say: My life is in danger, and therefore I need the opportunity to come across the border into the United States. We all know what happens. Back in my real life, I spent some 20 years on the border. I was a builder- developer, and I know how the border works. I know the border agents. I have spent time down there. They wonder why we don't have a solution. Anyway, we are told that migrants are escaping violence and persecution, but once they get to this country and someone asks, they say, no, in reality, they are seeking the economic opportunities that we taxpayers are paying for in the United States or they maybe want to reunite with their families. I think anyone within earshot right now would want to do the same thing for their families. So this has been going on for a long time, and while this caravan has rightfully garnered a lot of attention, it is really part of a much larger problem. In fiscal year 2018 alone, more than 396,000 people were caught illegally crossing our southern border by Customs and Border Protection agents--an average of more than 7,500 a week. They come because they know our border is porous and, if caught, they can always game our legal system and stay. They have been doing it now for years. While the problems are not new, the caravan brings a renewed spotlight to our vulnerabilities. We have to secure our borders, and we have to tackle the policies that encourage abuse of our immigration system. After decades of seeing our border breached over and over again, voters responded very actively to President Trump when he was pledging to address our immigration crisis by building a wall. Here is the thing: Walls work. We know they work. We are about the only one who doesn't have walls. We are talking about walls that have been in discussion, proposed by this President and proposed by many of us in this body. DHS estimates a wall will deter 90 percent of illegal crossers. So walls do work. We know they work. Nearly 2,000 miles--the figure they have been using and I believe is pretty accurate--will take an estimated $25 billion to fully secure our southern border. I have heard my colleagues describe how we couldn't pay for a wall and, after all, we don't need to grow our deficit or use tax dollars to pay for it. That is why I am introducing the Wall Act of 2018, to build the wall and secure our border. We have talked this over and determined this will work. It is very simple. It provides $25 billion--actually, more than that--for a wall by eliminating Federal benefits going to illegal immigrants. We have a lot of liberals in both bodies of Congress who are going to say we can't do that. Liberals are always great about giving things away, and I think of Margaret Thatcher when I think about this: Socialism is a wonderful thing, until we run out of other people's money to give away. That is exactly what is happening right now. Under current law, noncitizens who are not allowed to work are able to receive the earned-income tax credit--a refundable tax credit. They are eligible because applicants do not need to provide work-authorized Social Security numbers. Very simply, prior to 2003, the Social Security Administration routinely issued Social Security numbers to anyone needing a driver's license or a bank account. We have stopped that now, but those numbers still exist and allow for illegal immigrants to obtain Social Security numbers and receive this refundable tax credit and possibly other Federal benefits. More significantly, the bill we are introducing would require the tax filers themselves to provide a work-authorized Social Security number to receive the refundable child tax credit. Now, under the law, filers only have to provide a Social Security number for a dependent they are claiming to receive a tax credit and a refundable portion. That is under the current law. An illegal parent with legal dependents at the end of a tax year could get a child tax credit check for as much as $1,400 per child, and that check comes from Uncle Sam. By closing these loopholes, we can save billions of dollars a year. We can also save even more taxpayer dollars by ensuring the integrity of other Federal welfare programs like SNAP and TANF. By mandating that all States use the E-Verify system, we can add an additional layer of integrity to ensure the legal work-eligible status of benefit recipients. These are commonsense reforms. You have to ask the question, Why would we not do this? Only those legally in this country and eligible for work should be receiving Federal benefits that are intended to get people out of poverty and get them back to work. This is something that actually would work, and they are all common sense. It is one of the things that falls into the category of ``why don't we do it.'' We have an opportunity to go ahead and do it now. Only those who are legally in this country and eligible for work should be receiving Federal benefits intended to get people out of poverty and into jobs. Finally, in this bill is actually an additional amount that is out there that we should be taking advantage of. This bill will increase the minimum penalty for every illegal border crossing. Over the past 5 years, there has been an average of 500,000 illegal border crossings each year. By raising the minimum penalty on illegal border crossings, the Federal Government would raise revenue by as much as $15 billion over a 10-year period. All of this more than pays for a wall. Our President rightfully demanded a wall not be paid for with hard- working Americans' tax dollars, and my bill fulfills that commitment by not altering a single earned benefit for any American citizen or lawful immigrant. I was having a news conference last week on this bill. Someone said: Well, the President has said Mexico should pay for it. In a way, this fulfills that commitment, too, because it is being paid for by benefits that would otherwise go to illegals who would not be getting the benefits. So it is the best of both worlds, and it is a solution to the problem. It is what American families deserve, but even more, it is what the hard-working, lawful men and women who are abiding by our immigration process deserve. So that is the bill we are going to be introducing and we will be hearing a lot about. One thing people say has not been resolved is, how do you come up with $25 billion for a wall? It is easy. It can be done. The figures match. It is the right thing to do for our lawful Americans. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be acknowledged to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I don't think that is necessary because I think I was scheduled to do that anyway. What we are going to be addressing here in just a few minutes is a very significant piece of legislation. We do a lot of things around here that some people think are important, but this is something that really is important. It is something that has a long history behind it. America's water infrastructure bill, known as the WRDA bill, was started about 20 years ago, and we made a commitment at that time that we would actually have a WRDA bill every 2 years. We didn't do that up until 2014. In 2014, we had gone since 2007 since we had had one, and this needs to be done to keep our water infrastructure going and the things that we are supposed to be doing. So we did it in 2014 and 2016, and now we will do the 2018 bill. That is what we are supposed to be doing. It is a great way to keep up the productive momentum that we have seen in Congress leading up to the midterm election and delivering on President Trump's promises. The WRDA bill is another great example of what can happen when we work with our friends across the aisle on issues that affect every State of our Nation. I was privileged to chair the Environment and Public Works Committee during that timeframe, when we went back to every other year, and it is something that has worked very well. People can depend on the resources being there when the time comes. So I think right now it is a bill that is sponsored by ourselves, along with the ranking members and the Senators of that committee, the EPW Committee, and the Transportation Subcommittee. I want to take a moment to thank the members I just mentioned and their staffs. The staffs are the ones who do the heavy lifting because without our willingness to work together on this legislation, we wouldn't be able to discuss it here on the floor today, and I appreciate that dedication. It is going to happen today. There are a lot of provisions in the bill that advance our Nation's infrastructure priorities. In addition, the State of Oklahoma would benefit in many ways as well. One of the big secrets around the world and around America is that Oklahoma is actually navigable. We have a navigation way that goes from the Mississippi River all the way up to my hometown of Tulsa, with the Port of Catoosa. I can remember many years ago, when I was in the State legislature, and some people came to me who were World War II veterans--one of the groups that was doing a very good job--and they said: We would like to be able to show and to demonstrate that we are navigable in Oklahoma. If you will get us a submarine, we will take it all the way up to Oklahoma. So I went down to Orange, TX, and found the USS Batfish. This is a World War II submarine. They were able to do it without any help at all--without any help from government. They had to get on there, and they had to reduce it to get under bridges and lift it up in shallow places. All of my adversaries were saying: We will sink Inhofe and his submarine. But we did it, and it is there today. So we do have the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. We have some items in there under this to protect that resource from what they call the Three Rivers report, which provides a permanent solution for the situation we are experiencing near the mouth of the system, where the White River and the Arkansas River are trying to merge. If left alone, they would merge. That would destroy everything that goes up from that area in Arkansas. It includes language for Bartlesville to navigate the murky waters of water supply contracts and to change those contracts with everyone to get away from the idea that the Army Corps of Engineers is going to be able to do something that would be prohibitive cost-wise to the communities like Bartlesville, OK. We support our Nation's economic competitiveness by increasing access to water storage and supply, providing protection from dangerous flood waters, deepening the nationally significant ports, and maintaining navigability in the inland waterways. Since hurricane season is upon us, we have recently seen the cruel aftermath of these storms and the flooding that followed Hurricane Harvey, Irma, Florence, and now Michael. Right now they are preparing down there to evacuate as we speak. It could become a mandatory evacuation. This is something that is happening. Events like this show why it is utterly critical to maintain flood control and be able to protect against the floodwaters as much as possible. That is what this bill we will be considering in a few minutes is all about. It will also further address the need for repairing our aging drinking water, wastewater and irrigation systems, improving conditions all across the United States in homes, farms, and businesses. We have reauthorized WIFIA and authorized a new tool by including Senator Boozman's SRF WIN Act, of which I am a very proud cosponsor. These provisions, along with technical assistance for our small and rural systems, will provide more help to our communities struggling to finance and upgrade our hidden infrastructure needs. Maintaining critical infrastructure is one of the most important constitutionally required duties we have as Members of Congress. I sometimes have to remind people who often disregard a document called the Constitution that this is what we are supposed to be doing and what we are carrying out with the bill we are about to pass in the next few minutes. I look forward to passing this legislation and sending it to the President to sign into law. It is another win for America. I have to say, the committee has done so well. People are criticizing the Senate all the time, saying nothing is being done. Our Environment and Public Works Committee gets things done--the FAST Act, the chemical act, the last WRDA bill, and now the 2018 WRDA bill. It is what we are supposed to be doing here, and it is a very significant vote. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.