Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, President Trump's commitment to our veterans is only matched by his commitment to our servicemembers and our national security. You can't really segregate it out and say, well, we are going to take care of our veterans' activities and then still say we are not going to allow our country to have the national security they fought so hard for. We saw that earlier this week when the President outlined his national security strategy, charting a new course for American foreign policy, leaving behind the failed policies of the Obama administration. With his national security strategy, President Trump has been clear that he is committed to protecting the homeland, promoting American prosperity, and advancing peace through strength. Have you ever heard that before, peace through strength? I am one of the few who is old enough around here who remember our great President we had who talked about peace through strength when he had to rebuild the military after the Carter administration. It was actually as bad--or as downgraded as our military has become from the last administration. Now he is asserting America's leadership in the free world. We saw how under President Obama the military was forced to divert resources for priorities that weren't even about defending America. He used the military to advance his liberal agenda, which led to the wasteful spending on what they call the green Navy and the green bullets. The idea that climate change was the largest threat to our national security, all of that has changed and not a moment too soon. President Trump is focused on what matters, rightfully taking out things like just worrying about climate change as opposed to rebuilding our military, and he is building it at a very rapid rate right now. We passed the bill, the Defense authorization bill, and we have made a great start on this. Now, when the President came into office, our military was facing a readiness crisis, and Americans didn't really understand this. They didn't know. They had not been told this. We had a biased media that didn't allow this information to get out. As an example, our Air Force today, right now, is short 1,500 pilots, and 1,300 of those are actually fighter pilots. Only 50 percent of the Air Force squadrons are trained and ready to conduct all of their assigned missions. I have to repeat that. Only 50 percent of our Air Force squadrons are trained and ready to defend America. The Navy is the smallest and least ready it has been in years. It currently can only meet 40 percent of the demand for regional combat. The commanders in the field include only enough personnel to man six and a half of our nine carrier air wing. A carrier air wing is something a lot of people are not familiar with. A carrier air wing has approximately 75 combat aircraft. Currently, we have manned only 6\1/2\ wings and are 8,000 sailors short. This is an air wing. They have F-18s, they have EA-18s, they have F- 35s, they have C-2As. Again, just a little over half of ours are actually ready. Well, that is the problem we are faced with right now. More than half of the Navy's F-18s are grounded because they are awaiting maintenance or lack of necessary parts. If you look at our Marines, our Marines are using F-18s, and 62 percent of F-18s will not fly. People are just shocked when they find out about it. It is because we don't have the spare parts. Well, we are getting busy on that. We are going to make sure we correct those problems. The Army has said that only about one-third of their brigade combat teams, one-fourth of their air aviation brigades, and one-half of their division headquarters are currently ready. A brigade combat team consists of 7 battalions, approximately 4,500 students. I wish I had time to come up with a chart on this, but the carrier wing is one that is absolutely necessary to get folks straight, and we plan on doing that. Faced with the most dangerous threats I have seen in my lifetime, these are critical gaps in our military we simply cannot accept. I often say, when I look back at the good old days of the Cold War, where we had two superpowers--and the superpowers, we knew what they had, they knew what we had. It is totally different now. You have a country like North Korea, which has demonstrated that they have the capacity now to reach an American city. We learned that on November 28, when they actually demonstrated a range that would reach one of our continental U.S. cities. They tried to give us a little bit of comfort in saying, well, we don't know that they would be able to carry a warhead. We don't think they would have the capacity to do that. Well, we don't know that. That is not much comfort. When they say: We don't have the capacity to be accurate on a reentry because of what a missile has to go through on a reentry, well, that is not very comforting that this would happen. Anyway, the NDAA--the bill we passed, that the President signed into law--would be a good step in correcting the readiness shortfalls. I look forward to continuing to work with him on this critical process. We have a committee that already is having hearings about the problems we are having. We had one, actually, in the subcommittee hearing I chaired just this week. We are busy correcting these problems. Meanwhile, back to our VA problems in Oklahoma, we put two new great directors in the VA clinics. We have a level of veterans' care Oklahomans are proud of. Only yesterday, President Trump signed the Enhancing Veteran Care Act to ensure that we continue to give our veterans the best care. They deserve it, and they are going to get it. At the same time, we are going to restore and rebuild the military as our Nation's No. 1 priority. Our troops deserve it, and they are going to get it. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me make a comment to the Senator from West Virginia. One of the problems we have right now is that during the last administration, there was a war on fossil fuel--which includes coal and nuclear also--and some of the damage has already been done. Unfortunately, we can't come in with a ready fix now and assume-- because a lot of the generators out there had done field switching out of coal, so you can't switch it back. So I will say it was help coming not quite on time, but nonetheless it is here now.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me mention something that is very significant to me personally. I remember it was 2 years ago today that I picked up USA TODAY, and in a USA TODAY article, they singled out my State of Oklahoma and said that we are not treating our veterans right. We were in shock at that time. In fact, the article detailed some really appalling things that were going on and were not going on in my State of Oklahoma. There were things the inspector general reported during the Obama administration that we had no way of knowing about. We seem to have more veterans per capita in Oklahoma. One of the reasons is we have five major military establishments, and Oklahoma is a great place to live, so a lot of them retire there. They were not getting the help they need, and they were not getting the treatment to the highest standards that were available. This isn't how we take care of veterans in Oklahoma. Senator Lankford and I and two of the House Members worked on this and talked to regional Veterans' Administration leadership. We talked to the veterans. We talked to whistleblowers. And we identified three key problems that we needed to fix. This is interesting because these are three problems in my State of Oklahoma, but they would be the same thing in Nebraska or any other State because it is not just in our State of Oklahoma. The first one was that the VA couldn't fire bad employees. This is always a problem. You go into an organization and you find that things are not going very well because there are one or two bad employees. Yet it takes you a year before you are able to get rid of these people. Despite having been identified, it takes forever to terminate an employee. Well, we fixed that this past summer when President Trump signed the VA Accountability Act that included our language to allow the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to immediately fire employees for misconduct or poor performance. That was successful. We did it. That is history. I have to say that during President Trump's administration so far, he has used this firing authority on over 500 bad actors from the VA, and we are finally creating a culture of accountability in the VA, which is having positive results. That is the first reform. The second one: Too many veterans were forced to receive care from VA facilities that were hours away or didn't provide specialized care. This is a problem. A lot of these veterans don't have the capability to move around and get the care they need, and they didn't have the choices. So we actually had to make a change, and we did. We worked with the President and reauthorized the bipartisan VA Choice Program. The VA Choice Program is great because it allowed our veterans to actually, in those hard-to-reach areas, get high-quality healthcare, regardless of where they had to travel to get it done. That was a success. Finally, after the USA TODAY article, we requested an accredited third-party look at the problem at our VA facilities because previous reports from the Obama Veterans Affairs inspector general failed to identify and correct these problems. Well, my request was denied. It is just like any bureaucracy. They don't want someone looking over their shoulder, so they said: No, we are not going to allow you to have a third party accompany the VA to look into the problem that you have. Some are not aware of this, but in the Senate, when someone is nominated, we can put a hold on them and not allow them to go through confirmation--at least for a long period of time. At that time, the President--our current President--had nominated a person to be the inspector general of the Veterans' Administration. We put a hold on him until they allowed someone to come in and monitor the evaluation that the VA was doing of their own bureaucracy in Oklahoma. That worked, except the problem with that is it was a one-time authorization. We needed to make that a permanent part of our structure. I am pleased to say we did that. When we signed the Enhancing Veteran Care Act, it permanently granted the VISN directors--that is one of the director levels of the VA--and gave the medical center directors the authority to request, at their request, an outside oversight in order to evaluate what they had done. It has been very successful. It is important for the regional directors to have the authority because they have the best idea of the reality of care at their facilities. I appreciate the work of my colleagues, Senator James Lankford, Congressman Markwayne Mullin, and Congressman Steve Russell. It turned out to be a real good team, and we are able to get these things done. We are already starting to see real progress in improving the veterans' care in Oklahoma and across the country because as we are improving the system we had in Oklahoma, that same system can be improved in Nebraska or any other State. We need to get our VA facilities from their current ratings to the highest standard. The highest standard rating is five stars. We are now up to three stars in Oklahoma. We were at one star when we first discovered this problem on that fateful day 2 years ago today in an article in USA TODAY. President Trump will continue to be an important partner for Oklahoma as we continue to improve our veterans' care.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein, equally divided, until 3 p.m.

Mr. INHOFE. I also ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Virginia, I be recognized for such time as I may consume.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, Mr. President, as to my very good friend from Virginia--and he is a very good friend--I think he needs to reread this bill. Now, I am older than he is and most of the people around here, but I do remember the Reagan tax cuts. This is a Reagan tax cut. I listened to the other side and a lot of the liberals on the other side, because there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans, and we understand that. But they come out and say: Oh, it is always class warfare. It is always that they are doing this for the rich. The rich are going to get richer. Well, that is not the way this worked out. There is a group called the National Tax Foundation. The National Tax Foundation did an analysis of this, and they did it State by State. In my State of Oklahoma, the average family of four will get an increase in their take-home pay of $2,000. Now, where does it come from? There is the standard deduction, for example. The Senator talked about this being for the rich. This isn't for the rich. The standard deduction actually goes from $6,000 to $12,000. If you are married, it is from $12,000 to $24,000. There is the child tax credit. We are all concerned about the child tax credit. Several Republicans wanted to do even more than that. Right now, as the law is, it is $1,000, but it is going to be increased after this is over, after we vote. After we have a major tax reduction, that child tax credit will go from $1,000 to $2,000 per child. That is a huge thing. That is not for the wealthy. I listen sometimes when they talk about how this is going to increase the deficit. I have to tell you, though, that I remember very well. In fact, I remember so well. I have given speeches over time. Reagan reduced taxes twice. One was in 1981 and one in 1986. In 1986 and 1981, the total amount of revenue that came into the Federal Government was $469 billion. He had a huge reduction in rates. Yes, the top rate went down from 70 percent to 50 percent, then the others went down in accordance with a similar percentage. Now, what happened to that was that, while the total amount that came in before the tax cuts was $469 billion, afterward, it was $750 billion. The same thing happened in 1986. In 1986, the total revenue that came into the Federal Government was $569 billion. At the end of that period of 10 years that they were measuring, it was $1 trillion. Now, the problem is, the other side is always saying that our deficits increased during that time period. Yes, they did, but I have to say this: It was not because of Ronald Reagan, it was because the House and the Senate were run by liberal Democrats, and as fast as the increase in revenue came in, they were spending not just the increase but even more. So that is one of the differences now. I anticipate that we are going to have a conservative House and Senate for the years to come, and we will just have to wait and see what is right. I do agree with my friend from Virginia, though, in one respect; that is, he and I both had the hardest job in the world. You never know what a hard job is until you are mayor of a major city. There is no hiding place, and if they don't like the trash, it ends up in your front yard.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, that is not what I am here to talk about today. I would like to speak about someone who--I will put it this way: Way back in the 1950s, back when Eisenhower was President, three giants came to Washington, DC. Two of the three giants people know about and they have heard of and they are well known. One was Billy Graham. Oh, we remember Billy Graham still, right now, and the things he has done. He has done more for Jesus and for God. Every time I get a chance to see something on TV that is from one of his past rallies, I do so. Another one who came, of the three giants who came, was Bill Bright. Some may not remember who Bill Bright was. He was the founder of the Campus Crusade for Christ. He was the guy who actually started--people are not aware of this in the general public, but we actually have events two times a week; one is a Prayer Breakfast and one is a Bible study. Bill Bright was the one who started that. So everyone has heard of Bill Bright and the Campus Crusade for Christ. The third giant who came in no one has heard of, and his name was Doug Coe. This is Doug Coe. Doug Coe came with the other two giants, and he really changed America. He died last February 21. I purposely, for an obvious reason my colleagues will find out in a minute, waited until now to talk very much about him. You see, people think of Doug Coe as having been someone who was a great diplomat, he had political influence and all that. There is an article written not long ago, and I will read this to you because he did things like that. He did it second only to his real mission in life. The article goes like this: The extent of Coe's influence in American politics is [real]. . . . important figures have acknowledged his role on the national and international stage. For instance, speaking at the 1990 National Prayer Breakfast, President George H.W. Bush praised Coe for his quiet diplomacy. I don't ever remember in the years I have known him that he ever raised his voice. He was always a quiet diplomat. [Doug Coe] was a behind-the-scenes player at the Camp David Accords in 1978, working with President Jimmy Carter to issue a worldwide call to prayer with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. In 2000, Coe met with the top economic officials of Pakistan as a ``special envoy.'' Coe met with President George H.W. Bush as he hosted a luncheon with Iraq's ambassador to the United States in the mid-1980s. In 2001, Coe helped arrange a private meeting between two warring leaders. By the way, I was there so I remember this firsthand. That was the President of Congo, Joe Kabila, and the President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame. I was there during the National Prayer Breakfast, and he had these two Presidents of warring countries in there to talk to them in the spirit of Jesus. That is when everything broke down, they became friends, and they signed a peace accord. That was Doug Coe. Coe was a member of the large United States Congressional and ministerial delegation which accompanied then First Lady Hillary Clinton to the 1997 funeral of the founder of the Sisters of Charity, Mother Teresa. He is mentioned by John Ortberg in his book, ``If You Want to Walk on Water, You've Got to Get Out of the Boat.'' He talked about how the book was partly about Doug Coe. He was the guy who had a great influence in bringing medicine and releasing political prisoners in Kenya. We all remember that episode. So here we have a guy who was bringing warring powers together. He was solving serious problems with the country. Yet that wasn't even his mission. I know I will lose credibility when I say this because people will think it is impossible. A few people here know it is not impossible because they heard it once before; that is, Doug Coe has actually taken his mission, which is the Jesus mission--by the way, Time magazine listed him among the 25 most influential evangelicals in America, but, anyway, I will lose credibility when I say that, in effect, Doug Coe has been to every country in the world. The reason I know this--I thought we had him one time because Zanzibar is actually--people think it is a separate country next to Tanzania. He never was in Zanzibar, and I was. Then we found out he was right, and I was wrong; that was not a separate country. Anyway, he has had this Jesus mission since actually the late 1940s. I want to just mention that I hope and pray my kids and grandkids, when it comes time for me to cash out, will be as respectful and as loving as his kids and grandkids were at his funeral. We called it a celebration, not a funeral. One of his grandkids, Sam Wagner, talked about a trip he and his grandpa took to Nepal. Sam recalled how Doug not only met with dignitaries, but he also met with the young kids carrying machine guns who had shut the city down. Justin is a grandson. He recited the story of Jesus feeding the 5,000 and said that Doug reminds him of the little boy in that story. Just as the boy brought his loaves and fish to Jesus, Doug brought all he had to Jesus. Doug used to ask his grandson the question: If you give Jesus all of your love, what will happen? You will not run out of love for other people. Rather, Jesus will make your love enough for the whole world. That is a grandson. Gosh, I would like to have my grandsons feel that way. Melissa, a granddaughter, at the very last of the celebration I am referring to, stood up and said: I want you to leave this service talking about Jesus because Doug would certainly have been disappointed if you left talking about him. So, anyway, we have people like that. We had famous people at that meeting, by the way. One was Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner. The first time she met Doug, he talked like he already knew her well and like she already knew Jesus well, even though she had only recently accepted Jesus into her life, but Barbara Skinner is a very liberal Democrat, a wonderful person, and she jokingly said that Doug didn't understand gender issues because most of his fellowship members were men, and he would say to her: We brothers have to stick together. Doug made Barbara pray for Ronald Reagan at the National Prayer Breakfast when Ronald Reagan was President. Even after she told him she didn't know enough Scripture to pray for Republicans, Doug challenged her to confront her skepticism of people of different beliefs, and she did. You know, he had a way of getting things done that other people didn't. One of the well-known people who was there at the celebration was Sam Nunn. We remember Sam Nunn. He was a very well-known U.S. Senator. He is one who really concentrated on rebuilding our national defense when it needed to be rebuilt. He would talk about Doug Coe. He said Doug formed small fellowships and prayer groups in the House, in the Senate, at the Pentagon, at the executive branch, the judicial branch, and he also formed groups globally all over the world. He started many diverse fellowship groups throughout Japan and injected them all with Jesus. Jesus was it with Doug. Sam told a story about playing golf with Doug. Doug was a good golfer. He was talented. He made bets with the people he played golf with, and if they lost, they would have to--it wasn't a money deal-- they would have to memorize a Bible verse or go on mission trips. Doug always wins. I always will remember what Sam said. Very quietly, in a quiet voice, he said: Doug Coe was a sermon we saw. If we looked closely, we also saw a glimpse of Jesus. Another guy who is very well known to all of us here--known worldwide--is this guy named Ward Brehm. Ward Brehm enjoys talking about Doug Coe. He is the one who repeated something that George H.W. Bush said a long time ago. He said: Doug Coe has more friends who are heads of State than I do. This is the President of the United States talking. President Bush also said--one of his favorite quotes: ``Doug Coe was the most famous person that nobody has ever heard of.'' Well, anyway, Ward Brehm was telling a story, and he said: In an early conversation about Africa, Doug once asked me: If you were God, how would you help all of those poor people in Africa? My mind went totally blank, and I stammered: I don't know. Doug said: We are not in a hurry. Just think about it for a while. Ward Brehm said: So I did. I thought about it for a while, and my mind was still a blank. So, finally, in frustration, I said: I am not God so I don't know what I would do, but you seem to know so you tell me, if you were God, how would you help the poor people in Africa? Doug Coe said very quietly: I would change the hearts of their leaders. This is what Doug did. He didn't just change the hearts of leaders, he changed the hearts of leaders around the world--every country in the world. One man did that. I don't know how that is even possible. Another person who was--had a different kind of expression is Lee Atwater. Not many people remember Lee Atwater. He was well known in Republican circles. He actually was the chairman of the Republican Party a number of years ago. He was a talented, charismatic guy. He played guitar. He sang. Everybody loved him. He was arguably one of the best political mechanics around at that time. Something bad happened to him. He got leukemia. He knew he was going to die, but he wasn't sure--he said: I am going to die. I have to be rational about this thing. I don't know who God or Jesus is. So, on Friday, March 16, after a White House breakfast, Lee struck up a conversation with the President's secretary. I remember her, Patty Presock. She suggested that he call Doug Coe. She was suggesting that Lee Atwater call Doug Coe. At that time, he was working with Members of Congress on the National Prayer Breakfast. Eleven days later, Lee arrived at the Cedars in Virginia overlooking the Potomac, which served as the headquarters for Doug Coe's Fellowship Foundation. Now, using a cane, Lee Atwater, nearing his death, walked into the main house and sized up his 60-year-old host. He said: I have been in this city for many years now, and I never heard of you. Who are you, anyhow? He said that to Doug. Doug said: Well, we have many mutual friends all over the city. I have heard about you for a long time. Lee Atwater said: What have you heard? Doug replied: I have heard that you are a real S-O-B. He didn't say S-O-B, he said the real words, and their dialogue began at that time. So from then until August, Lee was deteriorating, and one August day, Lee asked Coe to come to his hospital bed in an emergency. He was dying, and he wanted to find out, What is this deal about Jesus? What is this deal about God? He said that when he arrived, Lee looked at him with his best piercing glare, and he said: This Jesus business, is he God or isn't he God? Tell me. Some say he is God, some say he is man. Doug replied: This is something you have to decide for yourself, but let me just tell you a little story. Lee gave Coe his full command and focus. Doug Coe said: You are big on the Golden Rule. Now, let's just say that you are the most powerful figure in the universe. This is Doug Coe talking to Lee Atwater. You are the most powerful person in the universe, and you could say, let there be a star or a planet and, boom, it exists; or you wanted to create elephants and, boom, there are elephants or cows or human beings. Anything you wanted, you had all the power, right? You understand that? So you are sitting up on a cloud somewhere, looking down on Earth, and you see these cows grazing in a field, and you decide that you want to be a real companion to those cows. Now, what would you do? All of a sudden, that picture of God becoming man had a clarity of an index card summary. He said: I got it. I got it, he shouted. Don't tell me any more. Don't tell me any more. It is very clear. And he died. Doug had a way of saying things that nobody else did. The last one I will mention--this is significant to me because I happened to be with Doug at the time the statement was made. President Museveni is the President of Uganda. Like many of the Presidents in Africa, he is one who came through the bush and fought his way up, and he has been, I think, an excellent President. Doug has told him Jesus said: ``I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.'' This always bothered President Museveni. The President said to Doug Coe: Look, we can go out into the bush. We have villages. They have never heard of God. They have never heard of Jesus. Are you saying that there is no way they are going to get to Heaven? Doug told President Museveni a story--that he had actually experienced this revelation. When he was in the Gobi Desert several years ago to visit Mongolian sheepherders, he told them that he had a friend who was a shepherd. In fact, he told them that his friend is the greatest shepherd who ever lived. His friend knows all of the flock, even the names of each sheep. If one of the sheep gets lost, the shepherd leaves the flock to search for the one lost sheep. The Mongolian sheepherders were amazed as Doug told him about this shepherd. The next day the Mongolian sheepherders told Doug that during the night they had decided to follow this shepherd, but they wanted to know his name. Doug said that his name was Jesus. They told Doug that they had always known about him, but they never knew his name, and President Museveni understood what he was talking about. Doug Coe had a way of explaining things that other people didn't. I was particularly blessed because for 20 years I met with Doug every Tuesday for an hour at 5 o'clock. I was a recipient of all the grace he had in the political philosophy of Jesus. I call it that; Doug didn't call it that. It is all scripturally based. Acts 9:15 says: What did Jesus say to Paul on the road to Damascus? He said: Take my name. Take my name to the Kings. Doug spent all those years in every country in the world, taking his name to the Kings. Acts 2:42--that is the genesis of the small meetings we have. Not many people are aware of them. We are here in the U.S. Senate every Wednesday morning, and we meet in the Spirit of Jesus. We have been doing it ever since Doug started this many years ago. It is all scripturally based. It is Acts 2:42. We get together, eat together, pray together, fellowship together, and talk about the precepts of Jesus together. All of that was happening, and I would say that he died--but not until he quietly spoke of Jesus to every country around the world. I can say that Doug is going to have a very Merry Christmas.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there is one last thing I want to say that is on a little different subject. Today is a very special day. Today, a little girl named Kay and I got married a long time ago. These are our kids and grandkids. Today is December 19, which is our 58th wedding anniversary. I want to say to Kay: I love you. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize Mr. Walter Strong on the occasion of his retirement. Walt has led the University of Oklahoma's Max Westheimer Airport, OUN, for 19 years and has a lifelong dedication to the aviation community. Under his leadership, the Max Westheimer Airport has demonstrated it is one of the best flight schools in the Nation, organizes successful pilot fly- ins, and maintains a youth outreach program to encourage the next generation to get involved in flying. Mr. Strong began his career in aviation in the U.S. Air Force, working as an air traffic controller in both control tower and radar approach control facilities. Retiring after 20 years of service in the Air Force, Mr. Strong began working at the Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission, rising to the level of deputy director. He was one of Oklahoma's first airport inspectors. From 2004 to 2005, he served as the president of the Oklahoma Airport Operators Association. A pillar of the Oklahoma aviation community, Mr. Strong was awarded the ``Airport Manager of the Year'' in 2011, the same year that Max Westheimer Airport was recognized as ``Airport of the Year.'' In 2016, under his leadership, the Max Westheimer Airport received the Willie F. Card Contract Tower Service Award from the Federal Aviation Administration, which recognizes one tower each year for embodying Willie Card's vision of a tower that places profound emphasis on both safety and efficiency. At the Federal level, Mr. Strong has been a passionate advocate for aviation, serving on the board of the American Association of Airport Executives and as the chair of the U.S. Contract Tower Association and ensuring that all Members of Congress are aware of the importance of general aviation to their constituents and to their communities. I know that I join his family, the Max Westheimer Airport, and the University of Oklahoma community in thanking him for his years of service and contributions to the aviation community. Congratulations on your retirement.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from Vermont, I be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. I have a point of inquiry. Was the UC already granted-- the unanimous consent request?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me pause in this class warfare for just a minute to make a couple of observations that I think are certainly important to me. First of all, I agree that no one has said that the underlying bill is perfect. Incidentally, I will not respond to the Senator's specific request until I have time to go back and get the proper response, and then I will be glad to do it. But I will say this. We are going to have a conference. There is going to be opportunity for us to go and get some of the things ironed out--some of the things we are both concerned about. There are a couple of things I want to serve notice right now that I am going to be concerned about. One is that the bill that we have punishes trust ownership. It doesn't treat the trust ownership the same way it does ordinary ownership. I think they both should be treated equally. I talked to a number of people who will be participating in this on the other side of the aisle, and I would like to kind of serve notice that we are going to be talking about this, because I think it is very, very significant. The second thing is that we hear a lot of good ideas. Certainly, there is this idea that somehow there isn't a good idea unless it emanates from this body. I have to tell you this. It is interesting for me to be standing here because I am not on any of the committees that have anything to do with this bill. I am not on the Finance Committee, and I am not on the Budget Committee. If you want to talk about defending America and roads and highways, I will talk to you about that. That is my specialty. I am on those committees and have senior leadership in those committees. But as a Member not directly involved in this debate, I have looked at it and I have heard good ideas from the outside. I heard one a week ago that actually came from the Hugh Hewitt show. I heard an idea that I tried to pick apart, and I can't find any faults with it. So I have developed an amendment that we are going to have that will address this idea that I am talking about. That amendment would offer an alternative to those who have retirement programs, where the individual is not to pay for the income until the withdrawal date--say, age 59\1/2\. The amendment would provide that there would be a one-time opportunity to withdraw up to 25 percent of the retirement account for a single flat fee of 10 percent in lieu of paying income tax at that time. There are a lot of benefits that I think are pretty obvious. We are talking about retirement programs where the individual is not to pay for the income until the withdrawal dates--let's say, at age 59\1/2\. This would have the immediate revenue of 10 percent of all savings that are withdrawn, and this would actually amount to billions of dollars. We are talking about immediate dollars, not dollars that may be there in the future. Now, you could argue that this might reduce some revenue at some future date because the individuals will have already pulled this out for a fee of 10 percent. So, perhaps, it would have some negative effects in the distant future. But when you stop to think about the benefits--I know a lot of people on the other side of the aisle don't realize this--we are going to have huge benefits. If you just look at what has happened in this administration in the second and third quarter of this year, we have gone through years in the Obama administration with maybe a 1.5-percent increase in GDP, and we have enjoyed 3 percent in the second quarter and 3.3 percent in the third quarter. That is a huge increase. For each 1 percent increase over a period of 10 years, we are talking about $3 trillion. So we are all considering this. This amendment that we are talking about that merely allows people to take money out that is already their money is something that would have a great stimulation in the economy. I am one of the few ones who was around here--not in this body but in the other body--and I was aware of this back during the Reagan years of 1981 and 1986. In 1981, the amount of revenue that we had coming into the Federal coffers was $469 billion. Ten years later that was $750 billion. That was after the first great reduction. Let's remember that reduction took the top rates down from 70 percent to 50 percent. Again, in 1986, when the total revenue was $569 billion, there was a further reduction. The top rate went down from 50 percent to, I believe, 28 percent. Now, with all of those reductions, that increased 10 years later from $569 billion to $1 trillion. Consequently, we know that if we can stimulate the economy, we are going to have more revenue coming in. That is a fact. I think this will be something that I think a lot of people can look at. I talk about when you get into the conference. I will not be one of the conferees, and I am aware of that, but there are a lot of good ideas out there along with those on the floor today. They will be pursuing them at that time. That is assuming we pass this bill, and I think we will pass it. Additionally, tax reform will ensure that American families and businesses see a meaningful reduction in their tax burden. The Senate bill provides a substantial tax deduction to small and family businesses that are structured as passthrough entities. These small and family businesses are household names such as Love's Travel Stop, the Country Stores, Hobby Lobby. We are all very familiar with Hobby Lobby. By the way, I will say that in the event there is anyone here who has not been down to see the Museum of the Bible, that is Hobby Lobby who paid for that. Those are the types of people who would benefit. Unfortunately, the Senate does not allow tax deductions for these companies or passthrough entities if they have trusts. This is not right. For these companies trusts were for long-term business purposes, not to evade their fair share of taxes. These companies use the income to invest capital in operations to grow their businesses, to hire people, and to contribute to the economic growth that we need in this country. We should not penalize passthrough companies for their businesses because they are trusts. My amendment would fix that. With that, I yield the floor.

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, for 20 years now, I have viewed the development and deployment of a layered ballistic missile defense shield as vital to our national security. The experience that we witnessed yesterday is something we have been talking about for a long time that was going to happen. Sometimes our DIA, or Defense Intelligence Agency, has said it is going to happen 5 years from now and then 4 years from now. The question is this: When will North Korea have the capability of a weapon and delivery system that would reach Washington, DC, or any of the States of the United States? The adversaries like North Korea are developing ballistic missiles with increasing range and accuracy. It is important for us in the Senate to communicate to the American people the credible, grave, and immediate threat that we face. Today the world is more dangerous than it has ever been before. I have said so many times in the past that I look wistfully back at the days of the Cold War when things were predictable. We had two superpowers. We knew what they had, and they knew what we had. It is not that way anymore. Every time we have someone coming in to our Defense Committee to testify, they talk about the fact that North Korea is not predictable. So we don't know what is going to happen and what they are capable of doing. I have been here on the floor on this issue in 2001, 2009, 2012, and this will be the third time this year. Over the last 30 years, we have witnessed our missile defense programs go through dramatic investment changes from administration to administration, depending on who is President. Remember how everyone ridiculed President Reagan about ``Star Wars,'' hitting a bullet with a bullet. They felt that it was pretty funny at that time. Right now, everything he said that was going to happen is happening and happened yesterday. In 1993, they cut out of the Reagan budget and from the Bush budget the missile defense budget request for fiscal year 1994. They terminated the Reagan-Bush Strategic Defense Initiative Program and downgraded the national missile defense--this is all during the Clinton administration--to a research and development program only and cut 5 years of missile defense funding by 54 percent, from $39 billion to $18 billion. In 1996 they cut funding and slowed the development of the THAAD program--the THAAD program we are so dependent on right now to defend against an incoming missile in many parts of the world with our allies. They cut the Defense authorization bill, which required accelerated development. In 1999 they delayed by at least 2 years our Space-Based Infrared System satellites, designed to detect and track missile launches, necessary to coordinate with any effective national missile defense system. Then along came Bush. By the end of 2008, the Bush administration had succeeded in fielding a missile defense system that was capable of defending all 50 States. During that period of time, we had 44 ground- based defense systems in the United States. The Obama administration cut that back down, but the Bush administration wanted a system that would take care of all 50 States. Here is the problem, though. All of our ground-based systems were on the west coast--in Alaska and California--so we didn't have anything else. At that time, they thought that was where the threat was going to be, but during the last years of the second Bush administration, we realized that we needed to do something about the rest of the country-- something about the east coast--and something about Western Europe. We made a deal with the Czech Republic and Poland to have a ground- based system in the Czech Republic and Poland, along with the radar that was necessary to operate it. I remember that. I was there and had a conversation with Vaclav Klaus in the Czech Republic. He said to me: If we go along with building this system, we are going to incur the wrath of Russia, and it is going to be very difficult for us. So can you assure us, if we agree to do this, that you will not pull the rug out from under us? I said: Certainly, we will not do that. This is something that we are committed to doing. The problem is that the first thing that happened when the Obama administration came in was he pulled the rug out from under them. So we found ourselves vulnerable to, maybe, having one shot at a defense system in the eastern part of the United States and in Western Europe. Then, in April, there came the first of the Obama defense cuts, which began disarming America and dismantling our layered missile defense system. Additionally, due to President Obama's overall reduced budget request for defense, there were not enough Aegis ships or missiles to meet the demand that was there. Since Kim Jong Un took power in 2009, he has already conducted more than 80 ballistic missile tests. That is far more than his father and grandfather conducted. North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests of increasingly powerful weapons. The latest test was in September of this year. That bomb had an explosive yield estimated to be 100 kilotons, which is almost 7 times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima and as much as 11 times more powerful than what North Korea tested in January of last year. In April of this year, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Policy and Strategy in the Asia-Pacific, a panel of expert witnesses agreed with me that North Korea currently represents the most imminent threat to our national security. On July 4 of this year, North Korea made a major breakthrough with its first successful ICBM launching. If it had been launched on a standard trajectory, the missile could likely have traveled up to 5,000 miles. That would have been enough to have reached Alaska. On July 28 of this year, North Korea tested another ICBM. This missile demonstrated the potential ability to reach mainland U.S. targets with a nuclear-armed ICBM. Yesterday was the big day. Yesterday, it finally happened. Yesterday, North Korea proved that it could reliably range the entire continental United States with a test of its latest developed and newest version of the ICBM. It is important to remember that all of this power is being wielded by the erratic despot Kim Jong Un. We don't have the luxury of time. He has stated that his goal--listen to this--is to attain a nuclear-capable ICBM that can annihilate the United States. Each and every day, he gets closer to this goal, and, yesterday, he proved that it could be done. Secretary Mattis confirmed the technical advances that were displayed in yesterday's test. The missile had 53 minutes of time in flight, and Mattis confirmed that it had gone higher than any previous shot they had ever taken. David Wright, an analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote that yesterday's test indicates that North Korea can now hold the United States well within missile range. Wright wrote: ``Such a missile would have been more than enough range to reach Washington, DC, and in fact any part of the continental United States.'' When one talks about the real threats that are out there, we now know that even though people didn't believe it 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, it finally happened yesterday. They have the range that could reach the continental United States, and they have proved that they have a missile that can do that. The only argument they use is that this may not have had a payload, that maybe they couldn't have done that with a payload. Actually, it had that kind of a range. That doesn't give me much comfort. I really think that we are to the point at which we have to recognize that we are in the most threatened position we have been in as a nation, and now it is a lot easier to believe that because we witnessed it yesterday. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as in morning business for such time as I shall consume.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this week, after 3 years of planning and construction, we now will be dedicating tomorrow and officially opening the Museum of the Bible. This is led by Steve Green of Hobby Lobby. We all remember Hobby Lobby of Oklahoma. Steve has been a friend of mine and his parents have been friends of mine for a long period of time. He is the chairman of the board of directors for this long-awaited museum that will allow visitors from not just this country but from all over the world--they will be coming here to see what it is all about and how this plays a pivotal role in our country's history. There is no better place than Washington, DC, in our Nation's Capitol, to remind us of the scope of the Bible's impact on our history and our narrative. It has been long- awaited. Indeed, one of our Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry, was renowned for his readings of the Bible. He said at the end of his life: ``This book is worth all the books that ever were printed, and it has been my misfortune that I never found time to read it with the proper attention and feeling till lately.'' He is the one--and not many people are aware that historians are relooking at the history of this country, and they are saying we could not have won that war. I mean you have to sometimes close your eyes and envision the greatest army on the face of this Earth coming down with thundering marches, going through Boston, and going up to Lexington and Concord. There is no way in this world that a handful of trappers and hunters could have won that thing. Yet we know why, and he knew why, when you talk about Patrick Henry. They said: We are not strong enough. It can't be done. There is one thing they overlooked, and that is the strength that comes from God that we had, and they didn't have. He said: We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. . . . armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who [reigns] over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. And he did, and they fired that shot heard around the world. I think that is really important today to think about because people come to this country and they want to know what makes America work. I have been privileged to sponsor the African dinner every February, and people come in from all over Africa. They are always surprised when they come and they find out walking through the Capitol what real significance God and the Bible has to the history of this country. We are the largest Christian community in the world. We cannot and should not deny the role our Judeo-Christian values played in the formation of this country. Our first President, George Washington, was steadfast in his belief of God, His law, and that liberty is God's gift. Washington's leadership was based on the conviction that Americans are entrusted by God to preserve basic freedoms established in the Constitution. In a letter, Washington wrote, ``We should be very cautious of violating the rights of conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men and to Him only in this case they are answerable.'' It is clear our Founding Fathers recognized and enshrined the importance of religious liberty, one of our most precious and foundational religious freedoms that allowed them to live their lives according to the teaching of the Bible. The Bible's role in the founding of America is just one remarkable example of how the Bible has profoundly shaped world history. It has influenced cultures in every corner of the globe, and the Museum of the Bible, which is going to be opening tomorrow, pays tribute to its impact and intersectionality with the world religions. Whether considering the Bible through a secular or faith-based lens, it is impossible to deny its impact on individuals, countries, and, indeed, all world history. The Museum of the Bible is the first educational experience I have encountered that truly appreciates the full magnitude of the Bible's role throughout history. The six exhibits, curated by a panel of faith leaders that span religious and geographic divides, truly bring the Word of God to life in a way that positively educates, informs, and encourages people of all faiths and beliefs to learn more about the Bible General Washington reminded us in his Farewell Address: ``Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.'' Steve Green's father David founded Hobby Lobby. I remember this so well because I was in the State legislature at the time this happened. They started in their garage making frames for pictures. It turned out to be this giant, worldwide corporation, the largest arts and crafts retailer in the history of America, currently or in the past. Remember Hobby Lobby, when ObamaCare required that all employers provide free access to the pills that terminate pregnancies, David clearly recognized this as a violation of his faith. That is what America is all about. If you believe in it, you do it, you take a risk. He was risking millions of dollars, but the morality was so significant from the teachings of the Bible that he went ahead and did it. He took the challenge all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won in a split decision. He successfully argued the importance to maintain the fundamental freedom of religion to apply his faith convictions to how he operates his private business. David won his case, but his family understood we needed to do more. So he started the Museum of the Bible. I actually was there last June, when it was under construction at the time, as we walked through and visualized what it was going to look like later on. It is magnificent. They have a stage, and you live on the stage. He is going to have performances there. I am so anxious to be there tonight, the night before the official opening, to see now what it looks like. I am so grateful David's son Steve and his entire family are leading this effort to make the Bible and its impact more accessible to the whole world. I am especially honored that the museum will open on my birthday tomorrow. I am not sure they really knew that when they made the decision, but somebody knew it.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am not the first guy to stand up here and make this observation, but I have serious concerns with how the nominee confirmation process has been going in this Congress. There is a blatant lack of respect for the Senate nomination process and an unprecedented level of obstructionism. I have been here for a number of years, so I know what to compare it with. I have never seen so many people being delayed in their confirmations, knowing that they are, ultimately, going to be confirmed and that they are well-qualified civil servants. The Democrats are forcing cloture votes on nominees who have well over 60 votes in support. Last week, we held a cloture vote on Scott Palk. Scott Palk is from Oklahoma. He is a guy who everybody likes. He doesn't have any enemies out there. In fact, he was actually nominated by President Obama. He was not even nominated by this President. He ended up getting 79 votes. Still, the stall was there, and we had to wait and wait and wait. Meanwhile, things are not getting done that should be getting done. Furthermore, the agency positions that we have hardly ever held rollcall votes on are being forced to occupy floor time. There is no reason for these votes except to delay the work of the courts and our agencies. I am very supportive of the leader's commitment to our courts and how he has prioritized judicial nominees. These nominations are extremely important and will ensure that the rule of law is upheld for, possibly, decades to come, benefiting all Americans.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have a very significant couple of votes coming up. One is the nomination of Scott Palk to be a district judge for the Western District of Oklahoma. We have been working on this for about 2 years now. He is one of the highest qualified individuals. I thank the leader for moving forward on his nomination this week. I know judicial nominations are a priority of the leader's, and I share his belief in the importance of filling the many vacancies we have with judges who will uphold the rule of law, not predetermine outcomes and not legislate from the bench. Scott Palk fulfills and embodies this philosophy, and I have full confidence that he will be a judge whom Oklahoma and the Nation will be proud of. This nomination is of great need to the Western District, located in Oklahoma City, which has a very heavy caseload. In fact, we have three vacancies on the bench there. One vacancy goes back over 4 years and another over 3 years, so this nomination is desperately needed. Mr. Palk was nominated in the last Congress--so it was not this Congress--during the previous administration. He made it through the Judiciary Committee by voice vote before we ran out of time at the end of the 114th Congress. We would have had this done, but we just flat ran out of time. He had bipartisan support in the last Congress and has in this Congress, with there having been a 17-to-3 vote in the Judiciary Committee. It is not very often that happens. He also has bipartisan support back home in Oklahoma. He comes highly recommended by David Boren. Everyone here knows who David Boren is. The Presiding Officer remembers David Boren. He was my predecessor in this seat. He was the president of the University of Oklahoma but is retired now. He is a Democrat. Actually, he and I were elected to the House of Representatives in Oklahoma on the same day, so we go back a long way. David Boren knows Mr. Palk very well because Scott Palk has worked at the University of Oklahoma College of Law for about 15 years now after his having left a successful career in both the U.S. attorney's office and as a county district attorney. David Boren said of Palk--now, this is a Democrat talking about Scott Palk--``He would make an excellent judge,'' would be ``balanced and fair in his approach,'' and has ``an excellent reputation for complete honesty and integrity.'' I don't know what more you could want in a judge. That is David Boren talking, my predecessor in the Senate. Again, I thank the leader for his commitment to fulfilling our judicial vacancies, and I ask that my colleagues support the nomination, as I am sure they will, with a ``yes'' vote for Mr. Palk. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am pleased to recognize the Schwan's Company on the 75th anniversary of their Stilwell food production facility. This is a significant milestone for Schwan's and its employees, but also for Adair County and the entire State of Oklahoma. Throughout their 75 years, Schwan's has been a committed community partner, hiring over 300 residents and supporting hunger relief and youth activities. The food production facility in Stilwell, originally called the Stilwell Canning Company, first opened in 1942 when World War II drove up the demand for canned items. The company has demonstrated a strong commitment to excellence, first expanding in 1999, when it became the largest frozen dessert production plant in the country. After being acquired by Schwan's Company in 2003, they have continued to invest in the plant and its employees, putting the facility on the leading edge of pie production in the country. Today the plant is a 610,000-square- foot state-of-of-the-art facility that employs about 300 people. Congratulations on your 75th anniversary, and I look forward to seeing Schwan's continue to make a positive impact in Stilwell.

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, I came back just a week ago from visiting our troops stationed all around the world, in all the commands-- AFRICOM, EUCOM, CENTCOM--and talked to them about the threats in all these regions. At a time when I hear colleagues across the aisle and political pundits ask the question, Why do we have troops in various places like Africa, it is important to remember the strategic importance of Africa. I remember 10 years ago we didn't have a command for Africa. It was part of three commands: Pacific Command, Central Command, and European Command. Now we have AFRICOM. It is its own command. It seemed a little unreasonable that we were treating Africa as somewhat of a stepchild when that is the breeding ground out there for a lot of the things happening in terms of terrorism. Despite our military's reach and influence, our Nation's shrinking defense budget has put AFRICOM at risk during a time when commanders are saying we face the most dangerous world we have ever faced, and we have. I have often said that I look wistfully back at the days of the Cold War, when we had two superpowers and they were predictable. We knew what they had. They knew what we had. You have people from all over the world who are putting together equipment that we never dreamed they would have. We have just gone through 8 years of another administration. I don't say this critically of him, but one thing about President Obama was that he was a committed, sincere liberal. Liberals generally don't pay a lot of attention to the military. Now we find ourselves in a situation where we are hurting. A lot of people assume that we don't have any problems militarily. Sometimes I remind people that up until about 1962, we spent more than half--52 percent in 1962--of all of our revenues on defending America. What is it today? It is 15 percent. When I tell people that, they are in shock that we are in the situation we are in. We have terrorist groups in Africa--such as ISIS, al-Shabaab, and Boko Haram-- and they are all growing in capability and have expanded their areas throughout Africa. This year we have seen horrific events occurring at the hands of these extremists. On October 14, a truck bombing killed 300 people in Somalia's capital. In Niger--it just happened--we had four of our U.S. soldiers who were killed in action on October 4 by an ISIS group. We know that we have serious problems. I think it is a great disservice for people to say that we must have known that we had the threat that was out there in Niger, when in fact we didn't know it. They even compare it sometimes with Benghazi. I remember Benghazi. I was there at the time. I remember Chris Stevens. Chris Stevens was the Ambassador who went there. He was in my office right before he left, talking about the threats that were there, talking about the Taliban, his training there, and talking about organized terrorist activity. I have to remind people that the persons who are responsible for advising the Secretary of State, who at that time was Hillary Clinton, and the President, who was President Obama at that time, are the DNI-- that was James Clapper at that time--the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. When the Benghazi event happened, the annex was blown up. They all said at that time--they advised us, the President, and the Secretary of State--that they were forewarned by more than a month that on the anniversary of 9/11 things would blow up, and it was going to be an organized attack. Right now there is an investigation going on to determine whether or not there is any way that we could have anticipated that in Niger this would be happening, and so far, that hasn't come up. Despite the best of intentions, many of our partners in the region lack the capacity and the effectiveness to adequately defend themselves. People say: What do we have to gain there? This is exactly the same situation that we saw in Afghanistan prior to the war there. The terrorists have to have a safe harbor to train in, and that is what has happened. During my travel, I had the opportunity to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I have to say this about him. I have never seen him so ecstatic. A lot of us were looking back at what they were trying to do during the Obama administration. It was disheartening to think that they put together this Iran deal, and our Secretary of State at that time, John Kerry, talked about how great it was and all of these concessions that were made when, in fact, that wasn't the case. Nonetheless, when our President came out and said that he was not going to recertify the Iran deal, that was kind of neat because people don't realize that it takes a recertification every 30 days by the President in order to keep the Iran deal together. He has not done that. Shortly after that, I happened to be talking to Prime Minister Netanyahu. It was an incredible relief to him that we were going to be looking at this. Still today, I think we all understand that Iran is the one that is financing terrorism all around the world. We discussed the shortcomings and looked forward to working with my colleagues in the future so that Iran does not become a nuclear nation, not now or ever. What is perhaps the most encouraging is the message that this approach sends to the rest of the world, specifically to North Korea. President Trump's approach shows me--and, more importantly, shows Kim Jong Un--that an America-first foreign policy means that we refuse to take a single-minded approach to global threats. I recall the changes taking place 8 years ago when our new President, President Obama, started his appeasing tour by going over and talking about how America hadn't been doing the right thing. Now, all of a sudden, we have changed that around. That is what is taking place now. At that time we didn't have the threats that are out there today. We look at North Korea. North Korea is run by a questionable person, totally unpredictable, according to our own military leaders. He is rapidly getting the capability not just of an ICBM--he has already proven he has an ICBM--but with a range not just of Alaska and some of those areas but of the entire continental United States. On July 4 he launched his first successful ICBM. If that were fired on a standard trajectory, that missile could have reached Alaska. Some experts think it could have reached even further, into the continental United States. In light of that test, the Defense Intelligence Agency updated their assessment of the timeline by which North Korea would have the capability of hitting an American city. Instead of being 2 years out and 3 years out, it is now down to 1 year out. Some people say they have it right now. We have that threat that is out there. It is the greatest threat, in my opinion, that we are facing now or that we have ever faced. Following this, on September 3, North Korea tested what is believed to be a hydrogen bomb. That would be seven times the power of what was dropped on Hiroshima. Even if delivered by a relatively inaccurate ICBM, there would be horrible damage imposed on our continent. It is important to remember that all of this power is being wielded by an erratic despot, Kim Jong Un. North Korean officials have stated that they are not interested in diplomacy until they have an ICBM capable of reaching the east coast of the United States. What does that tell you? It tells you that they are on their way. This stresses the need for the United States to enhance and accelerate our ballistic missile defense systems and to continue to put pressure on North Korea through every other means we can, diplomatic and otherwise. My recent travels enforced again what I have been saying for some time; that is, that this is the most dangerous situation we have had, certainly in my lifetime. We have an opportunity to counter that threat right now. We are in the midst of our NDAA. One thing about the National Defense Authorization Act is that this act is going to pass. It has passed for 55 consecutive years so we know it is going to pass now. But we need to go ahead and get it done. It is important because the primary constitutional responsibility that we have is to provide for the common defense of our great Nation. We have serious readiness issues that are going to have to be addressed, and they are being addressed in this bill. I am the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, and we have fought hard to ensure that this year's NDAA takes care of these shortfalls we have had. Our forces are smaller now. We actually had a Readiness Subcommittee hearing, and we had the Vice Chiefs of all of the services there. They came in and said that right now we are in the same situation we were in when we had the hollow force following the Carter administration in the 1970s. In January of this year, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General Daniel Allyn, said: What it comes down to is that we are going to be too late. Our soldiers arrived too late. Our soldiers required too much time to close the manning, the training, and the equipment we have, and the end result is extensive casualties to civilians and to our forces. We are talking about death. That is what is at stake right here. Just last week, I met with the Secretary of the Air Force, Heather Wilson, to discuss aviation readiness. Right now we are 1,500 pilots short, and 1,300 of those are fighter pilots. Only 50 percent of the Air Force's squadrons are actually trained and ready to conduct all of their assigned missions. One-third of our ground brigades don't work. They are not ready for combat. As to the aviation brigades, it is the same thing. Right now, as we know, the Marines use our fleet of F-18s. Sixty-two percent of them don't work. They don't have the parts for combat. We have this situation. That is going to have to be direct. This year's bill will increase the troop levels. We will do what is necessary to correct these problems. We need to get moving on that and make people aware that help is on the way. By the way, here is one of my concerns in this bill. A lot of people are interested in the BRAC process. We do prohibit base realignment closings to take place for another year. The reason for that is not that there may be excess capacity right now or excess resources out there, but when we are in a rebuilding mode, we would rather be able to use those resources that aren't being used now rather than build new ones. One thing is true about a BRAC; it always loses money the first 3 years. Right now we can't afford to lose any of the money that goes to defending America. Anyway, of the additional funding, there is going to be $8.5 billion for the missile defense that has been suffering, and we are going to be doing some good things. As we continue the conference process, which started today--we had our first conference meeting today--we need to focus on where we are. Again, I repeat, the threat is there. We understand that. We know what is happening in Africa. By the way, the number of troops we have over there--you have to quit using this number of about 6,000--is really 1,300 troops for the entire continent who are not committed or working in some of the Embassies. We need to get busy on that.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I would like to honor and pay tribute to my former staffer Jeremy Shull. Jeremy came to my office in 2004 as a fellow. He quickly advanced and became the deputy military legislative assistant in a short period of time. Jeremy was full of life, always had a big smile on his face, and brought a lot of joy into my office. I would like to share a bit about Jeremy's life and family and then about his time in my office. At the age of only 35, Jeremy fell into the arms of Jesus, doing what he loved: climbing Capitol Peak in Aspen, CO, on August 6. He was the loving husband of 7 years to Jamie and the proud father of 2-month-old, Jack. Jeremy was born in Cincinnati, OH, on March 9, 1982, to his parents, Bob and Linda Shull, and was raised alongside his two brothers, Ben and Josh. From an early age, Jeremy's love of the outdoors and his leadership skills were apparent to all. He went on to graduate from Perrysburg High School, in Ohio, and Grove City College, in Pennsylvania, where he discovered his love of rugby and international travel. After college, he made his way to Washington, DC, where he was involved in the Falls Church Fellows Program and worked on Capitol Hill in my office. During this time he met the love of his life, Jamie, at Summer's Best Two Weeks, a Christian sports camp in Boswell, PA, and the two were married in 2010. As a couple, Jeremy and Jamie lived and worked in Washington, DC, Uganda, and went to graduate school at Geneva College in Pennsylvania. In 2014, Jeremy earned his master's degree in counseling and eventually went on to earn his LAC and LPC licenses with concentrations in trauma and addictions. Shortly after earning their degrees, Jeremy and Jamie moved out west to Parker, CO, to pursue their adventurous dreams. Jeremy worked at a crisis stabilization unit and in other settings where he counseled clients in their worst moments, helping them to create vision and hope for their futures. To quote Jeremy, he served others, ``to sustain the weary and help clients overcome internal walls between them and a thriving life.'' This past May, they welcomed their beautiful son, Jack Ellis, into their family. Jeremy is remembered by his wife, Jamie, and their 2-month-old son, Jack. He is survived by Bob and Linda Shull of Fairlawn, OH, brother Ben and his wife Emily Shull, and nieces Piper and Scout Shull of Cincinnati, OH, brother Josh Shull of Washington, DC, grandparents Norma Hissong of Bath, OH, Ken and Meg Shull of Seneca, South Carolina, numerous aunts, uncles, and cousins in Ohio and South Carolina, mother and father-in-law Mike and Teri Maurer and brother-in-law Justin Maurer of Washington, DC. In 2007, Jeremy traveled with me on a CODEL to Ireland, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, France, and Italy. The CODEL was en route to Africa when we had a required crew stop. The stop happened to be only about 45 miles away from where my daughter Molly was teaching and staying with her family. We only had about 24 hours on the ground, and it was meant for a time for us to adjust from jet lag, but Jeremy and I, along with my son-in-law and grandson, drove to the base of Mt. Grappa, which is close to sea level. Four hours later, we reached the top, which was 5,800 feet in elevation. We walked to the World War I monuments at the top of Mt. Grappa and hiked back down. Later in the trip, when we had a break from our meetings, the delegation divided up and some of my staff decided to do a little sightseeing in Venice but Jeremy chose to stay back and play soccer with my daughter's kids. In doing so, he gave the rest of the delegation a real gift. Jeremy had been to Venice a few years before and had hidden a =100 note behind a brick in a wall hanging over one of the many canals. He gave us a list of clues as we went to Venice. Instead of sightseeing, we spent the time following the clues Jeremy gave to us and finally discovered the location. When our military escort pulled the brick out of the canal wall, he found the =100 note laying behind it. We took a photo of the note and then placed it back in the wall. We were careful to make sure that nobody saw us replace it. It was a very clever set of clues, and it became the most memorable times to visit Venice. Afterwards, we asked Jeremy why he hid this money in Venice and also in a couple other European cities. He said that one day he wanted to bring his future wife to Europe and take her on a treasure hunt. That was Jeremy. He was overflowing with adventure and very intentional in how he lived out his life of adventure. Jeremy had a strong faith in Jesus Christ and lived his life to the full. Jeremy was best known for his adventurous spirit, curious nature, intentional relationships, and servant-heart. He was a volunteer firefighter and was devoted to his growing family. He put others first, and in a culture and generation that is more me focused, Jeremy was the opposite, always putting others before himself. I loved Jeremy--his steadfastness, his love for Jesus, and his desire to enjoy the outdoors that God created. He will be missed by everyone who was close to him and who he touched. He will also be missed by me and my office.