Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I want to respond to the accusations that were made. And I worded that carefully not to violate any rules. I am going to do that. I see kind of an active desperation that is creeping in on statements and things that are said about other people. And right now, we are experiencing some things that actually are a success. I want to respond to some of the accusations that were made. First, I have something else to do that is kind of an awkward thing to be doing at this time because I am going to go back to talk about something that happened not yesterday or this week but back in 1983. I think it is important that we do this. About every 10 years I do this. And we are going to be successful now because I have a commitment from the President that he is going to stay hitched on an issue--a huge issue in the past. In 1983, not much was known about Iran's efforts to train and arm the radical proxies and to kill Americans and to kill our partners and our allies. People know now. In fact, only a few years earlier, Ayatollah Khamenei led a violent revolution in Iran. Khamenei's regime introduced himself to the world by taking American diplomats hostage for 444 days--444 days. We all remember when that happened. That was something unprecedented. It was all tied into Khamenei. Of course, he used other people. Nothing has changed since that time. Nonetheless, for the next decade, until his death in 1989, Khamenei was the ruthless face of an Iranian regime that applied a brutal version of religious law, murdered innocent people, suppressed religious and ethnic minorities, and supported radical Islamists. He hated Western value, and he hated the freedoms that we enjoy. Almost 4 years into his rule as Supreme Leader, October 23, 1983, 241 Americans, both U.S. marines and other service personnel serving a peace mission in Beirut, were attacked at their barracks by a truck that was carrying 2,000 pounds of explosives by terrorists who were armed and trained by Iran. That was in 1983. Two hundred and forty-one died. These terrorists later became what we know as Hezbollah. That is the first time they surfaced and were identified as they are today, as an arm of Iran. Hezbollah struck. In 2003, 20 years after the attack on our marines, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in a civil suit brought by the families of the victims--the 241 who were killed--that Iran had used Hezbollah as a proxy to bomb the Marine barracks in Beirut on that October day. Not much has changed with Iran, unfortunately. It is the same way they operate now. They don't play by the rules. They never have. They are terrorists. They are worse than terrorists. They are the ones who are training the terrorists. That became even more apparent when we began to learn more about their ties to Islamist terror organizations and how they use proxy organizations, with no true allegiance but on behalf of a twisted interpretation of Islamic religious text, to murder and then sneak back into the shadows. That is the way they operated, and that is the way they operate today. It happened under Ayatollah Khamenei, and it happens under the current Supreme Leader as well. Nothing has really changed. A lot of years have gone by. A lot of people have died. As I speak here on the floor, Iran is providing weapons and cover for the Houthi rebels, who are committing unthinkable atrocities in Yemen. Iran has continued to support terrorist groups that threaten our personnel in Iraq. It has repeatedly attacked our partners across the region. What is even worse is Iran seeks a nuclear weapon capability, and President Obama's Iran deal would have, ultimately, let it have exactly what it wanted. Fortunately, we now have a President who takes a strong stance against Iran with the imposing of sanctions and the pulling out of the flawed Iran nuclear deal that the previous administration put us in. By the way, I had a joyful conversation for a half an hour yesterday with Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel. He was reminding me that I was in Israel and in the Prime Minister's office at the very moment that President Trump pulled out of the Iran deal, and I had never seen him so jubilant. We just talked about that yesterday. Go back now to October 23, 1983, when 241 Americans were killed by an Iranian-backed suicide bomber. It was a terrible day in U.S. history, and, in 2003, a U.S. court ruled that Iran was responsible. That suit against Iran, brought by the victims' families--the families of the 241 who died--provided punitive and compensatory relief in the form of Iranian assets. In 2007, the district court judge awarded just over $2.5 billion to the families of those murdered in that atrocity. Our work isn't done now. You would think that it would be, but it is not because there is nearly $1.7 billion in laundered Iranian assets in a Luxembourg bank named Clear Street, and we need to make sure that it stays there. Yet I have this gnawing feeling that, once something is over in Luxembourg or someplace like that, all of a sudden, you wake up and find that Iran has $1.7 billion it is not entitled to in order to spread terrorism throughout the world. In last year's NDAA--now, the NDAA is the largest bill we do each year. I chair the defense authorization. It is called the National Defense Authorization Act. We pass it every year. We included language that made those assets available to the victims' families, and the President signed it. I talked to the President, and he is anxious to do this. We have one obstacle that we have to get past, which is some activity by the second circuit where it is now being played out. President Trump has been a firm leader against the aggressive Iran, and I certainly stand with him. That is why this is a clear opportunity to continue President Trump's maximum pressure campaign against the current Iranian regime so as to ensure these assets do not return to Iran, where they would surely be used to help the proxy organization, such as Hezbollah. I trust our Department of Justice with this, and I am glad we have a President who has made this a top priority--making sure the families of those 241 victims who were killed in Beirut receive this money as opposed to having the money go back.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, at the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from Connecticut, that I be recognized to speak for whatever time I may consume.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I was sitting through the last two speakers and listening to them. You can tell that it is an election year. The Democrats want to defeat President Trump, and I think sometimes a tactic to use is to get someone's strongest point and try to turn it into his weakest point. In this case, we have heard in just the last few minutes that the President is handling the coronavirus completely wrong, that he is critical of and then he was friendly to--I couldn't quite figure out the relationship with China. I know the Democrats in this Chamber are generally perceived as the close friends of China and President Xi and the rest of them. Also, to talk about what Speaker Pelosi has done in terms of the bill that was passed in the House and the criticism that we are not taking up that bill, well, all that bill is--we are not supposed to be talking about anything in all of this heavy spending except doing something about coronavirus. This is something that no one had anything to do with. We didn't know it was going to happen. We had no preparation for it. I have never experienced it in my life. Yet I do remember so well when this body, this Senate, was working on a coronavirus bill and we were to be voting on it on a Sunday at 6 o'clock in the evening, and the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, came dancing in. It was the first time I even knew she was in town because the House wasn't in session, and she stopped it. She used her influence to try to stop it and successfully did stop it. The vote was taking place at 6 p.m. on a Sunday night, and nothing happened except a stall from then until 6 p.m. on Thursday night, when we finally did vote on it. In the meantime, how many days passed? How many people died in the meantime? Then, when they come up in the House and they come up with a bill that is supposedly their answer to the coronavirus, it has nothing to do with coronavirus. It has to do with the very liberal Democratic agenda taking advantage of the fact that this crisis is on us in order to use this to try to get things passed. I am talking about--now, I don't have any notes down here with me. I don't know whether she is using gun control or what other efforts they were using in that bill, but it is one that has no place in the discussion when we are talking about coronavirus. The tragedy there, the people dying--and to credit this President, I have to say, he has done a great job in addressing this. He is the one who, every single day, is there with top medical people and afterward, at the end of the day, having a news conference and getting from the public what can we do better that we haven't been doing. He has handled it in a very, very effective way. But that is not why I am here on the floor

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 583, submitted earlier today.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a request for one committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I use whatever time I shall consume.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, by now, I think people are pretty much aware of something that happened about 2 weeks ago--an FCC approval of an application that was very, very significant. Yet not many people knew that it was going on. I think by now it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that I oppose this decision by the Federal Communications Commission to approve an application by Ligado Networks. Ligado's plan would use Federal spectrum in a way that will interfere with GPS and satellite communications, and despite near-unanimous objection from the rest of the Federal Government, the Federal Communications Commission has just said OK. I said ``near-unanimous.'' It was nearly unanimous. A week before the decision was made by the FCC, they sent a letter outlining all of the reasons that everyone should be opposed to the application made by Ligado to the FCC. Their statement was that Ligado's proposal is not feasible, affordable, or technically executable. It goes on to say how destructive this would be, how the whole country uses this GPS, and how this would alter the GPS system so that it no longer could be used with predictability. When I say ``nearly everyone,'' it is not ``nearly''; it is everyone objected to it. I have never seen anything like this happen, to have something approved that was objected to by all of government. This letter objecting to this was signed by the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Commerce, NASA, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Transportation, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Federal Aviation Administration. That is everybody. I have never seen anything that has ever had that unanimity in being objected to. For that reason, it was never approved until April 20 by the Federal Communications Commission. The GPS and satellite communication functions support everything: equipment that our troops use in the field, navigation for first responders, airlines--that is how airplanes keep from running into each other; they use GPS--cell phones, and ATMs. The list goes on and on. Simply put, the FCC is jeopardizing GPS signals that Americans rely on every day. I chair the Senate Armed Services Committee. When you are conducting warfare, you are using GPS. You use GPS every day. Simply put, the FCC is jeopardizing GPS signals that we rely on for both our national and economic security for the benefit of just one company and its hedge fund investors. Ligado may be a new name, but the problem goes back a decade, when LightSquared was created in a hedge fund deal worth $5.3 billion. The investors put billions on the table, and the only way to get a return was to repurpose LightSquared's satellite spectrum for the terrestrial cell phone network In 2011, when LightSquared asked the FCC for permission to do just that, GPS and satellite communication users strongly objected due to the interference with the GPS signal. That is the problem. The signal is in the same area that purchase took place by a company at that time named LightSquared. Federal agencies like the Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration echoed these concerns. In 2012, after it was clear that there was no way to mitigate the GPS interference in their proposal, LightSquared declared bankruptcy, so it was gone. Years later, LightSquared got enough new Wall Street hedge fund money to emerge from bankruptcy and be renamed ``Ligado'' and again pushed for repurpose of the satellite spectrum for its network. That is exactly the thing that the predecessor company tried to do for a long period of time, and they were denied, and they were justly denied. They shouldn't have been able to do that. There was never any idea that an application by an operation like this would be acceptable. After extensive testing and analysis, experts at nine Federal agencies have unanimously concluded that Ligado's proposal, even with updates, will still interfere with GPS signals and satellite communications. That is the one I just read. They were unanimous in doing this. Of course, we read the names of the agencies that were involved. This is something everyone agreed with. We can't find anyone who disagreed with it except Ligado itself--the ones who would end up with a lot of billions of dollars, and I am not sure where it would go. They rely on GPS for navigation, logistics, and precision-guided missiles in training and on the battlefield. But at the end of the day, this is about much more than risking our military readiness and capabilities. Ligado's proposal will hurt the American economy. Our farmers rely on GPS to harvest their crops. Our truckers and our airlines rely on GPS to move supplies and people safely. Our maritime industry depends on GPS to place channel markings. Weather forecasting relies on satellite communications to save lives and property when tornadoes and hurricanes and floods strike our communities. I am from Oklahoma. We know what hurricanes are. In fact, we were in our basement two times in 1 day about a month ago with those threats. That is how you determine where they are and how serious they are, and it saves lives. The FCC--Federal Communications Commission--has put all of this at risk by approving Ligado's application. There wasn't a lot of opposition out there talking about it because they had not been approved for a number of years. It has never been approved before. And all of that was now at risk, just as of a week ago. This is a complex issue. Here is an easy way to think about how Ligado's network would interfere with our GPS signals. ``Once Ligado turns its service on, it will be like trying to hear leaves rustling over the roar of 100 jet engines.'' This is according to Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Dr. Michael Griffin, an expert in this field. The FCC has included certain mitigation measures in approving Ligado's application, but these are fundamentally flawed in every practical sense. They would make Ligado the fox guarding the henhouse. How can Ligado be impartial in deciding whether its own system is causing interference? It is not going to happen, and everybody knows that. Ultimately, the taxpayer and consumer will be left to pay to fix the interference. Ultimately, the people of America will end up paying for this. What I am most upset about is the failure in the process behind this decision. A few people made a hasty decision over the weekend. Keep in mind, it was in the middle of the national crisis. We have a national crisis. Everybody knows that is going on right now. Everyone is having to live differently than they have ever lived before, so people are concentrating on that. No one was looking. It was against the judgment of a unanimous conclusion by the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee, which included nine Federal agencies, as well as private sector stakeholders dependent on GPS and satellite communications. As far as I can tell, this is the first time that the FCC made a decision over the weekend, completely discounting the universal opposition to the proposal. A week before this decision was made, it was universal. They decided--and this is a group in the hearing that we had--we had really talented people there, scientists, making all of the decisions. They talked about how the decision was made over a weekend, during a national crisis we were dealing with, and on a Sunday. I went back and checked, and we could not find any time a decision that was made by the FCC on a Sunday or on a weekend. They don't do that on weekends. On top of that, this decision was opposed by everybody in a letter they received a week before. Just look in the Wall Street Journal. Mark Esper is the Secretary of Defense. Mark Esper had an article there that said. The FCC has set conditions to ensure GPS won't be affected. Don't be fooled. It would be affected. Independent testing and analysis conducted by nine federal departments and agencies show that allowing the Ligado's proposed system--including its proposed modifications--to operate in close proximity to the GPS spectrum would cause harmful interference to millions of GPS receivers across the United States. Actually, the band that is used for GPS is called the L band. It gets a little bit complicated. The area that people are concerned about, and that the Ligado is trying to say they are correcting, was an area that was in a different band all together. I think it was the C band and the S band. I think this is the first time a decision has ever been made--even discounting the universal opposition who oppose it--in response to this unprecedented and unwise decision. I am leading a letter to the FCC outlining critical national security concerns and urging the FCC to rescind the order. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters by the NTIA be printed in the Record

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the FCC article in the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. We can't allow this to stand, and all of America agrees. In the last 3 weeks, stakeholders from across the country and across the economy have expressed their opposition to the FCC decision. Not just the military, but all of government and the private sector-- including airlines, pilots, farmers, truckers, marine manufacturers, conservationists, equipment manufacturers and distributors, road builders, weather forecasters, and GPS device makers--are opposed to the Ligado's application. I know my colleagues here in the Senate have heard from all of these groups, representing jobs and Americans from every single State who use these GPS and satellite services every day. This has happened nationally. People realized, all of a sudden, that GPS would be affected by this. I ask my colleagues to consider who supports the Ligado--hedge fund investors. No one is supporting it. It is my understanding, from talking to the people close to the FCC, that the FCC was expected to reject the Ligado proposal once and for all. They had already rejected it before. It has been there. The unanimous opposition from the interagency review committee was not surprising, but the final outcome was shocking. With all of this opposition, how could the FCC decide, in the cover of darkness over a weekend, that the unanimous concern of GPS interference was worth the risk to support the investments of hedge fund investors? I can't figure out what happened, nor can the former FCC Commissioners. Why did the FCC change its course and in such a dramatic fashion? We may never know. But we do know that Ligado has spent $1.3 million in just 2020. That is the company that we are talking about. They have spent $1.3 million on lobbyists trying to convince Congress that their proposal is a good idea. This chart shows the list of all of the lobbyists that come up to $1.38 million. Keep in mind that is just for 3 months. Over a period of a year, you can multiply that by four. Ligado is hiring whoever they can to convince you to support the hedge fund investors. That is one of the reasons I am talking about this today. I am not sure what form it will take to reverse this decision. People have to hear from people before they realize how bad this is. When you have this many people--one of the individuals was a former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and turned lobbyist. He is a guy who spent his career building the military. Obviously, he is one of the lobbyists supporting this thing. Ligado said this order is about winning the race for 5G and beating China. Those who claim Ligado's proposal was necessary to defeat China's 5G push are deliberately mixing up two different and important spectrum issues in order to sell their product--the share of the mid- band 5G spectrum by DOD with industry and harmful interference of Ligado's signal with the low band--that is L band, which we are talking about, which is right next to GPS signals that would be used in nearly every aspect of daily life. The Ligado spectrum they are repurposing is not in the prime mid-band spectrum being considered for 5G. Ligado's low-band spectrum was not a part of the FCC's own plan to accelerate 5G development released in September of 2018, the so-called ``5G FAST Plan.'' I would like to say that it is complicated, but that isn't what they did at all with this thing. Their concern was with only the L band, which is next to the GPS. Reliable GPS satellite communication is important to everyone in America. It drives much of the Nation's economy. We shouldn't sacrifice GPS reliability for the sake of lobbyists and hedge fund investors on Wall Street. I ask my colleagues to join me in urging the FCC to withdraw its approval of Ligado's application. Instead of moving ahead with this order, we have to reverse the order. That is the effort that is taking place right now. If they had denied Ligado's application the same as they have done for the last 10 years, there would not be a problem today. We have people with an interest in this. The hearing that we had just on May 6 was with the people who head up Data DC and the DOD Chief Information Officer. By the way, in the private sector he was the CIO of three of the largest corporations in America. We had Dr. Michael Griffin, Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, a retired U.S. Coast Guard Admiral; Thad Allen, who is now on the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Advisory Board; and Gen. Jay Raymond, Chief of Space Operations, U.S. Space Force. That is everyone who is really knowledgeable about this. They are all unanimous in their opposition to this program. I would ask that Members keep advised of the opportunities they have to reverse this decision. We would actually try to get the Federal Communications Commission to do that on their own. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled for 4:30 p.m. start at this time.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, today I wish to recognize and congratulate Rear Admiral Brad Cooper of the U.S. Navy on his exemplary service to our Nation as the Department of the Navy's Chief of Legislative Affairs from July 2019 to May 2020. During this time, he led with precision and class. Eleven months--a short period, yet the presence of the Navy here in the Capitol and the results we have seen since last July would indicate a labor of a much longer period. In that time, he has served under various leaders, yet in spite of that, the Department of the Navy has never been more strongly integrated with Congress than it is today. Through dedication and impactful communication, Brad has deftly navigated his team, our staffs, and our mutual partnership to new heights. Brad has had the challenge of being the Navy's lead advocate on Capitol Hill and has had the privilege of communicating with all Members of Congress, which inherently is no small feat. The hidden mission therein is the tireless jobs of educating our staffs, precisely executing congressional delegations on all continents, supporting hearings, and negotiating the NDAA. He has handled our thousands of constituent inquiries and properly represented the Navy while taking into account military, political, and budgetary priorities. Brad is the reason senior Navy leaders are always well prepared to stand before us during all hearings, calls, and numerous briefings. His clear, concise, and consistent communication to the Hill during the COVID-19 pandemic, ensured the Navy's efforts for the safety of sailors and their families and the execution of all missions to support the national defense strategy and safety and security of our Nation was well understood. Because of Brad's professionalism and visible commitment to the Navy and our country, he certainly established lasting relationships with all of the Members of Congress. On behalf of my colleagues and the entire U.S. Congress, I want to personally thank Rear Admiral Brad Cooper for his more than three decades of dedicated service to the Navy and our Nation. He will be certainly missed. I also want to thank his wife, Susan, and children Bradford and Katie for their deep sacrifices and tremendous support. I wish them all the best in his next assignment in Norfolk, VA, and I sincerely look forward to working with him again in the future. Fair winds and following seas to you.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is one of the rare places where you can be in an institution with someone you dearly love and yet disagree with so strongly. That is the relationship that we have. I have a lot of respect for my friend from Virginia, but I think this has been twisted around in a way to make the President look bad. In his heart, he knew what he was doing at the time. You know, we have to keep in mind--and I would even suggest--that this is probably the boldest defense policy decision of his Presidency to date. He authorized an airstrike against the leader of Iran's Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani, in accordance with, I still believe, his privilege and responsibilities under article II of the Constitution. Now, let's remember who Soleimani was. It has been awhile now and a lot has happened since then, but he was a terrorist. He was responsible for the training and funding of militias across the Middle East, the very militias that had targeted American personnel, facilities, and partners for decades. He was a monster--nothing less. Some people out there want to believe that his action was a rush to war. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, looking at the facts, they pushed ahead with the War Powers Resolution, and instead of making war less likely, it made it more likely. Let me tell you how. The resolution was shortsighted and dangerous in February, but the 4 months since then have only confirmed that it was not necessary. We are clearly not at war. Not only that, but an airstrike is not war. Defending American lives is not war. The President has made it clear that he doesn't desire war. We all know that. Nobody here wants war. At the same time, nobody should want a policy that would leave Americans vulnerable to the whims of Iran's terrorist-supporting regime. If we do that, if we tie the President's hands so that he cannot defend American lives, we leave ourselves more vulnerable and, therefore, make war infinitely more likely, and accordingly, we must all vote to sustain the President's veto. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Reed, we come to the floor today to ask our colleagues to join us in recognizing Mr. Sarkis Tatigian, who began his Navy career at the age of 19 during World War II and didn't end it until he passed away last month at age 97. At the time of his death, Mr. Tatigian, after nearly 78 years of service, was the longest serving civil servant in the history of the DOD. He was the only WWII sailor still serving in the Navy Department. Eligible for retirement since 1973, Mr. Tatigian continued to honor America through his faithful service as the Naval Sea Systems Command's, NAVSEA, small business advocate, championing our Navy, our small businesses, and our country. Mr. Tatigian began his civilian career with the Navy in July 1942 as a junior radio inspector at the naval aircraft factory in the Philadelphia Navy Yard and the Navy Office of Inspector of Naval Aircraft in Linden, NJ. He left his position as an inspector in March 1943 and entered the uniformed Navy as an Active-Duty sailor in April 1943. In June 1944, as an aviation electronics technician's mate, he aided in the development of the Navy's first guided anti-ship munition, the ASM-N-2 ``BAT'' glide bomb. The BAT became an operational weapon in January 1945 and was used to sink two Japanese warships later that year. In 1943, Mr. Tatigian began his service at NAVSEA, then called the Bureau of Ordinance. After World War II, he transitioned from the Active-Duty to the civil service working on guided munitions. In 1951, Mr. Tatigian saw the need to expand the Navy's industrial base and believed that small business was the answer. He developed a small business mobile exhibit that traveled coast to coast, visiting all State capitals and cities with populations exceeding 400,000. For his organizational efforts on the exhibit, Tatigian received congressional recognition. His work expanded the small business industrial base with more than $100 billion in contracts awarded to diverse, small businesses. Over his unprecedented career, Mr. Tatigian received numerous awards, including the Navy's Superior Civilian Service Award in 2007. In recognition of his exceptional accomplishments in service, the Navy has even named an award after him, the Sarkis Tatigian Small Business Award, which recognizes outstanding performance through organizational culture and command climate. Mr. Tatigian's life of dedication and service to his country is truly inspirational. On behalf of a grateful nation, we thank you, Mr. Sarkis Tatigian, for all you have done for our people, our government, and our Navy.

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. Mr. President, we are getting a lot of redundancy around here, but it is worth it. I have been sitting here for several hours now listening to my colleagues. I don't recall, in the 25 years I have been here, seeing this happening, over and over. And everything that is said is so significant. The Senator from Alaska talked about the fact that we are all in this together. We are, and things were going well for a while. I am actually going to, I think, end with a little bit of optimism right now. I may be the only one doing that, because I think something is going to happen tonight. I think it has to happen tonight. We don't have the luxury of waiting. Now, I have never seen a crisis like this. We are not used to dealing with crises. Gosh, we have been through wars. We have been through things that we have considered to be crises. This is a different dimension. We are talking about people who are dying As for the coronavirus, we all know where it came from: Wuhan in China. It has caused global panic. By the way, they call it a pandemic. There is a reason for that, because this isn't just something happening in the United States of America. This is happening all over the world-- everywhere. No one is immune. This is something that we don't have a cure for right now. The Senator from Indiana kept using the word ``emergency.'' This is an emergency. It is an emergency unlike any that we have seen so far. It is something that is highly contagious, something that we can't do anything about. No one is immune. As of Sunday, according to the World Health Organization, there were 292,000 cases globally and almost 13,000 deaths. Let me put that in a different perspective because I have had the honor, in the last several days--and I am talking about including the weekend--of talking to people in Oklahoma. I think, this morning, we talked to every single radio, television, and newspaper in the State. I always start my speeches, to make sure everyone understands, with why this is not anything we have done before, why it is so significant. I explain to people: Today is the 23rd. Let's take the 22nd and the 21st. If you go back to the 21st--or let's say March 20, which was last Friday--we had, at that time, 210,000 cases that were known. They have been infected. Two days later, it was 322,000. Now look at the ones who have died. On March 20, it was 8,800 people died. But 2 days after that, it was 13,714. Now, that is globally. Look at here in the United States of America. On March 20, there were 10,500 people who contracted it, and then, just 2 days later, it was 31,000. It tripled in 2 days. That is what we are facing right now. On the deaths, they tripled--the same thing: 150 deaths on March 20, and 390 deaths on the 22nd, 2 days later. Now, that puts it in a different category. We have never had anything like that to talk about. The reason I do that, when I am talking to people in Oklahoma, is that, like a lot of people, I have been in this position before, when it looks like we are overreacting and we look like we are creating a crisis--something that hasn't happened before. But, in this case, this is a crisis. So it is important. There are a lot of people around who are thinking: Well, you know, this is kind of manufactured. It is not that big of a deal. In this case, it is. So, at the same time, we have thousands of Americans who are losing their jobs. We have been listening to this on the floor for a long period of time, and sometimes it is important to be redundant, to talk about these things, about people who are being forced to shut down without any sense when they might reopen. You are spared probably 15 minutes or so of the examples that I had in my State of Oklahoma--bakeries and others. The Senator from Indiana did a good job, and I think it would be unnecessary to go over all of that. We all have those stories. There is not a Member--Democrat or Republican--in this body who has not had these experiences and who could talk about the experiences. So we started working. This is going to sound pretty phony when I say this, but I was so proud, and I talked about how proud I was of the Democrats because, until just yesterday, we were all working together. We were having our meetings. I was with Mitch McConnell, and he was showing the progress we were having. The Democrats were cooperating. We really thought really good things were going to happen. We really believed that. So we have been working around the clock in bipartisan negotiations, and we believed that this weekend substantial progress was being made on a comprehensive phase 3. Now, let's keep in mind that this is phase 3 that we are talking about now. This is the one that I anticipate tonight we will vote successfully on. We have to do that. If we don't do it, people are going to die. This is not like it is going to cost so much money or some people are going to be inconvenienced. People are dying. So we had these bipartisan negotiations, and I thought we were doing great work. While the Senate has been working here on solutions to this crisis, the Democrat House has been on recess. I am not really concerned. If they feel they can do that, that is fine. But that didn't stop the Speaker of the House, and this is where the problem came in. See, everything was great until last night, up until the vote time. We were going to vote at 6 last night, and we thought we were going to be successful in that vote at 6 last night. What we didn't know is that the Speaker came back, even though they are on recess, and she threw a wrench into everything that we are doing, all the bipartisan talks. She came to town and decided to make this a partisan exercise. House Democrats are now demanding that the far-left wish of radical policies be included in what is otherwise a bipartisan agreement. I think their feeling was this: We are going to spend all this money. We have to get everything in there. If it has nothing to do with the crisis, if it has nothing to do with the virus, then, this is the time to do it. So the idea was that they wanted to spend more. I think the Senator from Indiana did a good job of talking about some of the provisions that we are talking about, but I want to ask: Is there anybody out there right now who is a conservative? Is there anyone out there who has really kept track of what kind of spending we are talking about here? We have never seen anything like it. Remember phase 1. That was the $8.3 billion emergency supplemental. That was for State and local response and testing kits, and that is fine. People understood that. That was $8.3 billion in phase 1. Phase 2 came along. By the way, I have to admit that this was the one phase I voted against for this reason: Oklahoma is a little different than a lot of other States. We have a larger number of small businesses in Oklahoma than most other States have, and they are the ones we have been talking to. We have been talking to them because they are going to be recognizing that, after all the efforts they have made in their careers and what they have done, they are going to go out of business. So one of the things they said that had to be corrected was found in phase 2. In phase 2, it says there that, when they mandate small business do things like paid leave and other expenses, it is fine for them to go ahead and do that if the Federal Government is going to refund the expenses for that. And they were going to do it, but not for several weeks. So our position was--those of us who had a lot of small businesses--that we want to make sure that, when phase 3 comes, we have a provision in there that will change that, in the event that you end up having to pay for mandated things--paid leave and other things for your employees. That is great. It is great that you are doing it because there is no other way in this crisis we are in the middle of that they can do it. But they are going to change it. So, in this thing that we are going to be voting on, hopefully, tonight--and I think we are--it is going to change it so that they will be reimbursed when that time comes. Now, those who are conservatives out there, I want you to keep track of what we are talking about here. Get a pencil and paper out. Write these things down. I want you to know what we are talking about. The total amount of this phase 3 is going to be somewhere around $1.6 trillion. That is a ``t'' we are talking about--not billion. This is a trillion. If you look at the things that are in there, like the major problems and the corrections that were made in phase 2, that is a part of this that is going on. For small businesses it is $350 billion. Write it down and add it up as we go along here--$350 billion. That is to take care of some of the problems that came out that weren't addressed in phase 2. We are talking about loans up to $10 million to individuals through 2020. All employers with up to 500 employees are eligible for this. The repayment of that--these are loans, but that is going to be delayed for 1 year. They don't have to pay back a portion of the loan, but most of that would have to be paid back. That is $350 billion. Healthcare provisions. We have $75 billion that goes to hospitals and healthcare providers throughout the country. These are mostly for the larger hospitals. You have a smaller amount--$275 million--that would expand services to rural hospitals. In the State of Oklahoma, we have a lot of rural hospitals. A lot of our rural hospitals have gone under. I can remember one time, back when Bill Clinton was the President, we had this great thing, and all my conservative friends were voting to support this. This was a budget balance amendment that would bring down the deficit, but it was doing it on the backs of rural hospitals. At that time, I was ranked as the most conservative Member in the U.S. Senate, and I voted against it. All of my conservative friends said: Wait a minute; how can you do that? We can do that because in the State of Oklahoma, we have to take care of our rural hospitals. That is in there--$275 million. Add it up. Write it down. There is $3.5 billion for vaccine development. That has to be done. We have to find a cure for this. Every day, you hear new ideas coming along. Is it the same thing that can be done for malaria? Is it the same thing that can be done for other problems? Again, the cost is there. We are going to have to do that. That is $3.5 billion. There is a $2 billion item for a national security stockpile. How many people know that there is such a thing as a national security stockpile? They don't know. I am a Member of the U.S. Senate, and I can't even tell you where it is. The reason I can't is because it is classified. People are not supposed to know where it is. Nonetheless, there are things like masks, gowns, ventilators, and that type of thing. It is a smaller amount--only $2 billion--but write it down, and put it in there. There is $500 billion for support of individuals. This is the one I hear mostly about from conservatives. Conservatives, listen carefully. There is going to be a cash payment to individuals of $1,200--$1,200. Here is a check for $1,200. That would be for people in categories where they--they are not wealthy people. If they are married, it wouldn't be $1,200; it would be $2,400. That is per individual. If they have kids, for each kid, it would be $500 additional. That is out there, and that is a part of this thing that a lot of people and particularly conservatives look at and don't like. This is different. This is different from anything else we have done before. We are trying to survive right now. People are dying every day. I hope I don't have to go out and repeat what we started out with on how many people are dying every day. Unemployment benefits. Think of the cost of that--39 weeks of unemployment benefits for the coronavirus job losses. In addition to that, they have benefits that increase by $600 a week. Usually, it is the States that pay for it. The States can't do it. My State of Oklahoma--we have a great Governor in Oklahoma, Kevin Stitt. Yet he is not able to do that. We never anticipated the expenses we are going to have. We never anticipated what has happened to our income--the revenues that come into the State that we have always expected since statehood in Oklahoma, which was not that long ago compared to other States. That is something we know the cost of, and we have never had to have the loss of revenue in the State of Oklahoma like we are having today. Unemployment benefits. There is 39 weeks of unemployment benefits for the job losses on coronavirus. We are talking about, on unemployment benefits, $600 a week. As I said, normally that is paid for by the State but not in this case. Emergency loans for distressed industries in States: $500 billion in total. People are talking about it. The speaker before me talked about coming here in an empty airplane. I came in on Monday, a week ago today, and there were only 14 people on a 737 airplane. Obviously, that is something that can't continue. We also have to take care of the cargo people. It is $50 billion for passenger air and $8 billion for cargo air. I say this because I want you to keep adding this stuff up. Then you have another figure: $17 billion for national security firms. That leaves about $425 billion for the Treasury if they determine something has been overlooked, so they can take care of that. I started out with saying that I want the conservatives in America to be listening because as of now, GovTrack had me down as the most conservative Member of the U.S. Senate. So I want people who have been adding this up to realize that even I, with that background, am saying we are dealing with something we have never dealt with before. As we look and we see the tax credits for solar and some of these things that were a part of the liberal agenda, this is something that is going on, and that is what we are dealing with right now. Everything was great until last night, and we were making great headway. I was complimenting the Democrats on the cooperation we had, and we can get that back again. But this temporary thing came in where all of a sudden you have the Speaker of the House looking at her liberal agenda and saying: Hey, there is a lot of money out there. I have to get mine. Let's get in line and do that. They want money for emissions standards. What has that got to do with the virus? It means nothing. It has nothing to do with it. It is not what Americans want, and these things have nothing to do with the crisis. I have to say that Pelosi is going to have to wake up and take this seriously and stop playing political games. It has to happen now. It has to happen tonight. Stop and calculate, every day we take, how many people are dying during that time. We have never been faced with this before. It is time for the political games to quit. They want us to work together on this package. I think this is what we are going to be doing. For the last few weeks, I have been complimenting the Senate Democrats for the efforts they are making, and all of that came to a halt last night. I have been saying that this is a crisis where Democrats and Republicans need to put politics aside. That is what is going to have to happen. It has to happen--not, if we are lucky, next week; it has to happen tonight. It was until 6 o'clock last night that Senate Democrats were fully cooperating. That came across pretty quick. Let me make one comment. I know there are a lot of ``hate Trump'' people out there. I see them all the time. I love the guy. He has done a great job. When you stop and think about what he has done in this country--and a lot of people are trying to build a case to some of the ``hate Trump'' people that he didn't move on this quickly enough. Well, he did. This thing happened in January. The first thing he did was stop the traffic coming into this country from China. He didn't sit around and wait; he did it immediately. And then he declared an emergency. All of these things he did immediately. He had the daily press conferences. I hope people are watching those. He is sitting back and having the top medical people in America talking about the problems we are having. This is kind of good news because we started this thing with the best economy we have had in my lifetime. Even those individuals who are the ``hate Trump'' people have to realize that the economy is the best economy we have had. There are a couple of ways that he did it. First of all, there was the big tax cut. There are two things that caused this. One was the tax cut I have a reason for bringing this up right now, at the conclusion of my remarks; that is, when we had the tax cut, it wasn't a Republican idea, it was a Democratic idea. That was John Kennedy. He was President in 1964. What did he say? He said: You know, with the Great Society coming on, we have to get more revenue. We have to get more revenue, and the best way to increase your revenue is to decrease the marginal tax rates. He did it, and it worked. Unfortunately, he died and could not reap the benefits of that success. The revenues came in rapidly at that time. Other efforts for reducing taxes have been successful too. President Trump coupled that with doing away with overregulation. I can remember mine. I was very happy that mine was the first bill he signed. It was a regulation. It was put together back during the previous administration. It said: If you are a domestic oil or gas company and you are competing for business with China or somebody else, you have to give them your whole playbook on how you calculated your--well, that was giving a distinct advantage. It was part of the war on fossil fuels that the President had at that time. When this new President was elected, we went ahead and passed a bill to repeal that regulation. So the overregulation--that is what made it very successful. He has appointed, right now, 190 new conservative judges. People who are not conservatives, people who don't really feel that strongly about the Constitution, are not excited about that--190 new conservative judges. We haven't had that many judges in the first term of a President in the history of this country--including, of course, two Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Pro-Israel. A lot of people don't like Israel. They are sympathetic with others. But how many Presidents have said: We want to move the capital of Israel to Jerusalem. He is the one who has done it. We have rebuilt the military. How many people know this? I chair the committee. It is called the Senate Armed Services Committee. I had the responsibility of trying to get it rebuilt because we lost during the Obama years. The last 5 years of Obama, he actually reduced the amount of money for our defense by 25 percent. It had never happened before. I say this because we now have a great advantage. We are going to correct this. I think it is going to happen tonight. I am really optimistic it will because if it doesn't, people are going to die. People are dying right now. When that happens, when we get this rebuilt and get beyond the crisis that we have all talked about today that we are in the middle of right now, we are going to go back, and we will be thanking God we started this whole thing with one of the best economies we have ever had. When we are looking at what is happening every day--and I am not going to go back and repeat it, but we know it is happening--the number of people who are dying on a daily basis, every day we put this off, people are dying. For that reason, I really think that right now, somewhere in the Capitol, in a room, we have Democrats and Republicans who are going to come to some sort of an agreement. I don't care when it is--it can be midnight; it can be anytime--it has to happen. We are out of time. This is a crisis. We don't have the luxury of time. It is going to have to be done. It is going to have to be done tonight. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am speaking today to highlight a service-disabled veteran and my constituent, Terry Hill, who is the CEO and cofounder of Rapid Application Group, an additive manufacturing facility just outside of my hometown of Tulsa in Broken Arrow, OK. Mr. Hill is a hero who served his Nation nobly as a UH-60 Black Hawk medical evacuation pilot, flying more than 750 combat missions serving in the U.S. Army. Due to Mr. Hill's experience, he knows better than anyone just how essential the technology of additive manufacturing can be in the field to support nonflight-critical parts to increase the overall readiness and force of our military. Additive manufacturing has improved military readiness and enabled the military services to be more self sustainable. Continued advancement in this area will further improve our military's readiness and overall ability to accomplish the mission at hand. When Mr. Hill returned home and started his business, he continued to serve our Nation by taking care of his fellow veterans. He is committed to hiring veterans to work in his facility and is known within our community for seeking out opportunities to help those who have worn the uniform. I take this opportunity today to highlight and thank Mr. Hill for his service in the U.S. Army, but also for his continued service in delivering needed tools to the warfighter and for supporting our veterans.

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 rise today to honor MG Wilson A. Shoffner, commanding general of the U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence and Fort Sill, OK. Major General Shoffner is one of our Nation's finest military officers. Major General Shoffner will relinquish command and conduct his retirement ceremony on 6 March 2020, bringing to a close 32 years of distinguished service to our great Nation. In 1988, Major General Shoffner commissioned as a second lieutenant of field artillery upon graduation from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He commanded units at every echelon, from platoon to the Fires Center of Excellence, with duty in Saudi Arabia, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the United States. As a young officer, Major General Shoffner deployed with the 1st Cavalry Division in support of OPERATION DESERT STORM. Major General Shoffner commanded 2nd Battalion, 319th Field Artillery Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division during OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. Later, he served as deputy chief of staff, communications, Resolute Support Mission, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, during OPERATION FREEDOM'S SENTINEL in Afghanistan. As a general officer, Major General Shoffner served as the deputy chief of staff, G-3/5/7, for the Army's Training and Doctrine Command. He served as the director of the Army's Talent Management Task Force under the Army G1 and then as the director of operations for Rapid Equipment Fielding under the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology. Major General Shoffner's career culminated as the commanding general of the United States Army's Fires Center of Excellence and Fort Sill, where he helped forge the future of the Army's Field Artillery and Air Defense Artillery branches. Major General Shoffner is an exceptional leader, an American patriot committed to our Armed Forces, our National Security, and our Nation, but most importantly, Major General Shoffner is a great man of character. It is for MG Al Shoffner, a soldier, leader, and selfless servant, whom we, with profound admiration and deep respect, pay tribute to for all he has done for the defense of our Nation for over three decades. We thank Major General Shoffner, his wife Carron, and their daughter, Kristin, for their dedication and sacrifice, and we wish them well in the years to come.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, let me comment that the Senator from Ohio is right on target. I know that when we did the authorization bills--we actually have language now that we put in to try to encourage people while they are still in high school to find out what they want to do with their lives. One of the problems we have right now is, we have a great economy-- the best economy we have had in my lifetime--but the bad side of that is, there is a lot of competition out there, and we want to make sure that people are directed into areas where they really can enjoy life and where the market will work in their favor. We are very much concerned about that with the two bills we have done so far that has new language in there to encourage people to use pilot programs in high school to know what direction they want to go with their lives.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, today, we will be voting on two very important bills: the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. I would like to thank my colleagues Senator Graham and Senator Sasse for their leadership on these bills, and I would like to thank Senator McConnell, for his efforts to bring these bills to the floor for a vote. First, I want to talk about Senator Sasse's Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a bill which I have cosponsored that would ensure that a baby who survives an abortion will receive the same treatment as any child naturally born at the same age, without prescribing any particular form of treatment. That is just morally right, and I don't see why there would be any disagreement about it. This bill is not even about abortion; it is about infanticide. Twenty-eight years ago, I came down here to tell the story of Ana Rosa Rodriguez. Here is what I said: Mr. Chairman, there is a big misconception regarding abortion and the issue of women and their right to protect their bodies. It is not that right that I object to, but the right that is given them to kill an unborn fetus--an unborn child. I want to share with you a story that my colleague, Chris Smith told some time ago on this very floor. Ana Rosa Rodriguez is an abortion survivor. At birth she was a healthy 3 pound baby girl except for her injury--she was missing an arm. Ana survived a botched abortion. Her mother attempted to get an abortion in her 32nd week of pregnancy when she was perfectly healthy--8 weeks past what New York State law legally allows. In the unsuccessful abortion attempt the baby's right arm was ripped off, however they failed to kill Ana Rosa. She lived. Pro-life supporters agreed that nightmare situations like the Rodriguez case are probably not common, but abortion related deaths and serious injuries occur more frequently than most people are aware. It is amazing that we can pay so much attention to issues such as human rights abroad and can allow the violent destruction of over 26 million children here at home. We are fortunate that Ana was not one of those children-she survived. That was in 1992. But today, we still don't have explicit Federal protections for the babies who survive the brutal abortion process. As I said, this issue is not about abortion but about caring for a baby outside the womb. The need for these protections has become even clearer as we see States like New York and Illinois allow abortion for virtually any reason up until the point of birth and support infanticide by removing protections for infants born alive after a failed abortion. Just a few years after that speech, in 1997, I was on the floor with my good friend former Senator Rick Santorum to try to pass the partial- birth abortion ban and end the horrific practice of late-term abortions. Fortunately, we won the battle against partial- birth abortions and finally ended that practice in 2003. That ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007. But we have yet to pass legislation banning late term abortion. Only seven countries allow abortion after 20 weeks, including the United States and North Korea. That is horrific. The U.S. is supposed to be an example in regards to global human rights; yet we are on par with North Korea when it comes to protecting the unborn. Senator Graham's Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would help roll back this horrific practice by prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks post-fertilization, when we know babies can feel pain. This is another commonsense bill that should not divide us along partisan lines; a baby is a baby whether in or outside of the womb, and each baby deserves a chance to live as an individual created in the image of God. There still much more we need to do to end the abortion on demand culture, but thankfully, we have the most pro-life President in history. This January, President Trump became the first sitting President to attend the annual March for Life rally in Washington. Hundreds of pro- life Oklahomans joined the President and tens of thousands of Americans to march. I had the chance to meet many of these Oklahomans, many of them extremely young--as young as high school. They asked me how to respond when the radical left attacks their views. I told them to be kind, but not to be afraid to voice their opinions--after all, they are right. Under President Trump's leadership, we have protected the Hyde amendment, reinstated and expanded the Mexico City policy, and stripped abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from using title X funding for abortions. The need to stand up for our babies is as important today as it was in 1992 and 1997. I am looking forward to building on our successes under President Trump to end the practice of abortion on demand and to ensure that we protect babies who survive abortions. We will overcome evil with good by upholding and affirming the dignity and inherent worth of every human being. We will keep fighting.