Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think President Trump's decision to take out General Soleimani was the boldest defense policy decision of his Presidency to date. Even in a single strike, the President defended American lives and showed Iran that terrorism and, most importantly, spilling American blood is something that will come at a price, unlike what we have gone through with the predecessor, when the redline didn't mean anything. It means something now. Everybody knows it. The result is that we are now in the best negotiating position with Iran since 1979, and Iran's escalation, which includes attacks on tankers, Saudi Arabia's oil facilities, and the killing of an American citizen, has ended, at least for now. Yet some Democrats would have you believe in a vote for a War Powers Resolution, pretending as though the President is rushing to war. It is just not happening. The facts are not there. There is no war with Iran. An airstrike is not a war. Punishing Iran for killing an American citizen is not a war, nor has the Soleimani strike started a new war, as Democrats would have you believe. It just hasn't happened. It has been 3 weeks now since the Democrats first tried to vote on this resolution, and during those 3 weeks, nothing has happened. Let me just repeat that. Nothing has happened. There have been no new Iranian attacks against us, and we have not attacked them. How can anyone claim that we are at some kind of a war? Moreover, nobody wants war with Iran. The President has made it very clear that he doesn't want war with Iran. In fact, the President's decision to eliminate Soleimani has made war much less likely because it showed Iran that its terrorism would come at a price. That wasn't the case before. Despite this success, today we are debating whether we want to tie the hands of our Commander in Chief--or any Commander in Chief--to respond when American lives are put at risk, as the Constitution gives them the authority to do. I want to be sure that all of my colleagues are crystal clear on what exactly this War Powers Resolution means, what it will actually do. The resolution calls on the President to terminate the use of American Armed Forces for hostilities against Iran. But there are no hostilities against Iran. There is no war with Iran. The resolution calling for the termination of hostilities against California would have the same effect. Practically speaking, this vote will do nothing. It is nonsense, but we should be very concerned about the symbolic effect this vote will have. This will send a very damaging message to Iran. The Iranians will interpret a vote in favor of this resolution as tying the President's hands, and that would lead Iran to believe, once again, that it can get by with anything. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that they really believed that. Nobody wants that. Congress doesn't want it. The White House doesn't want it and certainly not the American people. So I don't know why we are even debating a resolution that could make war more likely, when we are trying to do just the opposite. If the Democrats insist on tying the President's hands, the least we can do is minimize the damage. While I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution, I also urge them to support amendments to minimize the damage. I want to comment briefly on the amendment offered by the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, my friend the Senator from Rhode Island. He is correct to highlight the traumatic brain injuries that a number of our troops suffered during the January 8 Iranian strike on Iraq. We understand that. However, I would like to clarify: I believe we were not misled in this at all. Mild TBIs can only be confirmed through MRI scans. The Department of Defense implemented its screening procedure properly and made sure that all troops in the vicinity of the strike were screened. I think we need to understand that. All of this was done, and it is as if that wasn't done at all. Once those results were made available, the Department of Defense notified the public in a press release. It then briefed our committee, the committee that I chair. I therefore want to commend the Department of Defense for taking all the right measures to protect our forces during the Iranian strikes and for appropriately screening our forces for aftereffects. This is why I think it is extremely important that we vote this resolution down. Even as it is amended now, it will signal to the Iranians that there is no price for aggression. It will undermine deterrence, and it will leave our troops, diplomats, and citizens vulnerable. Nobody wants that. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in morning business for whatever time I shall consume.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, nearly 20 years ago, I was here in this exact spot--I remember it so well--deliberating the guilt or innocence of a President. It happens that at that time, it was President Clinton from your State of Arkansas. At that time, I said that I thought it would probably be the most important vote I would cast as a Senator. I was wrong. I think my vote on Wednesday--the day after tomorrow--to acquit President Trump will be the most important vote of my career. I really believe that. Over the past few weeks, as we have considered impeachment, there has been a lot made of the fact that I was willing to vote to convict President Clinton 20 years ago and yet to vote the other way in the current process we are under right now. Putting the morality question from President Clinton aside, this supposed debate highlights the central point of the differences in the impeachment process and why President Trump should not be impeached. Before Clinton was even impeached, he admitted to the crime of perjury. This is a big difference because we have a President right now who has not admitted that. In fact, there have not really been accusations of a crime. Our debate then was about whether perjury was a high crime or misdemeanor. I believe it was. As I said then, the President should be held to the highest standard. But that was substantially different than the question before us today. The question put to us by the House managers is an evidentiary one. It is one that asks the question if, according to the evidence presented, there is a determination that President Trump is guilty of a crime, and the answer is no. Presidents should be held to the highest standard, but that standard can't be a false, moving standard that isn't based on evidence or is established by a court of public opinion. Here is why I will vote to acquit the President. The whole impeachment inquiry was initiated on the basis that President Trump orchestrated the quid pro quo with Ukrainian's President during a phone call on July 25 of 2019. It is kind of confusing. A lot of people don't really understand what it is all about, but Ukraine has had serious problems. You know what is happening. The Russians have been there mass murdering the Ukrainians for a long period of time. We have watched that happen. So they kind of put this thing together saying: Well, there was an arrangement made by President Trump that they would withhold military aid to Ukraine unless there was a deal they could make and have something investigated by the President of Ukraine. Now, the House managers spent 75 percent of their time on this point and driving home the importance of our partnership with Ukraine and talking about the Russian aggression. The facts weren't there, but, worse, it is hypocritical. There was nothing wrong with President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky. You might wonder how I can be so sure. It is simple. The House Democrats' allegations were secondhand, and that means they were hearsay. There was not one direct witness. In fact, they had 17 witnesses in the House of Representatives and not one of them were firsthand. The transcript speaks for itself. There was no evidence of a quid pro quo or of any wrongdoing, whatsoever, just of a President who understands both the importance of Ukraine as an ally and the importance of rooting out corruption. President Zelensky said publicly that he felt no pressure. He testified about this and Trump asking to investigate anything in exchange for foreign aid. You have to keep in mind we have a very conservative President. He doesn't just dish out foreign aid to everybody who needs it. In this case, there was a necessity to have military aid. We couldn't get any lethal military aid from President Obama. All he wanted to send was blankets and K-rations. They don't have K-rations anymore; they call it something else. MREs. But, nonetheless, there was not going to be any military aid sent to them. The Trump administration placed a brief, temporary hold on the aid to Ukraine to ensure that the American taxpayers were not going to be abused. This is very significant. He did this to Ukraine to make sure that the amount of money that was sent in there was going to be used properly and the amount of military aid that was going to be used. But at the same time, you have to keep in mind he was doing that with everybody else too. He is just not a fast-spending President. He is going to make sure things have to be made in accordance with their needs. In fact, at other times, he withheld the same type financial aid to Afghanistan, South Korea, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Lebanon, and Pakistan. So the fact that he did it with Ukraine was consistent with his other policies. This is what he does and what he has always done. I am confident about this because I talked to President Trump directly about it. I am the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the committee is responsible for authorizing lethal aid to Ukraine. I have been working on securing that lethal aid for a long period of time, dating back to 2014. In 2014, we had a different President. It was President Obama. And then the Ukraine President Poroshenko--I can remember being in Ukraine with Poroshenko, and I talked to him about this. This was the same time Russia was in Ukraine and was mass killing the Ukrainians. We went to President Obama to get help, and he wouldn't do it. He didn't want to send any lethal military aid. And he said over and over again--we talked about blankets and K- rations. When President Trump came into office, he changed it. He is the first President to provide lethal aid to Ukraine. He has been a committed partner in the region helping them withstand Russian aggression. I bring this up because during the first 3 days of the House managers' presentation, about 75 percent of that time was spent on this issue talking about his lack of support for Ukraine, when in reality, this President has been supporting Ukraine. The House managers who were serving in the House at that time--this is significant. Of the House managers--however many were sitting over here for the last week--they are all talking about things they want to do for Ukraine. Yet the first vote that was taken originated in the Armed Services Committee for FY 2016, and it happened to be that the Democrats--the very three Democrats who were serving at that time--voted against it. They didn't vote for it. This is the type of thing you get when this hate-motivated stuff was going on for such a long period of time. The House didn't prove that Trump committed a crime. I am the first to admit I am not a lawyer. Sometimes I think that plays to my advantage. I look at things in a different way. I try to just inject a little bit of common sense. I listened to the lawyers and, frankly, I didn't even understand what some of them were saying, but I do know pretty much what is going on around here. In this case, the reasons behind why the President should not be impeached are common sense. He didn't commit a crime. That didn't come just from me. You would expect me to say that. That came from others who were the well-respected attorneys who were involved in each side of this case. Each of the past impeachment cases in the House of Representatives accused Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton of committing a crime. This President didn't commit a crime. But Clinton did, and he admitted that he did. It was perjury at that time. That is a crime. It was the same thing with Nixon and the same thing with Johnson. So all those things that have happened in recent history have been crimes but not with this President. The Democrats wanted to impeach President Trump since he took office. I think there was a witness we had today--I believe it was today--they had a visual up here that showed all the people who have been trying to impeach President Trump ever since he took office. I am talking about the first week he was in office. It was all documented up there. They are still at it. I have no doubt they will continue to do that, but it is not going to work. It didn't work in this case. Democrats have wanted to impeach him since he took office. The Washington Post reported the concerted effort by the leftwing advocacy groups to move toward impeachment of the President only minutes after his inauguration. So they have been looking for a reason to impeach President Trump. I think one of the stars of the testimony that went on was Alan Dershowitz. He is someone who is held in the highest regard. He is a law professor at Harvard University, and he is a strong Democrat. He is not a Republican. First thing he did was admit he voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, so that qualifies him in a different way than most of the people who were here as witnesses. He was direct in his presentation and shredded the Democrats' case. He made it clear that abuse of power should be a political weapon suited for a campaign, not impeachment, as abuse of power is not a crime or impeachable conduct. Dershowitz also explained that virtually every President since President Washington could have been accused of impeachment if they used the criteria that the House managers--the ones who were sitting over here--were using. That was a level that could not be used or it would have affected every other President if it had been used at that time. He also had an important comment on whether or not we needed to hear sworn testimony from John Bolton. This is what he said. This is a quote by Dershowitz. He said: ``Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense.'' That is Alan Dershowitz. It is clear that President Trump must be acquitted of the charge of abuse of power on its merits. A vote to convict in this case would be a dangerous precedent. I would say, time and time again, that during the trial, the House managers have preached at us that the truth matters, that facts matter; that we must convict the President and remove him from office. In fact, the House managers' closing arguments--I tried to keep count of every time they made the accusations using the words ``cheat,'' ``obstruction,'' ``crimes,'' and it was so many times, I lost track-- but truth matters. Just because you say the President has committed a crime doesn't make it true. Here is what is true. This has been a partisan process from start to finish. Compare that to the past. The impeachment inquiry against President Nixon was authorized by a vote of 410 to 4 in the Congress, an overwhelming bipartisan vote. The same thing was true with Clinton. They had 31 Democrats who voted to impeach the President. Yet in the vote of this impeachment inquiry, the final vote to impeach President Trump was strictly partisan. Not a single House Republican voted to impeach the President. On the contrary, nearly every House Democrat did. The only bipartisan vote was against impeachment. I listened to the facts and I have listened to the evidence and I am convinced President Trump has not committed a crime. All the legal minds who gave testimony pretty much agreed with that, including Dershowitz. I think, though, it has to be said there is a hatred for Trump. We have to admit there is something about him that a lot of people don't like, whether it is his demeanor or it is his style. I understand that. But when you listen to the substance, look at what he has done right now rebuilding the military, including killing the top terrorists. I am particularly sensitive to this because this is my committee. We have watched what he has done to the military. Back during the Obama administration, using constant dollars during the last 5 years of his 8-year tenure, he actually reduced the spending in military by 25 percent. I don't think that has ever been done in the history of this country, except maybe immediately following World War II. Yet there he is, rebuilding the military, and we are now back to where we are competitive. I have to admit, though, during those last 5 years of Obama, we really hurt ourselves in terms of our relationships in terms of China and Russia taking the leadership positions they have taken. He has been rebuilding the military. He has been confirming constitutional judges. Confirming 187 judges in the last 3 years is a record that hasn't been done before. Oddly enough, these are judges who have actually read the Constitution. That is a novel idea. I would say that this is the best economy we have had in decades. Last week we went to 3.5 percent unemployment. We used to consider 4 percent unemployment as being fully employed, and yet I don't even have a memory to when it has been down to 3.5 percent. The trade deal we did is new. It shows we are getting things done. We have more Americans working today than ever before, and the median household income is the highest it has ever been. We are going to have a very significant vote on Wednesday. I think you know how I am going to vote. I am going to vote to acquit the President on both Articles of Impeachment. That will be a very significant vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. Chief Justice, I have a question for the President's counsel, and I am being joined by Senators Rounds and Young.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. Chief Justice, I have a question for the President's counsel, and it is cosponsored by Senators Rounds, Wicker, Ernst, Blackburn, Tillis, Cramer, Cotton, Sullivan, McSally, all members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I do.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my top priority is ensuring the effective implementation of the National Defense Strategy. I rise today to speak about the importance of Africa as a key front in our global efforts under the NDS to compete with China and Russia, defend U.S. national security, and combat radical terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS. The NDS says competition with China and Russia is ``the central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security.'' This is where DOD is rightly focusing its attention. But China's and Russia's growing influence isn't restricted to Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Recent actions by China and Russia clearly demonstrate that both countries view Africa as a critical battlefield to fulfill their global ambitions and challenge U.S. interests. Over the past 20 years, I have conducted 164 African country visits. I can tell you it is no coincidence that China established its first overseas military base in Djibouti--strategically located on one of the most important maritime transit routes in the world. I visited Djibouti last February and saw first-hand China's military base and their encroachment on the Port of Djibouti. Elsewhere, China is using cash and debt to trap countries and force them to put their infrastructure and potentially their very sovereignty on sale. For example, 90 percent of African exports depend on ports and China is funding, building, or operating at least 46 port projects in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition to giving China a potential stranglehold on African prosperity, it also provides China access to critical maritime routes and chokepoints. At the same time, Russia is using its armed forces, mercenaries, and the sale of Russian arms to buy influence, exploit Africa's natural resources, and to prop up leaders sympathetic to Russian interests and hostile to those of the West. And while the NDS states that competition with China and Russia should be DOD's top priority, it makes clear that we cannot afford to lose sight of the continuing threat posed by radical terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS. Africa has been and must remain a key theater for our counterterrorism efforts. Today, more than a dozen terrorist groups with ties to al-Qaida and ISIS, like Al-Shabab, are operating across the continent. Many of these groups have ambition to attack Americans and our partners, as we saw last week when Al-Shabab militants in Kenya killed a U.S. servicemember and two DOD contractors. Without pressure the threat these groups pose to the United States will grow unchecked. And this isn't a recent development--I have seen this come up time and time again on my visits to the continent. It is why I pushed the DOD for years to stand up an Africa command. People forget that we didn't always have a dedicated military presence in Africa, despite its strategic importance. It was managed through three separate combatant commands. I worked with DOD and then-President Bush to change that, and in 2008 we officially stood up United States Africa Command AFRICOM. Despite the breadth of security challenges we face on the African continent every day, AFRICOM has consistently suffered resource shortfalls. On any given day, there are about 7,000 DOD personnel serving in Africa. Africa is home to 1.3 billion people and is larger geographically than China, India, the United States, and most of Europe--combined. In light of these significant resource and geographical challenges, the men and women of AFRICOM perform critical missions every day to check Chinese and Russian influence, combat terrorism, and strengthen the capabilities of our partners. AFRICOM provides an enormous value to the Nation for an extremely modest level of investment--the very definition of ``economy of force.'' Despite this, I understand that DOD is reviewing our military presence in Africa and is considering significant cuts. Given what is at stake for both U.S. national security and effective implementation of NDS, we must have a meaningful, albeit limited, U.S. presence in Africa. Any drawdown of our troops would be shortsighted, could cripple AFRICOM's ability to execute its mission and, as a result, would harm national security. Rather than talking about drawing down troops in Africa, we should finally assign forces to AFRICOM on an enduring basis--including an SFAB--in order to provide the command with predictable resourcing so it can be most effective in defending U.S. national security. I urge the Secretary of Defense to keep this in mind as he makes decisions on the future of our presence and role in Africa.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, it is our privilege to pay tribute to Jennifer Dougherty as she prepares to leave her position as a detailee for the Senate Committee on Armed Services and return to her position as a Senior Analyst for the Government Accountability Office. For the past 12 months, Ms. Dougherty has assisted the committee and its members with high-priority work on contracting reform in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2020 and overseeing implementation of previously enacted acquisition reforms. Her contributions to our committee's work have been significant and highly valued by our members and staff. On behalf of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, I thank Ms. Dougherty and wish her future success as she continues to support the U.S. Government.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am pleased to recognize Mrs. Norma Kaehler on the occasion of her retirement. Norma has been a hero of the aviation community for more than two decades. Most recently, she served as the managing director for government and corporate affairs at American Airlines Group. Not many may remember this, but Norma got her start on Capitol Hill working for Senator Mack Mattingly of Georgia, and she never forgot that taking care of constituents is our No. 1 priority around here. She has always worked on behalf of the employees of American Airlines on Capitol Hill, tens of thousands of airline pilots, mechanics and maintenance personnel, flight attendants, gate agents, and everyone in the back office--all responsible for ensuring planes depart and land on time--have benefited from her advocacy on their behalf. I can personally attest to this during her tireless advocacy of legislation I sponsored that protected the retirement benefits of American Airline employees after the 2013 merger. In the course of her career, Norma Kaehler has worked for multiple airlines: Trans World Airlines, American Airlines, and American Airlines Group; and she played a major role in every FAA reauthorization bill enacted by Congress. Through it all, Norma remained an unflappable, passionate advocate for aviation. I know I join her family and American Airlines in thanking Norma for her years of service and contributions to the aviation community. Congratulations on your retirement. We will miss you around here.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I sit here listening to this, and a lot of the American people do too. My good friend from Massachusetts has said things that I know he actually believes. He actually believes it. Here we are with the President of the United States, who has given us, over the objections of the gentleman, my friend from Massachusetts, the best economy we have had maybe in my lifetime. You could argue that. He has been able to do this two ways. One was a way that was designed first by a Democrat--by John Kennedy--when he said that the best way to increase revenue is to reduce marginal rates, and it worked. Unfortunately, President Kennedy died after that. Then we have the judges right now; we have, right now, over 170 judges. The unique thing about this is that these are judges who are really constitutional judges. They have read the Constitution. That is a unique notion. Then the military--again, it is hard to sit here and listen to someone who has that level--you hear so much hatred about this President, but he is getting so many great things done. If you look at the military, not many people know this--now, I chair the Armed Services Committee--but we know that during the Obama administration, during the last 5 years--this would have been from 2010 to 2015--he reduced the budget for the military by 25 percent in constant dollars. That has never happened before, even after World War I and World War II when reductions took place. This was even more than that at a time when you can argue it was the most dangerous time in history. So, here the President has been responsible for that, yet there is so much hatred out there. The issue at hand now with Soleimani--this gentleman's resolution is rather interesting. He is talking about cultural sites. I can remember at the very beginning of the Trump administration, he went out of his way to protect cultural sites. If you talk to different people of minority religions in different countries, they talk about what he has done to protect minority rights and sites--churches that have been torn down. So here is a guy, our President, who has been right in the middle of the very thing he has been accused of offending. I note that Secretary Esper has made it quite clear that the United States will follow the laws of armed conflict. I appreciate the spirit of Senator Markey's resolution opposing attacks on cultural sites. I agree with that. However, since our votes carry the force of law, we need to be specific in our resolutions. It is simply not true that attacking cultural sites is always a war crime because there are many instances in which cultural sites have been used as staging grounds for hostilities. We all know that. I can give you examples for that. President Clinton noted in his message to the Senate when he sent the Hague cultural property convention over for ratification almost exactly 21 years ago on January 6, 1999, and I am quoting from it: Cultural property is protected from intentional attacks so long as it is not being used for military purposes or otherwise may be regarded as a military objective. Misuse may subject such property to attack. That is a direct quote. To be clear, I am not saying that we should target cultural sites, but we certainly should not restrict our military's ability to defend itself with rogue actors appropriating cultural sites for attacks or strategic reasons. The use of a cultural site to construct IEDs, launch missiles, or give snipers carte blanche against our forces is not accounted for in this resolution. I therefore object to this resolution on those grounds and hope that the resolution will be amended to acknowledge an exception for when cultural sites are used for staging military attacks or other improper purposes. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I request a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. INHOFE. I am just asking, are we in a period of morning business?

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of my friend from Massachusetts, I be recognized for such time as I shall consume.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, 5 days ago, President Trump made the boldest defensive policy decision of his Presidency to date. He authorized the airstrike against the leader of Iran's Quds Force, Soleimani, in accordance with his authorities as Commander in Chief of the United States under article II of the Constitution. Let's remember who Soleimani was. He was a terrorist. He was responsible for training and funding militias across the Middle East-- the very militias that have targeted American personnel, our facilities, and our partners for decades. He was behind the plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in Washington. That was back in 2011. He has been doing this for a long time now. He was responsible for the brutal repression of democratic protests within Iran. The terrorist groups he armed and trained attacked our partners, including Israel. Some of the people out there are more focused on criticizing President Trump for taking out Soleimani than they are on protecting American diplomats and American troops, conveniently forgetting that Soleimani is the architect of Iran's terrorism and is responsible for over 600 American deaths during the Iraqi war. When you stop and think about how bad he is, it just doesn't get any worse than that. We hear a lot recently about getting--I am very happy this President was able to put together something and take out al-Baghdadi, but this guy was worse than al-Baghdadi--you can argue, even worse than bin Laden. Their justification for criticizing the President for killing a terrorist who wanted to destroy America--stated it many times--they think it was reckless and represents a rush to war. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just remember how we got where we are today. Remember the Obama apology tour? I remember it well. When he first came into office, he went around talking about--all around to our adversaries and our friends alike talking about how bad America was. We remember that, and it was a game changer for our behavior throughout the world at that time. First, American credibility hit an all-time low under the Obama administration. President Obama set a redline in Syria. We all remember that redline in Syria. That was because Syria was using weapons of mass destruction, and President Obama said: If you continue to do that, we will, you know, take you out--words to that effect. Well, then the redline occurred when Syria started dropping weapons of mass destruction on its own people there. Now, that kind of, I think, changed the thinking of does America mean what they say? To make matters worse, Obama signed a deal with Iran that didn't address Iran's support for terrorism at all. It gave Iran over $100 billion, including $1.7 billion in cash. That was a John Kerry thing. That was when John Kerry was the Secretary of State and President Obama was the President. At that time, $1.7 billion was given to this terrorist group in small bills, in foreign currency, for obvious reasons--you don't have to stop and think that through--but then, in addition, over $100 billion, and they even admitted at that time that that could be used to expand terrorist activities. One of the quotes in 2016--and I wrote it down, and I have used it many times since then--I want you to listen to this. This is a quote from John Kerry in 2016. He said: ``I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists.'' John Kerry also said: ``You know, to some degree, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented.'' So is it any wonder that Iran's regional aggression has only gotten bolder and bolder? Look what has happened just in the last few months. In May of this year, the Iranians attacked oil tankers with land mines. We know about that. In June, they shot down a U.S. drone. It is a U.S. drone. By the way, the cost of that was classified for a while. It is not classified anymore. It was in excess of $100 million. That is what they did. What did our President do? He sat back, and it didn't cause him to get all excited. He handled it in a very diplomatic way. Then, in September, they attacked the Saudi oilfields, taking some 50 percent of Saudi Arabia's oil production capability offline. President Trump showed incredible restraint after each one of those provocations. He responded by increasing pressure on Iran--ramping up economic sanctions and increasing their diplomatic isolation but not anything that would suggest getting into any type of violence at that time. The President avoided military action while setting a very clear redline. And what was the redline? He said: So long as you don't kill an American--if you kill an American, we are going to come after you. That is the redline. That is a redline that 95 percent of the people in America agree with. On December 27, Iran crossed that redline. Soleimani directed the attack that killed an American and wounded four other servicemembers. President Trump made it clear that there were consequences for spilling American blood. He said: You kill an American, we are going to come after you. And he is dead now. Iran never believed there would be consequences. After all, Obama never enforced his redline, and even President Trump was hesitant to use military force. Only a day before the strike that killed Soleimani, Iran's Supreme Leader tweeted at our President--in fact, you have to read this. This is a tweet that came from him to the President: ``That guy has tweeted that we see Iran responsible for the events in Baghdad & we will respond to Iran. 1st: You can't do anything.'' This is a guy telling our President ``You can't do anything.'' That is a quote. That whole thing is a quote that came from him. They never believed there would be consequences, but there were consequences. Only a day before the strike, he said: ``You can't do anything.'' We are talking about Iran's Supreme Leader tweeting to our President of the United States ``You can't do anything.'' Obviously, they know better than that. Well, President Trump could, and he did. He actually restored America's credibility around the world. He showed that we mean what we say. You tell me what is reckless--they talk about this as reckless--a President who means what he says and takes the protection of American lives seriously or the fringe Democrats who want to tie the President's hands and deny him the tools to uphold his constitutional responsibility to defend our citizens? You know, right now before this Senate, there is a resolution--not the one my friend from Massachusetts was talking about but another one that would take away a lot of the President's powers of negotiation. We are talking about powers that are there as a result of article II of the Constitution. That is what our President has--those constitutional powers. Yet the President did not use military force until they crossed the redline, and that is not a rush to war. Listen to folks like former Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. I served here in the Senate with Senator Joe Lieberman. He is a Democrat. I have one of the quotes that he said just recently in analyzing this. I don't recall, but I think he was here probably about 25 years. This is a quote from Democrat Joe Lieberman, a former Senator: President Trump's order to take out Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct. It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats. That is a quote. We have another one from about the same timeframe, just recently. Listen to Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security. I got to know him. His name is Jeh Johnson. He was one who was eminently qualified for that position and did a good job while he was there. This is what he said about the action with Soleimani, which the President is being accused of all these terrible things about. This is from the Secretary of Homeland Security under President Obama. Jeh Johnson said: He was a lawful military objective, and the president, under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without an additional congressional authorization. Whether he was a terrorist or a general in a military force that was engaged in armed attacks against our people, he was a lawful military objective. Everything that this President did was perfectly appropriate, and these are two prominent Democrats who have come out with this. So, you know, there are a lot of people out there who are pretty fed up with what has been going on with attacking the president and impeachment. I keep hearing that something is going to happen this week in terms of sending over the articles, and I don't know--I have a personal opinion that a lot of people don't agree with, I am sure. I don't think even the Speaker knows right now just what is going to happen. Are the articles going to come over? I think a lot of her far- left friends are saying: Yeah, let's go over there and let's continue this thing. Let's continue beating up the President. But she also has a bunch of her liberal friends who are saying: Look, the polls don't look too good. People are onto this. They realize that there is a problem. Maybe we shouldn't be sending them at all. We will find out tomorrow. I understand there is a big Democratic meeting. I am not invited. There is one over in the House. They are going to make a determination, and we will all find out at that time what is going to happen to the Articles of Impeachment. But again, Soleimani was a lawful military objective--one that President Trump took out under article II authority. More to the point, nobody is talking about war. Nobody is calling for an invasion. Nobody is calling for a ramp-up. We all know what that looks like here, and it is very plainly not what is happening. An airstrike is not war. Defending American lives is not war. The President has made it clear that he does not desire war, which is why he has continued to call for negotiations with Iran to end the standoff, and that is the very thing some people are trying to take away from him. It is not just a constitutional right; it is a constitutional responsibility. Nobody here wants war, but 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 imminently more likely. That would be reckless. I would just be anxious for this time period to get by so we don't have to be facing this on a daily basis. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on another subject, even though I am very close to this subject in that I chaired the Armed Services Committee, and that is where all of this really began, I do want to mention one thing about what happened this morning. I think our leader over here, Mr. McConnell, did a superb job. He made it very clear on the impeachment that took place last night. It is something that has not happened before. It is the first time it has happened, in that there is no impeachable offense, and it is nonetheless, I think, all driven by hatred. When you stop to think, here it is right before Christmas, and the hatred that is driving that, it is wrong. I want to mention something that is significant, that you haven't thought of, I say to the Presiding Officer. That is, this 153rd day of the year is very significant. That is December 19. People have not stopped to realize the significant things that have happened on December 19 throughout our history and the history of the world, going all the way back to December 19, at 11:54, Henry II became King of England. We haven't really thought about the fact what does that mean to us today, but we will before long. In 1843, December 19, again, Charles Dickens wrote ``A Christmas Carol.'' It is the most watched, listened to, and sung event every Christmas. In 1932, December 19, the British Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC, began transmitting overseas. That was the beginning of a whole new world of knowledge and understanding. In 1950, December 19, NATO named General Dwight D. Eisenhower as supreme commander of the Western European defense forces. Then in 1972, December 19, Apollo 17, the last of the Apollo moon landings returned to earth. December 19 of 1984--I remember this well because I was in Hong Kong when this happened--that was when China signed an accord returning Hong Kong to the Chinese sovereignty. A lot of people thought it was good at the time to accept people from Hong Kong. I was there, and look what has happened now after all these years. I would have to say that hysteria has continued to this day. Then, in 1998, December 19, the U.S President Bill Clinton was impeached. I was there at that one, too. We have something to compare it with now, but that was December 19, 1998. The event that is more significant by a landslide is what happened on December 19, 1959. On December 19, 1959, my wife Kay and I got married. That makes this the 60th anniversary of our wedding. Just look at all the beauty that has followed us, 20 kids and grandkids. All of that in that 60-year period of time. What I want to say is the beautiful life that we are still having together--and I would like to say at this point that Kay, after 60 years, is still loving, and I wish you a happy anniversary; and to everyone out there as you celebrate the birth of Jesus, Merry Christmas, and God bless you. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, after visiting our southern border countless times, most recently in August when I toured the Mexican side of the border with their deployed National Guard units, I know that we face a dire situation that is only improving because of the aggressive action taken by President Trump. As he and I both know, more needs to be done. Securing our border is vital to national security. In our discussions with the Mexican Government following my recent trip, they expressed strong support for doing work on their southern border to stem the tide of illegal immigrants from other nations in Central America. Accordingly, I am proud to introduce the Mirador- Calakmul Basin Maya Security & Conservation Partnership Act, which will provide critical resources to the region to supplement the efforts made by the Government of Mexico to secure its own southern border. These resources will be critical because increased insecurity and lack of economic opportunity in this region are drivers of emigration from Guatemala and Mexico to the United States as local communities face pressure to participate in deforestation, logging, narcotics trafficking and other illicit activities. It is in the best interest for the national security of the United States to support political stability, reduced migration, reduction of poverty, and enhanced economic development around the basin in Guatemala and Mexico. The Mirador Basin features beautiful Mayan ruins with networks of pyramids, palaces, and ancient cities that many consider to be the eighth wonder of the world, and I would agree. I used to fly my plane over the Mirador Basin, and I have seen the magnificent structures with my own eyes. My legislation will support efforts made by the Department of the Interior, the Department of State, the Mexican Government the Guatemalan Government and various universities and research institutions to secure this region and ensure future generations are afforded the same opportunity to see these magnificent Mayan ruins. One of the most important things we can do to secure this region is support the local communities surrounding the Mirador Basin by providing economic opportunity and ensuring that this community receives direct economic benefit. If the members of the local community are able to find work in the region, it will greatly reduce the incentive to attempt the arduous journey to illegally immigrate to the United States. Mr. President, it is critical that we secure our southern border. Border security is national security. It is just that simple. There are many proposals targeting this issue, and I support many of them-- including building the wall. This additional legislation is a targeted approach, and I thank Senators Udall and Risch for joining me in this initiative.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the vote we are talking about is to waive the budget point of order that was raised by Senator Enzi. If the budget point of order is not waived, the NDAA--which I believe is the most significant vote we pass every year; it has passed for 58 consecutive years--will be referred back to committee. So that is really what is at stake here. The budget point of order on the NDAA is primarily caused by three provisions: first, repealing the widow's tax phased in over 3 years. We have been talking about that. That is part of this point of order; secondly, giving visas to Afghans who work closely with the U.S. military during the war; and, third, allowing military servicemembers to file claims for medical malpractice. Now, all three provisions have significant bipartisan support. The widow's tax, as was just stated, has 76 cosponsors in the Senate, 383 in the House. A vote in this Chamber in late September to instruct conference on the widow's tax passed 94 to 0. You might keep that in mind. Anyone who talks now about opposing it actually voted for it back in September. Now, as I mentioned in my remarks last night, I started working to repeal the widow's tax after being inspired by one of my personal heroes, a young lady named Jane Horton. I can remember back in September of 2011, I was in a little town north of Tulsa, OK--Collinsville, OK--and I was up there talking to people, the normal type of thing we do, going around speaking with our constituents, and I recall that is when I first met Jane Horton. She lived in Collinsville. After I had visited for a while with the group, I commented that I am the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I am going to be going to Afghanistan in this next week. She said that her husband, Chris Horton, was also right at that moment in Afghanistan. I made the statement: Well, let's find out where he is, and I did. I checked into it and arranged to go by to see him as I left for Afghanistan, but I didn't see him because on September 9, 2011, Chris Horton was killed in action. Now, after all of Jane's sacrifices in losing her husband in the line of duty, it seemed unimaginable to me that she should have to deal with the further pain of a dollar-for-dollar offset in her benefits as a Gold Star spouse. So we have worked with Jane and the other Gold Star spouses for a long time to figure out how we can do this in a responsible way. That hasn't been talked about so far, but we did it. So it has happened over a period of time. Similarly, supporting the Afghan partners who sacrificed so much to help us help their country has long been a bipartisan priority. Everyone involved in this conference, including the Department of Defense, recognized the importance of fixing the medical malpractice issues in a commonsense fashion. I understand my colleagues' concerns. We have worked hard to make each of these provisions fiscally responsible, and we will continue to do that. There is a document, which nobody reads anymore, called the Constitution. The Constitution says that our top priorities here should be defending America. That is what we are supposed to be doing. Each of these provisions enables us to better defend America and allows us to take up this bill and actually pass it for the President to sign. So I urge you to vote to allow this bill to move to final passage so that we can send this legislation to the President's desk, where he said he would sign it immediately, and he will. By doing so, it will send a clear message to our troops and adversaries that this body is serious about America's national security. Vote on Motion to Waive Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of the act and applicable budget resolutions for the purpose of the conference report to accompany S. 1790, and I ask for the yeas and the nays.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as I have reminded you all many times, this is the 59th straight year we will be passing the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Bill. It has passed for all these years in a row because we all know just how important it is. It is the most important thing we do around here. We are building on nearly six decades of bipartisan support for our troops and national security. This year, I am glad to say, it is no different. We all came together to produce a conference report that is good for all of America. The House passed it overwhelmingly; the Senate passed it overwhelmingly. We voted for it overwhelmingly yesterday. And the President says he will sign it immediately. I am grateful to the President for understanding the importance of this bill. This bill means everything for our national security. Every American benefits from a strong national defense. Their lives, their livelihoods, their freedoms are all because we fight to protect them. When I go around my State of Oklahoma, people think we have the best of everything militarily. We have the best people. We have the best soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. There is no doubt about it. But we can do better when it comes to giving them the best equipment and the best training. That is what this bill does. It does that. The backbone of a strong national defense is the force--the men and women who lay their lives on the line each and every day. When I travel around, I like to take some time to meet with the enlisted guys in the mess halls. You can learn more from them than you can learn from some of the brass. They are the ones who really know what it is that we can do to effectively build a strong national defense. We get to hear what they are worried about. We get to hear how we can support them. They need the training and equipment that makes them the most fearsome fighting force in the world. This bill does that. They need a safe roof over their heads and over the heads of their families, and this bill does that. They need to know that they have the full support of the U.S. Government throughout their service. This bill does that. At the end of the day, we have the best military in the world because of our people. We take care of them, and that is what this bill is all about. We are here today because of the brave men and women who wear and have worn the uniform. We are safe and prosperous and free because of them. That is what this bill is all about. The Senate just passed the Defense authorization bill for the 59th year in a row. There isn't much left around here that has that kind of longevity. It is a testament to the importance of the bill. It is also a testament to the hard work of the staff. They worked tirelessly to bring this conference report to the floor. I want to take just a moment to recognize and thank everyone who made this bill possible, starting with the Armed Services Committee staff, especially the staff directors, John Bonsell for the majority and Liz King for the minority. They are the ones who provided the leadership behind the scenes. They did most of the work. Then there is my partner, Senator Jack Reed. We are a real team. We know how to do things and have learned over the years how to do things right. I couldn't praise him more. In fact, we had a lot of obstacles this year that we didn't have before. If it hadn't been for Senator Reed and the staff working on it, we wouldn't have pulled this thing off. A few minutes ago, Senator Reed read the names of all of the members of the Armed Services Committee. I want to go ahead and get those in my statement here also. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names of the Armed Services Committee staff that were listed by Senator Reed be placed in the Record in my statement.

Mr. INHOFE. Again, I want to thank my personal staff, office staff, and floor staff. We need to pivot to our next task at hand: funding the Department of Defense. This puts financial resources behind all of the policies we just approved today. Our military leaders have told the Armed Services Committee over and over again--and I have repeated this several times--that stable, predictable, on-time funding is the most important way Congress can support our national defense. It is now 2\1/2\ months into the new year, and we got it done. To all of my fellow Members here, I thank you again for your support of the national defense authorization bill. Merry Christmas. I yield the floor.

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 for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for as much time as I need.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have 6 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 17, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 17, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Lanny Erdos, of Ohio, to be Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 17, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 17, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: John Hennessey-Niland, of Illinois, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Palau, Dorothy Shea, of North Carolina, to be Ambassador to the Lebanese Republic, Todd C. Chapman, of Texas, to be Ambassador to the Federative Republic of Brazil, and Donald Wright, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the United Republic of Tanzania, all of the Department of State. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 17, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Paul J. Ray, of Tennessee, to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 10, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.