Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to recognize a titan of defense thinking, Andrew Marshall, who passed away at the age of 97 on March 26, 2019. Mr. Marshall was the founding father of the Department of Defense's Office of Net Assessment. From its creation, he served as its director for over four decades, leaving an indelible mark on our defense institutions. He finally retired in 2015, at the age of 93. In his role, he piloted rigorous analysis of critical national security issues, rooted in his unparalleled institutional knowledge. This is why he was often called the `Yoda' of the Pentagon. His groundbreaking work shaped how the Department of Defense responds to long-term challenges and paved the way for a nimbler, more modern force. Despite its relatively small budget, the Office of Net Assessment has had an outsized impact on military thinking. In particular, he foresaw the threats posed by the then-Soviet Union and, more recently, China. Mr. Marshall's legacy goes beyond strategic thinking. He also trained the next generation of defense analysts, including the current Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, ensuring his knowledge lasts into the future. Our Nation is more secure because of Mr. Marshall's important work. We owe a great deal of debt to him, and I am thankful for the opportunity to commemorate him today.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I rise today to honor GEN Joseph L. Votel, of the U.S. Army and the Commander of United States Central Command. General Votel is one of our Nation's finest military officers, and he will retire from Active military duty on May 1, 2019, bringing to a close 39 years of distinguished service to our great Nation. In 1980, General Votel was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the infantry upon graduation from the United States Military Academy at West Point. He commanded units at every echelon, from platoon to theater, with duty in Germany, Italy, Sarajevo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United States. As a young officer, General Votel deployed with 75th Ranger Regiment in support of Operation Just Cause. He later commanded the 1st Ranger Battalion at Hunter Army Airfield in Georgia. General Votel commanded the 75th Ranger Regiment and led them on deployments in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Later he served as deputy commanding general of the 82d Airborne Division in Operation Enduring Freedom. As a general officer, he served in the Pentagon as the Director of the Army and Joint IED Defeat Task Force and subsequently as the Deputy Director of the Joint IED Defeat Organization established under the Deputy Secretary of Defense. He served as the Deputy Commanding General and then Commanding General of the Joint Special Operations Command headquartered at Fort Bragg, NC. He also served as the Commanding General of U.S. Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. Most recently General Votel has served as the Commanding General of U.S. Central Command. At a time of great uncertainty in the world, General Votel has led an incredible combatant command that has an enormous influence and presence in some of the most volatile parts of the globe. He has led the way in strategic relationships with our partners and allies that have made our country safer. General Votel is an exceptional leader, an American patriot committed to our Armed Forces, our national security and our Nation, but most importantly, General Votel is a great man of character. It is for GEN Joe Votel, 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 nearly four decades. We thank General Votel, his wife Michele, and their two grown children, Scott and Nicholas, for their dedication and sacrifice, and we wish them well in the years to come.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, today I wish to recognize Terry Dupree, a gentleman who has worked diligently serving the people of Oklahoma throughout his career with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 38 years. Terry began his career with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service performing work involving the conservation, propagation, management, protection, and administration of wildlife species. Terry dedicated his life to implementing and advancing practices necessary for the conservation and management of wildlife resources and habitats. His experience and expertise has proven invaluable to the fish and wildlife community throughout his career. This hard work eventually led him to become a leader within the Partner for Fish and Wildlife Program, which provides technical and financial assistance for the restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat on private lands. I am incredibly proud of the work he has put in over the years for the people of our great State of Oklahoma. I want to thank Terry Dupree on his years of service and wish him well in his retirement. Well done, Terry.

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, just like last year, I remain deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in Yemen, as well as the erratic behavior of Saudi Arabia's leadership. We have all suffered through that. However, I oppose the resolution brought forth by Senators Lee, Murphy, and Sanders, which, if implemented, would end all security cooperation with our partners in Yemen against the Houthis. First of all, we are not engaged in hostilities in Yemen against the Houthis, and here is what we are doing in Yemen: We are providing intelligence support that helps construct no-strike lists that enable humanitarian efforts and protect humanitarian aid workers. Some of these workers are workers we are very close to--our allies. Our intelligence support is also vital to assisting our partners in defending themselves against the Iranian-supported ballistic missile attacks. It is important to emphasize that our partners are the tip of the spear, not us. Beyond this, our security cooperation provides leverage that we have used with the Saudi-led coalition to advance peace negotiations. If we pull that support, here is what we can expect: Israel loses, Iran wins, and the humanitarian situation will get worse. I think we all understand that. Our partners will be less capable to confront the lethal ballistic missile threat, and peace efforts will lose a vital line of support. Moreover, if a ballistic missile hits a population center and kills Americans because we, due to the resolution, withheld intelligence, it would be unforgiveable. That is why I introduced an amendment to specifically protect our civilian population. In closing, the vote is not about whether we approve of Saudi Arabia's behavior; I don't. It is about whether we will use our leverage with the Saudi-led coalition to ensure humanitarian access and promote peace, and, more fundamentally, it is about whether we take seriously our responsibility to keep Americans safe. That is really what this is all about. It merely includes that we would eliminate the threats to civilian population centers in coalition countries, including locations where citizens and nationals of the United States reside. I can't imagine anyone would be opposed to that. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. INHOFE. It was my understanding that before the vote on my amendment, I would be recognized prior to the vote for 1 minute or so. Is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of controversy about this. I think the main thing for me at this late hour in relation to use of force--ours is not that type of activity there. We are on the outside. We are providing intelligence. We are not the tip of the spear. We are not the inductee in that type of action. I would just say that if they are successful in their efforts, then the loser would be Israel. Iran would be the winner, and the humanitarian situation would be worse. I think most of us understand that. The amendment we are talking about right now is merely an amendment that would put us in a position where, if a ballistic missile or cruise missile or UAV hits a population center and kills Americans, because we, due to the resolution, withheld intelligence, it would be unforgiveable. I think we all understand that. American lives could be lost. That is why I introduced an amendment to specifically protect civilian populations. I am talking about not just other countries but our civilian population. We all know the exposure is there, and this would take that exposure away. Motion to Table

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for such time as I shall consume as the final speaker before the vote on the nomination.

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, we are going to vote in just a few minutes to confirm Andrew Wheeler to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. There is no one better to serve in this role, and I would know. Andrew worked for me for 14 years in both my personal office as well as in my capacity as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. He was with the committee back when President Trump nominated Andrew as Deputy Administrator. I said: There is no one more qualified. There is no one more qualified anywhere in America to handle this job than Andrew Wheeler. He has been Acting Administrator for the last 7 months. Let's keep in mind that he was the most qualified person 7 months ago, and now he has had 7 months on the job, and he has done a really great job. He has been the Acting Administrator. It didn't really start when he came on board with any of the governmental Agencies. He has always been concerned about nature and the environment. The guy was an Eagle Scout. In fact, I remember the discussions of people who were with him when he was actually climbing Mount Kilimanjaro. It was with a group of people who were interested in nature and the environment. This came early on with him. So he has the ability to lead the Agency. I have always enjoyed following his career. After earning a law degree at Washington University in St. Louis, he joined the EPA as a special assistant in the Agency's Pollution Prevention and Toxics Office in 1991. I am talking about 30 years ago. This guy has been there for a long time. For all practical purposes, he has grown up in that particular discipline. He was an EPA employee for 4 years, transitioning to the George H. W. Bush administration and then the Clinton administration after that, where he earned three Bronze Medals for commendable service along the way. By the way, I doubt if there are too many people in this Chamber who know what that is. So I am going to read it to you. The Bronze Medal is given for ``significant service or achievements in support of the Agency's mission or for demonstration of outstanding accomplishments in supervision and leadership.'' That is Andrew Wheeler. He received three of those. I know you have heard a lot of people opposing him. Regretfully, there are a lot of people opposed simply for the reason that this is a nominee of the President. We went through this with Mr. Kavanaugh. We heard all of these things, and people now look back, and many of them regret that they said the things that they said. It is awfully hard to be critical of Andrew because he is such a nice guy. He left the Agency. He brought the sense of service and leadership with him to the U.S. Senate, where I had a front-row seat because he worked for me for 14 years. He just did really tremendous work. There were never any complaints about him. He knew what he was doing. Again, with a 31-year background, there is nothing that he doesn't know about the mission. Andrew started in my personal office as chief counsel and transitioned to staff director for a Senate subcommittee. I was a subcommittee chairman at the time on the subcommittee called the Clean Air, Climate Change, Wetlands, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee. He was the one who did all the work, and I took the credit, but it worked. In 2003, when I became the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Andrew became our chief counsel. Over the next 6 years, he would eventually become staff director and we worked closely together on highway bills, energy bills, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, and the Clear Skies Act. I can remember when this was taking place because someone who was a very close friend of mine and is no longer here, Barbara Boxer from California, worked together on these things. It was really kind of funny. Philosophically, we were opposed to each other as much as two people could be, but we accomplished everything. We accomplished the things that other people were not able to accomplish. It is only natural that the President would nominate Andrew to be the Deputy Director at that time of the EPA. That was last April. He was confirmed in a bipartisan vote. I will always remember that he gave a speech over at the EPA. It was kind of a welcome speech at that time. That was the day that he was confirmed as Deputy Director of the EPA. I think every single employee was in there, really, to kind of pay homage to him. It is a big deal. Here is a guy who started 30 years ago at the bottom. He is just a normal person in the bureaucracy, and all of a sudden--not all of a sudden, it took him almost 30 years to do it--he climbs up to become Deputy Director. So he was really a model. He was a model to those 200 or 300 people. Andrew didn't even know this as he was making his initial speech, but I watched the looks on their faces, and the model that he was for them was that there is room at the top. Here is a guy who climbed all the way up, and he reached the top. He knows what it takes to ensure that our environment is cared for within the laws passed by Congress. He will ensure that all stakeholders are heard, and he will provide certainty and stability for the regulated community. That is a switch. One of the reasons I ran for Congress in the first place many years ago was the fact that I was a builder and developer and I was overregulated. I know what it is like firsthand. He will be a good steward of the environment without punishing our States, without punishing our farmers, and without punishing our job creators just for the sake of it. Those days are behind us. Andrew has worked on these issues for his entire 28-year career, and I am honored that he chose to spend half of his 14 years working for me. So I have directly benefited from his service. The U.S. Senate has benefited from his leadership, and now America will benefit as well. Let's vote Andrew in and put him to work.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, the rules governing the procedure of the Committee on Armed Services have not changed for the 116th Congress. Pursuant to rules XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Reed, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

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 would like to offer my congratulations to Tom Fontana, special assistant to the CEO for the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, CVC, on his retirement after 30 years of Federal service. Tom began his career at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1988. He was responsible for communications for one of the Corps' largest projects, the renovation of the Pentagon in the 1990s. He eventually joined the U.S. Department of Defense, where he continued working to successfully completing the project. Tom was at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, when a plane hijacked by terrorist crashed into the building. While Tom had just accepted a position with the Architect of the Capitol, AOC, to manage communications for the construction phase of the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, due to the tragedy, he remained in his position at the Pentagon to lend assistance before assuming his role with the CVC in 2001. Throughout the construction of the CVC, Tom provided countless tours and briefings to Members of Congress, including leadership and their staff. Given his depth of knowledge, responsiveness, and evenhandedness through that challenging time, Tom earned great respect from the Members of Congress and the media in Washington. In 2008, Tom subsequently assumed the role of director of communications and marketing for the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center. Under Tom's leadership, the CVC communications division expanded from providing the basics of a startup operation, to providing a wide range of communications to help visitors learn about the Capitol and workings of Congress. He has always looked for ways to take advantage of new technologies to engage visitors, students in particular, about Congress's history. Under his leadership, the first AOC apps were developed, and one of them received a national award for its innovation. For many Members of Congress, dignitaries, AOC, and CVC staff, Tom is the authoritative voice on the Capitol Visitor Center. He is widely respected for his unique knowledge about the Capitol building and grounds. From presenting inspiring tours to engaging visitors who are simply seeking directions, he personifies an experience all visitors expect when they come to the U.S. Capitol. Tom is an ambassador for the CVC, the Capitol, and Congress without equal. Tom has also been an incredible asset to me and my office throughout his leadership at the CVC. Every year, I host a unique dinner on Capitol Hill for governmental leaders from all over the continent of Africa, including heads of state, legislators, and cabinet members. Ambassadors and guests who are key leaders in Africa also attend, along with several U.S. legislators. Prior to the dinner, we provide the guests with a tour of the Capitol to learn more about our Capitol building and the workings of Congress. Throughout all of the years I have held the tour and dinner, Tom has gone above and beyond what was required to make our guests feel welcome and to ensure that everything runs smoothly. His role in the success of our event has become so essential that, several years ago, we began inviting Tom to the dinner not only to support it, but to take part in it. Tom leaves big shoes to fill. My Senate colleagues and I appreciate Tom's hard work and commitment to our Capitol and country. He will be missed, but I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am here to speak today with a heavy heart from the sudden and untimely passing of my dear friend and confidant, Bill Burgess of Lawton, OK. Bill spent his entire life in service to Oklahoma and the Nation, and his loss will be felt throughout the State. Bill was a talented attorney, businessman, and civic leader. Among many different titles Bill held throughout his career, he served the State he loved on the Oklahoma Board of Regents for Higher Education and the University of Oklahoma Board of Regents. Bill was widely recognized and respected as one of Oklahoma's outstanding leaders, and he was inducted into both the Oklahoma Hall of Fame and the Oklahoma Higher Education Hall of Fame. As a businessman who developed the largest software engineering company in Oklahoma and the owner and publisher of the Lawton Constitution, Bill was admired for his entrepreneurial ability and success. A tireless advocate for Oklahoma business, he served stints as chairman of both the Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce and the Oklahoma Business Roundtable. I worked closely with Bill in his role as civilian aide to the Secretary to the Army and am so thankful to have a man of such integrity, character, and grit in this position. If you spent any time at all around Bill, you were sure to know that he was the son of a sergeant major, the ``backbone of the Army.'' Friends say that growing up in the house of a non-commissioned officer gave him a love not only for the Army but also for the enlisted men and women who serve their country. Bill was incredibly proud of his dad's service to our Nation and continued that tradition of service. No one loved, admired, and supported our men and women in uniform more than Bill. Kay and I are praying for Bill's family, friends, and many loved ones in this extremely hard time. Bill was an exceptional leader, a loving father, and an incomparable friend. I am blessed to have known him, and he will be sorely missed by myself and the rest of Oklahoma.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, it is my privilege to pay tribute to Christopher Mann as he prepares to leave his position as a detailee for the Senate Committee on Armed Services and return to his position as an analyst in defense policy and trade for the Congressional Research Service. For the past 3 months, Mr. Mann has assisted the committee and its members with high-priority work on the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, with a particular focus on issues relating to defense spending and the budget. His contributions to our committee's work have been significant and highly valued by our staff On behalf of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, I thank Mr. Mann and wish him future success as he continues to support the U.S. Congress and its staff.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, it is our privilege to pay tribute to Daniel Glickstein as he prepares to leave his position as a detailee for the Senate Committee on Armed Services and return to his position as an analyst for the Government Accountability Office. For the past 11 months, Mr. Glickstein has assisted the committee and its members with high-priority work overseeing defense contracting reform. His contributions to our committee's work have been significant and highly valued by our staff. On behalf of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, I thank Mr. Glickstein and wish him future success as he continues to support the U.S. Government.

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 to waive the time and start the vote now.

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

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. President, more than 100,000 people and families will join together in the March for Life in Washington that is going to take place tomorrow. They will brave the cold--there is supposed to be sleet and bad weather--for one simple reason, to give voice to the voiceless, the unborn, our most vulnerable among us but are still deserving of the right to life. Jeremiah 1:5 says: Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, Before you were born I sanctified you. To everyone who comes to the March for Life, know that we hear you, and we are standing with you, just as we have in the past. This is not a new topic, not for me to speak on either. Twenty-five years ago, I came down to tell a story. At that time, I was in the House. This has been going on for a long period of time. I came down here to tell the story of Hannah Rosa Rodriguez. This is a quote from 1992: 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 me some time ago on this floor. That was 1992. Ana Rosa Rodriguez is an abortion survivor. This is another group of people we haven't talked about very much on the floor. 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 agree 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 1992, but today we still don't have Federal protections for the babies who survive the brutal abortion process. I am working with Senator Sasse, who is leading the effort this year to reintroduce the Born Alive Abortion Survivor Act, which would ensure that a baby who survives an abortion will receive the same treatment as any child naturally born premature at the same age, without prescribing any particular form of treatment. That is just morally right, and I don't see how anyone could vote against something like that. We will find out. Just a few years later, in 1997, I was on the floor of this body, the U.S. Senate, 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. I remember how active Senator Rick Santorum was at that time, a real leader in the pro-life cause. I spoke then, 1997, on the floor: I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding time. I think he made one of the best presentations I have heard on the floor of this body. I want to say that, when he deals with the facts, he is dealing with the facts but, you know, we are also dealing today with perceptions. I tried to make a list of those things I have heard over and over. There is a lot of redundancy on this floor, but there are some things that have not been stated. I would like to share a couple of those with you. I am going to do something that is a little unusual because I am going to read some Scriptures to you. It is not totally unprecedented in this body. In fact, I have done it many, many times. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia does it quite often. I was talking about Bob Byrd. We remember Bob Byrd. He is deceased now, but this was 1997, and he read Scriptures every day on the floor of this Senate. So I would like to read a couple of Scriptures, just for those who care. Anyone who does not, just don't listen. First of all, I have used this a number of times. Jeremiah 1:35 says: ``Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you.'' The 139th Psalm, no matter which interpretation you use, makes it very clear when life begins. Life begins at conception. Then I was, not too long ago, at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. I had been to the museum in Jerusalem, and I found the same thing was printed on the last brick as you are going through. This is Deuteronomy 30:19. It said: ``I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.'' Last, I am also concerned that something that is as dramatic and as significant as this issue is going to go unnoticed; that maybe there are Senators out there who are not really into this issue, and they might want to vote the party line or they might want to say, well, maybe there aren't as many of these procedures out there, so they just really are not knowledgeable on the subject. So I will read Proverbs 24:11-12: Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don't stand back and let them die. Don't try to disclaim responsibility by saying you didn't know about it. For God, who knows all hearts, knows yours, and He knows you knew. That is pretty specific. Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator from Massachusetts who said it does not do any good if we pass this because the President is going to veto it anyway. That was actually in 1997. The President, if you remember, at that time, I advised the chairman, was Bill Clinton. But I suggest to you that the President may not veto it, and if he does veto it, maybe some people will come over who were not here a year ago on this side of the aisle. See, this was 1997. It was pretty close back then. It could have gone either way. One individual at the time was Ron Fitzsimmons, who just last year insisted that the number of partial birth abortions were a relative handful now admits: ``I lied through my teeth.'' He was lying. So if the President is predicating his decision to veto this ban on the basis of what was told to him by Ron Fitzsimmons, there is every reason to believe he could turn around on the issue. I suggest also that we are talking now not just about a procedure but a culture. I have a very good friend by the name of Charles Colson. We all remember Chuck Colson. He is the guy who started the Campus Crusade for Christ. He gave these remarks upon winning the prestigious Templeton Prize for a contribution to religion. Listen very carefully. He puts it all together, not isolating one procedure or one issue. He said: Courts [like to] strike down even perfunctory prayers, and we are surprised that schools, bristling with barbed wire, look more like prisons than prisons do. Universities reject the very idea of truth, and we are shocked when their best and their brightest loot and betray. Celebrities mock the traditional family, even revile it as a form of slavery, and we are appalled at the tragedy of broken homes and millions of unwed mothers. The media celebrate sex without responsibility, and we are horrified by plagues. Our lawmakers justify the taking of innocent lives in sterile clinics, and we are terrorized by the disregard for life in blood-soaked streets. I think that puts into context what we are now approaching--that it is not just a normal type of abortion. I have a great deal of respect for one of the most intellectual Members of this body. Keep in mind that this is 1997. His name is Patrick Moynihan--a very good man. He is from New York. Not many people know that he actually lived in his early years as my neighbor in Tulsa, OK. Again, at that time, nobody knew it until I mentioned it. He was a self-proclaimed pro-choice Senator. He said: ``And now we have testimony that it is not just too close to infanticide; it is infanticide, and one would be too many.'' That is Patrick Moynihan. He is thought of and respected as one of the great liberal scholars of this body. This is where we get the numbers game. I heard it said on the floor many times that we are talking about maybe 1 percent or that maybe talking about those who are in the ninth month may be an infinitesimal number, but in fact, one is too many. It was said on the floor that we may be only talking about 200 lives being taken during the normal delivery process. That is when a baby is given a natural birth and, yet, they take the life by using this barbaric procedure. We have all kinds of documentation that it is being done in the ninth month and during the normal birth process. They say only 200--only 200 lives are taken. I agree with Patrick Moynihan. I am totally in a different philosophy than he is, but one is too many. I am from Oklahoma, and some of you remember that we lost 168 lives in the Murrah Federal Office Building bombing. This was the largest domestic terrorist attack in American history. Did anybody say that is only 168 lives that were lost in Oklahoma City? No, the entire Nation came with compassion and mourned with us. One life--I agree with Senator Moynihan--is too many. One other issue that has not been discussed in this debate this year--keep in mind that is 1997--is that of pain. Rather than go into it--I do not think anyone refutes the fact that a small baby, if that baby is certainly past the second trimester, feels pain every bit as much as anybody who is in here, as any Member of the U.S. Senate would feel pain. There was a study conducted in London, and I have the results here, but I think everyone understands that this is something that is very real--that these babies do feel pain. My junior Senator gave an excellent speech on the floor, and he talked about all of these issues in a different way, but he is doing it currently, and we are talking about now quite a number of years ago. I have a picture of a good friend of mine with me. His name is Jase-- James Edward Rapert. Back when people our age were having babies--I am talking about myself now. Kay and I have been married 59 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. We know a little bit about this. Back at that time when they were having babies, they wouldn't even let you in the hospital, let alone the delivery room. When my daughter Molly called up and said, ``Daddy, the time is here; could you come over,'' I went over to the hospital, and she said: Would you like to come into the delivery room? I said: Yes, I would. I saw for the first time what many of you in this room have seen and many of the women have experienced firsthand. I was there when this little guy was born. It is hard to describe to some of the men here who have not been through that experience of seeing this wonderful life begin, and I can remember when, in that room where the delivery took place, it occurred to me that when baby Jase, my grandson, was born, that is the moment when they could have used this procedure inflicting all of the pain you have heard described so many times: going into the cranium with the scissors, opening the scissors, sucking the brains out, and the skull collapses. That is pain, and there are individuals who want to keep a procedure like this legal. If you did that to a dog, they would picket in front of your office. Somehow, we have developed a culture that puts a greater value on the lives of critters than human life. I watched baby Jase being born. I suggest to those of you who are concerned about choice that this is really the choice. It is either that choice or this choice, and these choices we are facing today. This is something on which I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania. I was talking at that time about Rick Santorum. We should not be having to talk about it. To think that 100 years from now they may look back and talk about that barbaric society that killed their own young, and here we are just trying to save a few lives from a very painful death. Nonetheless, that is the issue we are faced with today. I gave that speech in 1997 and again in 1998 and year after year until we won the battle and finally ended the practice of partial-birth abortion in 2003--a ban that was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007. There is still much more that needs to be done to end abortion on demand culture. President Trump gets this. He was the first sitting President to speak at March for Life, and his administration has made real progress to advance the pro-life agenda. He has reinstated the Mexico City policy. We remember what that was. It was the one that bans taxpayer money from funding abortions abroad and directed the Justice Department to formally investigate Planned Parenthood. President Trump also directed the Department of Health and Human Services to expand religious and conscience exemptions to protect individuals' religious liberty. I am working in Congress to end the practice of abortion on demand that strips opportunity away from unborn babies and deprives them of the right to life. This week I have joined my colleagues in introducing five commonsense bills--this is taking place right now, as we speak--in addition to the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Act, by Senator Sasse, which I mentioned earlier in this presentation. The No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act, working with Senator Wicker, would establish a governmentwide statutory prohibition on taxpayer subsidies for abortion and abortion coverage-- simple enough. I am pleased that Majority Leader McConnell has set up a procedural vote for this bill today. There is the Life at Conception Act, which Senator Paul has, which would recognize that life begins at conception. The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, led by Senator Blackburn--one of our brand-new freshman Senators--would prohibit title X family planning funds. Those are taxpayer funds now being used to subsidize abortions. You might be wondering how that is different from the one just talked about. Here is how. Every year, Planned Parenthood receives nearly $60 million from the American taxpayer through title X family planning program. The program is intended to assist low-income women with family planning services. Unfortunately, this money is being used to subsidize massive organizations that engage in abortion activities, such as Planned Parenthood, and we need to stop that. The Protect Funding for Women's Health Care Act, led by Senator Ernst, would prohibit all Federal funding of Planned Parenthood. I also cosponsored the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, led by Senator Rubio, which would prohibit individuals from taking minors across State lines where they have lax laws just to have an abortion, stopping their States from having the jurisdiction. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I am cosponsoring Senator Graham's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prohibit abortions from being performed on unborn babies after 20 weeks, when we know they can feel pain. Only five countries allow abortions after 20 weeks, including the United States and North Korea, and that is unacceptable. I wish to acknowledge a very important day. Religious Freedom Day is today. It is clear that our Founding Fathers recognized and enshrined the importance of religious liberty--one of our most precious and foundational religious freedoms, which allowed them to live their lives according to the teachings of the Bible. I have long been a strong advocate of the basic human right to freely worship, and I am glad we can take a moment today to recognize that. Anyway, all from speeches from 1992 and 1997--it is as true today as it was then. We are ready to start saving lives instead of taking the most vulnerable little lives, and we are ready now. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, in the floor speech that I gave last week on the ``Common Sense for Common Defense,'' I highlighted the fact that our competitors have increased their own military spending and focused on modernization and how we are going to have to do the same. When I talk about competitors, I am talking about China and Russia. I think this President did a good job of outlining our national defense system and putting it into different categories, because when you talk about China and Russia--not many people are aware of this--China and Russia have increased all during the years that we have decreased. They have actually caught up, and, in some cases, have actually passed us. Our men and women in uniform are outstanding representations of what is right in America. Their drive and determination is the reason the United States of America has the honor of being the leader of the free world. That honor, however, is the product of hard work, not birthright. We earned it. But over the last 10 years, our military supremacy has slowly degraded. General Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has acknowledged that our qualitative and quantitative advantage has eroded. Toward the end of the Obama administration, with many of our systems, like our brigade combat teams, only 35 percent of them could be deployed because of what happened to the defense budget and our maintenance capabilities. The same thing happened to our Army aviation brigades. The same thing happened to our F18s. It is the Marines that fly the F18s, and we only had 30 percent of those that could be deployed toward the end of the Obama administration. This is something that people are not aware of. This is very significant. We need to pay attention to this, if there is ever any question. Constant dollar defense spending dropped $200 billion from 2010 to 2015. That was in the last 5 years of the Obama administration. In 2010, the budget was $794 billion, and then 5 years later, it dropped down to $586 billion. That is unprecedented. Even after the Korean war, it didn't drop that much, but, nonetheless, it did. It has never happened before, and we have to make up for it. That is exactly what we are doing. Our fiscal year 2018 budget brought it back up to $700 billion. Our 2019 budget brought it back up to $716 billion, and we anticipate--and it has been mentioned several times--that in our 2020 budget it is going to be around $750 billion. We have a slide here that puts it in a little different perspective. As you can see from the slide, at the end of the Cold War, we had about the same number of fighter aircraft as our adversaries at that time-- that was Russia and China. It is very clear on this. The orange is the third generation fighters, and the blue is the fourth generation fighters. It shows that now we are getting into the fifth generation. Actually, at that time, we were way ahead of them. This is a thing of the past now. While we had the same amount, we were still superior because our aircraft were the newest and the most capable in the world. Our fighter aircraft--in fact, most of our military equipment--was better, more modern, and more effective than the Russians or the Chinese had. Now that has changed. During this most recent period of time, we went through about 10 years of not increasing the quality, and the numbers stayed the same. So we got to the point where many of the things the Chinese and Russians had were better than what we had. As demonstrated on the chart, our fighter force was reduced nearly 50 percent in total numbers over the last 25 years, and we failed to modernize. Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson, said our Air Force is too small to do what the Nation asks. Not only is it too small, but the average age of our aircraft is now 28 years old. How many of us in here drive a car that is 28 years old? In 1990, we brought over 500 aircraft a year--1990, 500 aircraft a year--but recently, that number has been reduced to 50 a year. When I go out and talk to people who are in my State of Oklahoma and anywhere around the country, there is the assumption that somehow we have the very best of everything. That used to be the case. That became the case after World War II, but then during the last 10 years is when things dropped down. We are going to have to do better because, at this rate, it would take us over 40 years to modernize a fleet that is already too old and too small. Meanwhile, our adversaries have transformed their aircraft fleets with modernization programs and have increased their overall size and capabilities. In fact, the Chinese and Russian air forces have recapitalized and are now, or soon will be, fielding aircraft with capability matching our own but at a much faster rate. If they get to the point where we are in terms of modernization, they are already way ahead of us in terms of numbers. According to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Goldfein, if we take no action, both the Russian and Chinese forces will be bigger and more technologically advanced than us. We know this is true. Artillery is measured in terms of rapid fire and range, and that is where we are falling behind them. The problem is not just the Air Force. The Army, likewise, has gotten smaller and less capable in the same decade. Specifically, in terms of long-range fires--defined as tubed artillery and tactical missiles--you can see the same trend. This is our artillery system. There are three different types of artillery, but you can see now that as time has gone by, we have actually fallen behind. If you look at us over here, in 2018, our total is 2,886, as opposed to 22,000 for the Russians and 10,000 for the Chinese. The numbers are there, and we know that is happening, and we know it is taking place as we speak. In the last 25 years, we have kind of rested on that advantage that things were better than they had. While our adversaries have also reduced the amount of long-range fires over the same period of time, they have significantly modernized their force. We are now in a situation where both of these countries--that is, Russia and China--not only have more artillery than us, but theirs is better than ours. GEN Mark Milley, the Army Chief of Staff said: ``In terms of artillery, the Army is outgunned and outranged by our adversaries.'' Unfortunately, people don't know this, and people are going to have to know this to know what happened to us in the last decade. One can look at the devastating results from Russia's action against the Ukrainian army. We all remember that in 2014 they made it possible through the modernization of their artillery systems. The results were there. They were. They inflicted damage. Recognizing the problem is normally the first step in developing an acceptable solution. The fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 budgets got us back in the right direction, but in fiscal year 2018 we have gone up to $700 billion for a defense budget and in fiscal year 2019 to $716 billion. So we are on the road to recovery. We recognize, the people in this body know, what has happened to our abilities and our superiority in these areas that is no longer there. This is kind of interesting. We had a hearing on this the other day. Of all the presentations I have heard, the assessment and recommendations of the National Defense Strategy Commission--that is what this book is right here--was put together a few years ago. They have actually made these assessments and come to the conclusion that if we want to do something--what they have come up with in this is a formula as to what it is going to take right now and for the foreseeable future. They say all of our defense budgets coming up are going to have to be an increase of somewhere between 3 percent and 5 percent above inflation. Of course, that is exactly what these 3 years will do, so we are making headway in that respect. This growth projection is also one our Secretary of Defense as well as our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff say is going to be necessary for us to get back up even with and competitive with both Russia and China. I can remember not long ago being in the South China Sea and watching China actually building islands. It is not legal, but they do it anyway. If you look at what is on these seven islands out there, it is as if they are preparing for World War III. Our allies in the South China Sea are very much concerned about this as to whose side they are going to be on if this happens. We don't want to shortchange our national security. We fully implement the national defense strategy, as found in this book, in a timely manner by avoiding continuing resolutions and eliminating the threat of sequestration. A continuing resolution is something where, if we don't get along in this body, we don't pass our appropriations bills as we are supposed to pass, then we end up passing a continuing resolution that continues what we have done in the previous year. We can't continue to do that. The already widening gap with Russia and China will only grow faster if we don't change our behavior. That is exactly what we plan to do. We need to fix this if we are going to do it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.