Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, before the Senator from Missouri leaves, confession is good for the soul, and I want to share something that will shock him, which is that there are a number of things that I did when I was in high school and in college that are not very prominently displayed in my campaign material. So, there, I have said it. We had a vote this morning, but a lot of people who have been on the phone today have not really been sure what we did with that vote this morning. We had the vote this morning because we had to move forward in order to have the final consideration of this great nominee tomorrow. It was filibustered by the Democrats, and, of course, we had to do a cloture vote. I know this is somewhat in the weeds here, but that is what we have to do. That vote took place. At some time tomorrow we will actually have this vote. I start by saying that I am enthusiastically a ``yes'' vote tomorrow. I think that goes without saying. I met with Judge Kavanaugh in my office back when he was first nominated. In fact, I have studied him before. I remembered him when he was nominated the first time, about 6 years ago, and I talked to him at that time. I thought: Well, has he really changed that much? Is it necessary? I even said: It is really not necessary; I have followed his career and all of that. But he came by anyway. The things that I like--and I am not a lawyer--are the things that he did that show him as a human being, more than just a nominee to be a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court--the human things that he did. I know for a fact because I talked to her--one of his good friends who died had a wife and two girls, like his two girls. When back-to-school night comes, he takes those two girls with his to back-to-school night. This is the type of thing he does. We have heard all of the warm things about what he has done as a coach and other things. That is the human being I know. Meeting with him wasn't necessary because I was sold on him anyway after looking at his record. On the eve of Kavanaugh's nomination, heading toward certain nomination, we were hit by a bomb. It was an uncorroborated attack that the Democrats sat on for 2 months. That is critical. You have to stop and think about that. Why would they take something they thought was so important to destroy this fine man and wait for 2 months and sit on it? I am surprised they didn't let it slip. It is just because they wanted to make sure people were talking about it. The details of the allegation were of the worst kind--an aggressive, ugly sexual attack. Sexual assault and violence is wrong, period. It is wrong, and so many women who experience sexual assault and harassment do not feel empowered to come forward even years later--maybe never. It is also unjust for someone to be accused of a crime that he or she did not commit and be convicted in the court of public opinion without any evidence or corroborated accounts. It is hard to wrap your head around the fact that someone who has been in the public eye for decades, respected by his colleagues, his law clerks, his students, his friends, his family--everyone--and never had a whisper of wrongdoing in all of those years, and all of a sudden he is accused of such a heinous crime. Like many Americans, I watched the hearing last Thursday in the hope that it would provide more clarity and some answers, and I think it did. It would be easy to get wrapped up in the conflicting media coverage and all the spin and so on; instead, I looked at what we know to be true--what we know to be true. The people Dr. Ford places at the scene that night have either denied the events or do not recall any party or gathering that matches her description, so that is an idle accusation. Her lifelong friend--in fact, some people characterize her as her best friend--is a person Dr. Ford named in her allegations as the only other girl at that small gathering. So here is a small gathering; she is accusing him of this behavior. There was one other girl there, and the other girl says that she does not know Brett Kavanaugh and has never attended a party where he was there. It can't be more definite than that, and that is from her best friend. When Dr. Ford's testimony is compared to other statements that she made to her therapist, to the Washington Post, to the ranking member, and her statement for the polygraph exam, there are various inconsistencies that should not be ignored. Dr. Ford's inability to remember key details of the alleged attack-- things like the date, the place, and other circumstances surrounding the event--places Judge Kavanaugh in a difficult position to defend himself as Democrats and the media unjustly shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. I don't remember that happening before. This is still America. From the beginning, Judge Kavanaugh has categorically denied the accusations and has not wavered or equivocated on this point. He has cooperated with the Judiciary Committee's investigation--that is Senator Grassley's committee--every step of the way, including speaking with committee staff under oath several times over the course of the last couple of weeks and providing documentation to help clear his name. He has done it all. Everything we have asked of him, he has done. On the other hand, Dr. Ford's attorneys have refused to turn over key evidence that her testimony relied on to corroborate her claims: her therapist's notes that were shown to the Washington Post but not to the committee, messages she exchanged with the reporter, the documentation, and the recordings related to the polygraph test she took in early August. They were refusing to turn over key evidence. They didn't have any evidence they could turn over, so no wonder there are no witnesses who can corroborate the accusations that have been made against this fine man. I am not going to go into the other allegations. There are two others that came along. The timing of this is kind of interesting. First of all, they withheld this document that Dr. Ford had for 2 months. It is hard to keep a secret around this place, and I am surprised that didn't come out. They did it for a purpose. What do you think that purpose was? What other purpose could it have been, other than they were waiting for the last minute to come out with something that was never discussed before? No other accusation had been made. That is what happened. Based on the totality of what we know, to condemn anyone for an offense that has been denied and not proven--I would caution anyone against doing the same thing. John Adams, our second President of the United States, wrote--now listen to this--``But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say `whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.'' That is what he said. Let's look at what Scripture says. Numbers 35:30 says: If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses. But no person-- No person-- shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. Think about that. That is a direct violation of what they are trying to do. So you have Adams, you have the Bible, and then there is our judicial system. It is reflected in our judicial system as well: innocent until proven guilty. It is more than just a phrase; it is a cornerstone of the rule of law since before our founding, and its wisdom has been borne out time and again throughout history: Innocent until proven guilty. That is really what is on trial here: innocent until proven guilty. I have never seen this happen before, and I have been around for a long time. It cuts through the drama and focuses on the facts. That is why I continue to support Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation. Judge Kavanaugh's name has been unjustly run through the mud by these subsequent allegations that even the New York Times did not deem fit to print and that were brought forth by a known publicity seeker with an ax to grind against the President, looking for nothing but attention and more fame for himself I am dismayed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have taken these uncorroborated and fantastical allegations at face value and run with them. I feel the Democrats showed their hand in the days since last week's hearing when the agreement on the supplemental FBI background investigation was made. The narrative has shifted from allegations of sexual misconduct to ones of judicial temperament, as my friend from Missouri pointed out. I am not a lawyer, but everyone knows the saying that if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table. That is what we are hearing right now. The difference here is that the Democrats are trying to outdo each other in pounding the table. They know the allegations are not proven. They know that Judge Kavanaugh remains committed to his innocence and the process, and they know that Republicans will remain committed to the facts, so they must change tactics, move the goalpost one more time, and attack him on other grounds. The first of these is to question his temperament. Because he defended himself, his family, career, and his name so forcefully and passionately, he did not demonstrate the calm, measured, and detached demeanor that one should expect of a judge. Well, the problem with this characterization is that it ignores the fact that Judge Kavanaugh was not a disinterested party while hearing the arguments of opposing counsel. He was the subject of the accusations, and it was he who was being attacked and condemned. There is a big difference there. I dare anyone to be calm and dispassionate if they had to sit by for 10 days and watch and listen to everything they have worked for and have built over a long career of public service be torn down in an instant without any proof--without any proof at all--to see your high school yearbook picked apart by conspiracy theorists who seek nefarious meanings behind juvenile jokes and 30-year-old slang, to see your friends and family be threatened and harassed, and you can do nothing to stop the angry mob. This idea completely ignores the fact that Judge Kavanaugh has proved, over the 12 years that he has been on the bench of the second most powerful court in the country, that he does have the temperament we look for in our judges. This fact is supported by an ABA ranking of unanimously ``well qualified''--which is considered to be the gold standard for Democrats--and the countless testimonies by people across the political spectrum who have worked with him, who have argued a case in front of him, and who know him well. In the last few days, the discourse has further devolved into perjury claims based on the judge's drinking habits in high school and college. I will leave the legal arguments to those more knowledgeable than I in that department who have thoroughly debunked that particular myth. Suffice it to say, he testified that he liked beer. He drank beer, and sometimes he drank too much. He did some things in high school and college that maybe he now thinks he shouldn't have done, but that is what he did. He wasn't hiding anything when it came to drinking in his youth. He said that right up front in one of the earlier hearings. There were six background investigations by the FBI over the course of lengthy public service, decades in the public eye, and never has anyone brought any allegations or concerns to the attention of the investigators or the press in all of that time. I was here when he was up for the appellate judgeship, and none of this came up at that time. There is a difference here. I think the other side is--let's face it. The Democrats said at the very beginning: It doesn't matter who our President nominates to be on the Federal bench, we are going to oppose him. So here we have them opposing him. Well, with each new breathlessly reported account of a party, alleged ice-throwing incident, or juvenile jokes about passing gas or cussing from the early to the mid-1980s, it becomes clearer and clearer that Democrats are not serious in their concern about the more serious allegations as the focus of their attacks become more and more absurd and desperate. The fact that they have to focus on Judge Kavanaugh's school days further reinforces the idea that Brett has led an exemplary life as a husband, a father, and a public servant. I would like to take just a moment to commend my good friend from Iowa, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. My wife called this morning, and she said: Be sure you single him out and sit him down and tell him how proud I am of him. My wife and I have been married for 59 years, and when my wife is proud, I am proud. Once he was made aware of the allegations that the Democrats kept from him for weeks, he and his staff went right to work to investigate. They postponed the committee--this is the chairman we are talking about. They postponed the committee vote, gathered statements and other evidence, and offered Dr. Ford the opportunity to provide her testimony in any way that would be comfortable for her, eventually scheduling a follow-up hearing. All along the way, Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh were treated by our chairman of the Judiciary Committee with the respect they deserve and should have received, starting when the allegations were first brought to our attention. He and his staff have kept us informed in the Senate of the various investigations at almost every step in the process. The chairman has built a well-deserved reputation for protecting whistleblowers. This is one of the things he has been outspoken about for a long time, and he has protected them over the course of his career. He has proven himself once again during this process. I look forward to voting for Judge Kavanaugh. I would hope that we could put an end to the search-and-destroy campaign that is being waged by the Democrats and their enablers and this media, but I won't hold my breath. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, what is the order right now? It is my understanding, I say to my good friend from Illinois, that I was to be speaking and alternating back and forth. Is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask that I be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Let me ask my friend how long he would be, if I defer to him at this point.

Mr. INHOFE. All right, I am going to defer to the Senator for 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his remarks, I be recognized for such time as I may consume.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, amid all the unfounded, uncorroborated accusations and attacks on a fine jurist, I think it is important for us to remember that other things are happening here at the same time. For one thing, I will only make one comment about the comments of the previous speaker; that is, the program that is somewhat accurately described actually started not in the Trump administration but in the Obama administration. FAA Reauthorization Act Mr. President, what I want to say is that something really significant is about to happen; that is, something we have been waiting for for a long time. If you are not on the Commerce Committee, you are not dealing with this issue--actually, there are three committees dealing with it--and you wouldn't be aware of how significant the vote coming up really is. We are going to be voting to reauthorize the FAA. This is something we have been trying to do now for many years. This is actually a 5-year reauthorization. That is significant. The last time we did a 5-year reauthorization of the FAA was in the 1980s. It is a huge win, not just for the obvious good things that are going on and what we need to be doing to update the system we are working with, but if you single out general aviation and pilots, it is a big, major deal. The legislation makes needed investments in our Nation's airport infrastructure and supports the general aviation community. It improves commercial service for the flying public and streamlines the FAA regulatory process, eliminating a lot of the redtape that goes along with any bureaucracy. It enhances aviation security and promotes responsible and safe integration for drones in our national airspace. As an active pilot, I am especially pleased that many pilot protections I have fought for are in this bill. In fact, I am very proud that I actually introduced in committee and was able to get in the bill six of my amendments that I know are very significant, and they mostly address general aviation. It is going to have more transparency in communicating with the FAA. We have heard the stories about some of the FAA enforcement proceedings. That is common to a lot of bureaucracies. It strengthens one area: the notice to airmen. That is called NOTAM. NOTAMs are notifications to people who are pilots to let them know if they are going to land on a runway and if there is a problem on the runway and it is under construction or something like that. It came from a personal experience I had when I landed on one where there was work. But there were no NOTAMs. So there was no way of warning people. I remember that I said: Well, where are the NOTAMs, if you say there are NOTAMs? They said: Well, that is for you to find out. This changes all of that. We have the NOTAM reform that is in there. It includes the Volunteer Pilot Protection Act. That is like the Good Samaritan act. I remember that about 30 years ago, when I was mayor of Tulsa at that time, on the island of Dominica--not to be confused with the Dominican Republic--there was a radio conveyor that reached the entire Central America and a lot of South America, and it was wiped out by a hurricane. I remember getting 12 pilots together and 12 aircraft together and going to take medical supplies and take food and all of these things to that island. I actually had to fly through a hurricane to get down there. There were four people who were going to go and did not go because they might incur some kind of liability or they might do something on the way that would create that problem. The Good Samaritan law that is in this bill is something we have been working on for a long period of time and will allow people not to be punished for their generosity, which has been the case before. The bill directs the FAA to update regulations and policies related to this selection and training and designation of pilot examiners. There is a big problem. I experienced this personally just about 3 months ago. They are called DPE, or designated pilot examiners. There are not enough of them around. What we did with this bill was to add a new form of inspecting pilots that is going to allow one examiner to do twice as many pilots. Here it is in this bill. Without the proper examiners, the commercial pilots are prevented from obtaining the recurring qualifications, and flight schools are prevented from graduating students. There is a problem right now in the numbers of people who are out there who have passed and want to take examinations and are not able to do that. It also addresses the problem of contract towers. Contract towers are mostly towers you see around the country. The largest ones are called FAA towers. However, some of them are contract towers, so they are contracting with the private sector. Well, this is good. They do a good job. I would just suggest, though, that if we had not allowed for these contract towers, we wouldn't have, in my State of Oklahoma, some seven towers that would be out there. Two of those contract towers are in the cities of Stillwater and Norman, OK. Well, Stillwater happens to be the home of Oklahoma State University, and Norman is the home of Oklahoma University. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, on game day, if you are in there, going in with sometimes up to a thousand aircraft, and if you don't have a tower there, how is that going to work? Well, that is a recognition that that is a problem which needs to be dealt with, and that is in this bill. It also affects a lot of the airports that are adjacent to military bases. It updates the FAA's dated benefit process, ensuring that communities invest resources without unnecessary paperwork. The FAA reauthorization unlocks the economic growth potential of aviation it provides to local communities. We have in Oklahoma--not far from Tulsa, actually--a very small community called Bristow, and Bristow had two large industries that wanted to move in there and were not able to do it and were making a decision to go not to another community in Oklahoma but to another State. It wasn't as far as Alaska; it was not too far away from Oklahoma. So what we were able to do was leverage the State funding to put in these improvements to the airport. I was there during the dedication. Those two very large industries are moving in. People don't realize what an airport means to a local community in rural America. So this has provisions in there that will allow that to take place. There is another one I want to mention. If you are in a general aviation airport environment--now, that is not like DFW or Dulles or one of those; it is the smaller ones. In the Chair's State of Alaska, that is about all they have up there. If you are in that type of an environment, if you get Federal funds--and they all get Federal funds-- if you don't use those in a general aviation airport, they automatically, under current law, go to DFW or one of the giant airports. Under this, it is guaranteed that they will go to another general aviation airport, which is a huge win. Our Nation's aviation industry is facing a dire shortage of pilots. We have language in here that is going to be helpful. We all know about the problem--particularly those of us who are serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee--about the pilot shortage we have. We have some 2,000 pilots right now who are actually fighter pilots, but we have a shortage of pilots. One of the problems is that during the 8 years of the Obama administration, in the process of starving the military, they were not allowing their pilots in the Navy and the Air Force to fly more than 12 hours a month. This was something that can't be done, and consequently they were in the position of not being able to have them--well, in this bill, we are starting out and actually have language in a pilot program to allow students in high school to go through ground school, to get people interested in aviation. All that is in this bill. The programs-- there is a wide array of public and private sector stakeholders dedicated to furthering aviation and an accessible future career path for pilots. I applaud the reforms in the FAA's process for certifying aircraft and aircraft products. One of the problems we have had out there is that people are building--I am talking about major builders or experimental builders-- aircraft and then not being able to get them certified because of the long certification process. We have shortcut that and have the same amount of requirements in this bill, but we will be able to almost double the number of certifications. So that is happening right now. I thank Senator Thune and Senator Nelson and the committee for acknowledging that we finally have to do it. For 10 years now, I have been sitting around waiting for a reauthorization bill and have been talking to people about the consequences. Now, finally, after about 30 years, we have a reauthorization bill that is a 5-year bill. We are going to be voting on it shortly. It is going to be a great improvement. So other things are happening here. We are passing things. We are being productive. We will continue to do so as soon as this fiasco is over, the challenges to our fine Justice Kavanaugh. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

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 am pleased to recognize Mr. Gary Johnson on the occasion of his retirement. Gary has served as the airport director for the city of Stillwater Regional Airport, SWO for the past 32 years and has a lifelong dedication to the aviation community. Under his steady leadership, Stillwater Regional Airport has grown into one of Oklahoma's best general aviation and commercial airports. Earlier this year, Stillwater Regional Airport celebrated its 100,000th commercial passenger in less than 2 years--made possible because Gary brought regular commercial service back to the airport. Gary began his career in aviation by graduating from Southeastern Oklahoma State University with a bachelor's of science in professional aviation-business. In addition to being a pilot, he started his own fixed based operator, the Stillwater Flight Center, before becoming the airport director at Stillwater. As airport director, Gary has been a fixture in the Oklahoma aviation community, even serving as president of the Oklahoma Airport Operators Association twice. Gary was awarded the Airport Manager of the Year in 2017, the same year that Stillwater Regional Airport was recognized as Oklahoma Airport of the Year by the Oklahoma Airport Operators Association and the Federal Aviation Administration. At the Federal level, Gary has been a passionate advocate for aviation, serving on the board of the American Association of Airport Executives and as a vocal member of the U.S. Contract Tower Association, ensuring that all Members of Congress are aware of the importance of general aviation to their constituents and to their communities. I know that I join his family, the Stillwater Regional Airport, and the city of Stillwater community in thanking Gary for his years of service and contributions to the aviation community. Congratulations on your retirement.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Louise Abercrombie, a woman who has worked diligently serving the people of Oklahoma through her journalism career for 50 years. Louise began her career with the Ponca City News, gathering city briefs, walking almost 30 blocks a day. This hard work eventually led her to cover obituaries and religion and then the chamber of commerce beat and politics. Louise covered all aspects of community news in her career, becoming widely known for her accurate reporting and keen research skills. She has interviewed six Oklahoma Governors, covered five Presidents, many international leaders, and several Members of Congress. I personally had the privilege of working with her when she covered a countless number of my fly-ins over the years. I want to thank Louise Abercrombie on her years of service and wish her well in her retirement. Well done, Louise.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, reserving the right to object. Right now, there is a court case being heard in Texas on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. We are all aware of that. In their decision upholding the constitutionality of ObamaCare, the Supreme Court said that under the commerce clause alone, ObamaCare would be unconstitutional. It was only because of the individual mandate, which they saw as a tax, that ObamaCare was upheld. Last year, we eliminated the individual mandate in our tax cut, so the constitutionality needs to be revisited, which is what these States are doing. It would be inappropriate for the Senate to intervene in this case. Further, this resolution instructs all provisions of ObamaCare to be defended, including the medical device tax, the Cadillac tax, the health insurance tax, and other provisions that have proven extremely unpopular on both sides of the aisle. For that reason, I object.

Mr. INHOFE. I have already objected.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, while I have the floor, I want to make one comment about the statement that was made by my good friend from West Virginia. The States are looking at it now. In some of these areas, preexisting conditions, the Senator is correct; there is a broad support for this. For that reason, various States are now looking at it. I want to share something, since I have the floor. We have had an exciting day with the addition of a new Member, Jon Kyl. I want to mention one thing about Senator Kyl. Many years ago, Senator Kyl and I were actually elected to the House of Representatives on the same day, and we were elected to the Senate on the same day. I remember so well, many years ago, when I was first elected to the House, it happened that my father--I lived in Iowa at that time, and Jon's father was a Member of Congress. So the first thing he said to me was, when you get elected, go over and meet a guy named Jon Kyl. Never did I dream we would go through all of this, and we would be meeting again for the third time in another election. He will be a great addition. Everyone knows that no one can fill the shoes of our good Senator, John McCain, but certainly there is no one who comes closer than Jon Kyl, having served with Senator McCain for 20 years. I had an experience that I want to share this afternoon, something that happened in church on Sunday. On Sunday, I was at a church. It is a little rural church in Oklahoma called Church On The Lake. A guy named Mark Deckard is the pastor there. This is not my church. In fact, my wife and I, our church is the First Presbyterian Church in Tulsa. That is the church she and I were married in a number of years ago, where all of our kids were married, and where all of our kids were baptized. My wife was baptized there over 80 years ago. So no one is closer to that church than we are, but occasionally I will go to another church. Nobody actually knew I was going to be at this church last Sunday. I want to share an experience I had. A lady whom I didn't know came up to me. Her name is Lois Keene. She asked: Would you give this letter to President Trump? I don't think there is a Member of the Senate or the House who doesn't get this request quite often. It sounds quite easy to do, but it is not easy to do. After I read the letter, I decided this is something I really want to do. She asked: Would you give this letter to President Trump? I said: Is it OK if I read it? And I read it. It was a letter supporting him, recognizing--and this is someone from Afton, OK. It is so obvious to her what the press has done unmercifully to this President. I have never seen anything like it. She has never seen anything like it, and so she had something she wanted to give to me defending the President. I read it, and I said: You know, I have to say that these are not the words I would use. If I were defending the President, I would say-- because to get people's attention, when you have an unfriendly media, you have to simplify it so everyone understands it. So I said I would normally just talk about three issues. No. 1, the economy. Our economy right now at this time, we have not seen anything like it in 40 years. There are two indicators that you look at, one is economic growth. The economic growth during the last quarter actually exceeded 4 percent. It has been averaging over 3 percent. During the Obama years, for 8 years, it averaged 1.5 percent-- 1.5 percent growth--as opposed to at least doubling that or maybe three times that. Now, why is this important? It is important because for every 1 percent increase in economic activity, what that does is bring in new revenue equaling about $2.9 trillion over 10 years. What does that tell you? It tells you that when we are now going through and rebuilding the military and all of these things, the infrastructure, these are things we need to do, and they are going to cost money. That indicator is there. Then, also, there is the indicator in terms of employment. Our unemployment right now has actually dipped below 4 percent. Economists always say 4 percent is full of employment, and so we have that. The economy just couldn't be better than it is. It is undeniable, and yet nobody talks about it. The media doesn't talk about it. The second thing I would say is that everyone knows now what happened during the 8 years. I don't criticize former President Obama. He is what I call a real honest liberal. He is not a closet liberal. He comes out and says it. He believes we need to have more of a socialist society. We have lived through that. Someone with that belief is not going to be real strong in terms of building the military. We have gone through this military thing for about 8 years, and now we are defending--we passed the Defense bill, which we named after John McCain. That Defense bill is putting us back on the road for a strong national defense. People think erroneously that America has the best of everything, and they don't. Right now, we have gotten to the point where our--a lot of our systems--our triad system, for example, which is the modernization system, both China and Russia have one now that is better than ours. Our artillery systems--you measure our artillery by the range and by rapid fire, and we are outgunned by both Russia and China in those areas. We know what has happened. Right now, we are at the point where we have actually confirmed 26 appellate judges just in the short term that this President has been in. So I would be talking about that, but that is not what she said. It is true, and her observation is true, that it doesn't go unnoticed by people when you have the media that is really not treating the President right. By the way, I was a victim of this too. In fact, during the McCain discussion, after McCain's life was lost, several times on the floor I talked about the fact that way back in 1994, when I ran for U.S. Senate, there were only three Senators who came out to Oklahoma to help, and one of them was John McCain. He came out twice. We flew all over in my little airplane in about 100 degrees, and he campaigned for me. So he has been a good friend. Yet, by responding to one of the major medias in a way that I made some comment about the fact that we have two individuals, Senator McCain and President Trump, who just don't have a good relationship--everybody knows that--they tried to turn that into something that was negative that they wanted people to believe that I said. In fact, I was in St. Louis between flights, at about 10 o'clock at night, and shortly after that, someone jumped all over me and was convinced that I had said something negative, and it just flat was not true. So, anyway, I would like to read the letter before I tell you that I am going to try to pass this on to the President. So I read it. As I read the letter, there was a group, as can happen after a sermon takes place and people are all sitting around talking, and every head nodded with approval of this letter that this lady gave me. Here it is right here. That is her handwriting there. The letter says: Dear President Trump, I am writing this letter to encourage you. All across America God's people are praying for you. With all my heart I know God put you in office for such a time as this. He has given America a window of time. At this time there is a spiritual war going on for the soul of America. Good versus evil. That is why there is so much opposition against you and the Christian people. You have so many, many people praying for you. Stand strong. I know you are a warrior or God would not have placed you in office. You will continue to come against opposition because the enemy (Satan) will continue to fight you as he will God's people. The stakes are high! As God's warrior, continue to fight. We are fighting the battle with you on our knees. Many battles are won on our knees. Thank you for being our leader and our President! Our love is with you. Yours in Christ, Lois Keene Afton, OK So I would just say to the President: You are being butchered by the media. Everybody knows that. But keep in mind that America is full of Lois Keenes and they love you. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Judge Charles Goodwin of Oklahoma City on his confirmation today as a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Oklahoma. Judge Goodwin most recently served the Western District as a magistrate judge, and he has done so admirably and faithfully since his appointment in 2013. Judge Goodwin's service on the Federal bench, combined with his career as a civil litigator before various Federal district courts, U.S. circuit courts of appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court, and as a Federal law clerk provides him with the experience, knowledge, and perspective necessary to take on his new role of Federal district court judge. Furthermore, Judge Goodwin has been a leader on Federal civil procedure. He served as chair of the Western District's Local Civil Rules Committee, and, while in private practice, he taught seminars and authored articles on civil procedure for the Oklahoma Bar Association. Judge Goodwin is also active in his community, providing legal assistance to homeless veterans and volunteering in support of the improvement of public education in Oklahoma. During the process of looking for capable, well-qualified candidates for the Western District, my office heard from many people in the Oklahoma legal community who worked with Judge Goodwin for many years and know him best. I think these colleagues and legal contemporaries speak better to the type of man and judge he is, and I would like to share some of their thoughts with you. Kevin Donelson, current president of the Oklahoma Bar Association, wrote, ``I have personally appeared before Magistrate Judge Goodwin on a number of matters. He has been judicious and courteous in all of the matters that I have appeared before him. The United States of America and the Western District of Oklahoma would [be] lucky to have Magistrate Judge Goodwin be a United States District Judge.'' Seventeen former past presidents of the Oklahoma Bar Association wrote, ``Each of us knows Charles in person or by reputation and believes that he is highly qualified for this position. As a lawyer and a judge, Charles has always exhibited a high degree of ethical conduct, professionalism, competence, hard work, and, as a judge, exceptional judicial temperament. We are confident he would make an outstanding District Judge . . .'' Mr. Harry Wood, a supervisor and then colleague of Judge Goodwin's at Crowe & Dunlevy, wrote, ``In all my dealings with him, I found him to be extremely capable, highly dependable, very hard- working, and well organized.'' He went on to say, ``I found him given to decency, honesty, integrity, even temper and good humor . . . I cannot think of anyone that has a higher level of character, integrity, and judicial temperament.'' Mr. Daniel Webber, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney for the Western District, stated that Judge Goodwin as a litigator ``had a strong reputation for being a diligent but ethical advocate. I have never heard his integrity or his temperament called into question.'' Finally, I will leave you with some words from Chief Judge Joe Heaton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Judge Heaton wrote, ``I have reviewed various indicators of Judge Goodwin's productivity, such as the number of reports and recommendations generated by him and the complexity of the matters assigned to him. I believe his productivity to be fully comparable with that of the other magistrate judges of this court.'' Furthermore, Judge Heaton states, ``Based on his service here and his experience as a partner and practicing lawyer with one of Oklahoma's largest law firms, I believe Judge Goodwin is plainly qualified to be a U.S. District Judge.'' Based on Judge Goodwin's experience, expertise, and stature in the Oklahoma legal community, I have fully supported his nomination as a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Oklahoma and congratulate him on his well-deserved confirmation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Georgia. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Georgia that I be recognized for such time as I shall consider.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I can't think of anything more difficult than to speak after the last two speakers. Of course, I have known them for a long time. They are two totally different, opposite people. We have Susan Collins, who is a well-recognized moderate. She is one who understands and has great appreciation for the environment. She is not the kind of person you would associate with a tough guy like John McCain, who has gone out there and has done things that other people haven't done but just talked about. Then we heard the statement from the Senator from Georgia. You know, I was thinking about that. I am a few years older than he is. We have a lot of things in common. He was talking about his being drafted; I was drafted. I will always remember, I was actually enrolled many, many years ago--I was going to be at the University of Mexico in Mexico City in an international program. At that time, I was at the University of Colorado. I did all of my finals and all that early so that I could get back in time to go to Mexico. I got back to Tulsa, where I am from, and I got a letter from a very important person, the President of the United States. I thought, how nice of Eisenhower to remember me. It was my draft notice, so that changed my life. But it changed my life in a way that it was the greatest single experience I have ever had, and I wouldn't be doing what I am doing today if it were not for the discipline that comes from being in the military. We will always have heroes we deal with, and we are dealing with a hero when we deal with Senator McCain. I have often said that I think Timothy, who wrote 2 Timothy 4:7, had John McCain in mind when he said: ``I fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.'' That is exactly what he did. He was kind of a mean guy. A lot of people didn't like John McCain. He wasn't the most lovable person to be around. But he was a fighter. He never shied away from a good fight. He was passionate for the causes that he believed in and a strong advocate for human rights and Democratic values, standing up for oppressed people around the world. That is the softer side of John McCain that a lot of people don't know about. He was a fighter but not just a fighter; he was a fighter for the people of Arizona. After he returned from the time he had spent in prison, he got back to Arizona, and he started fighting again. He did that for 36 years after his incarceration. He was shaped by his own military service and that of his father and grandfather. It has been said several times in statements about his father and grandfather--and I have done some studying on them--that is really what formed John McCain. Both of them were admirals in the Navy, and it was natural that he was going to be in the Navy, and, of course, he was. During his time of leadership on the Senate Armed Services Committee, he continually focused on impact. There are those individuals--such as the occupier of the Chair right now--who have served on the Armed Services Committee with Senator McCain, and the Presiding Officer knows, as I know and as anybody else who has served with him knows, he was always for the underdog--always for the troops out in the field. I think the Senator from Maine articulated that very well. They were the people he had compassion for. He would always take care of the soldier, sailor, airman, and marine. He articulated this, by the way, in one of his books, ``Faith of My Fathers.'' He was talking about his father and grandfather. This quote says it better than any of the rest of us can say it. An officer's obligations to enlisted men are the most solemn of all. An officer must not confer his responsibilities on the men under his command. They are his alone. He does not put his men in jeopardy for any purpose that their country has not required they serve. He does not risk their lives and welfare for his sake, but only to answer the shared duty they are called to answer. That was Senator McCain. He looked after those individuals who were under his command. He was a ferocious opponent, but the key thing about Senator McCain was that he was willing to take on those tough debates, which have become more and more rare in this Chamber. We don't see them as we used to, but John would relish the debate, earning the respect and admiration of everyone. I can remember--there are so many areas because of all the years we served together, not just on the Senate Armed Services Committee but also his time in the House and my time in the House. We had differences of opinion. I think I am a little bit stubborn sometimes too. I remember there was a commissary issue, and that got pretty violent before it was over. We took each other on. There was the BRAC issue. He wanted another BRAC round in this Defense authorization bill, and I didn't want one because I thought that if there was anything we shouldn't be doing, it would be closing down missions that we may be needing as we are rebuilding. So we had an honest difference of opinion. I remember, in 2003, back when everyone was jumping on this whole global warming thing, that was going to be everyone's ticket to the White House. I remember when John had the McCain-Lieberman bill. I remember that lasted for 3 days of debate--3 days of debate--and I had hardly any Senators come down on my side of the issue, but we won anyway. After that was over--and that was one John had his heart in--he came over to me and said: Good job. You won; I lost. That was it. There were no hard feelings. That is the kind of person John McCain was, one whom we will never forget. A lot of people look at Arizona and think it has always been a Republican State. It wasn't. In 1994, I ran for the U.S. Senate. It was kind of interesting because it was a Democratic State. It was kind of interesting because this guy who was kind of the darling of the Democratic Party was my opponent. Nobody would come out and help me. Only three Senators came out and helped me during that race. They were Senator Grassley, Senator Bob Dole, and John McCain. John McCain came out. I will always remember this because we had a lot of things in common, but I hardly knew the guy. He came out not just once; he came out twice. The first time he came out because he had a background in aviation and I have a background in aviation. I remember I had a nice, air-conditioned, twin-engine plane, but I had lost an engine the night before so I had to fly my kid's plane. It was very hot. It is called a little Grumman Tiger. It doesn't have any air- conditioning. It was in the 90s and got close to 100 that day. I wrote down the different places we went to--Oklahoma City; then we flew to Shawnee, where he and I visited the Vietnam Memorial. Then we flew to Lawton. Lawton happens to be the home of Fort Sill, the No. 1 area in the whole world for artillery, and we did our thing there. All the time, he was campaigning for me, a guy who couldn't win. We went to Altus Air Force Base. That is still actually one of the top training bases. We now train C-17s and KC-135s. In fact, because of John and some of us on the committee, we will be flying the KC-46. Of course, this happened long before that. Anyway, we ended up in Bartlesville, hosting a fundraiser for me with the NRA. I guess he wanted to spend more time in that plane because he came back 2 weeks later, and we did the same thing. There was no reason for him to do that because we hardly knew each other when we started. We got to know each other a lot better up there in all that heat. Nevertheless, he was there. You always remember the people who help you when nobody else will. I can say a lot of things about John McCain. You heard him on the floor. You will hear more--the hero, the patriot--but what is never in dispute is that John McCain was a fighter who was always deeply loyal to his country, his family, his constituents. He was a patriot and always faithful. We all know that patriotism and loyalty to your country isn't based on your words. You have to live it. Of course, he did that every day. As a young naval officer following in his family's footsteps--his father and his grandfather--John kept the faith. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy. It is interesting, he never talked about being an outstanding student and all that. In fact, he used to say: I was fifth in the class--fifth from the bottom. But he became a naval aviator. He was deployed during the Vietnam war. He flew 23 missions and was shot down in enemy territory. We all know the story. We know that he kept his faith. It bears repeating that he was held by the North Vietnamese for 5 years. I actually remember going there and seeing the conditions under which he was held during that period of time. Because both his father and grandfather were admirals, he had the opportunity, if he wanted, to bail out. He didn't do that. He wanted to be there. He didn't want to have any special kind of treatment. That was John. After the Navy, John kept his faith by continuing to serve his country--this time as a congressman, then a Senator, and, ultimately, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He also kept the faith on the causes he believed were just, never wavering under political pressure. We all grieve because John has finished his race here on Earth--and on his own terms, surrounded by his friends and his loving family. John served his country faithfully for 60 years. We owe him a great debt for that service. This week, we will mourn him and honor him, and we will be celebrating the truly remarkable life of an American hero. We all have our John McCain story: a time when we were moved by his stubbornness, his courage, his passion--sometimes all three at the same time. I look forward to hearing these stories and tributes from my good friends. We all grieve for Cindy and his family. They will continue to be in our prayers. Lastly, I do believe, now that I have thought about it, that is what Timothy had in mind when he wrote: ``I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, and I have kept the faith.'' So we say thank you, John McCain. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. After the announcement that was made this morning--it was a great announcement, long awaited--I think it is appropriate that we talk a little bit about it. When Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement and pulled back from the Clean Power Plan, we heard from the environmental extremists and the liberals declaring that the administration's actions will ``endanger public health, our environment and our economic prosperity.'' That was Governors Brown and Cuomo. They further declared that ``if we don't decarbonize our future, people are going to die.'' People are always going to die. That is what the extremists always say. I guess there must be a population out there that actually believes that. However, the opposite is happening even without a one-sided international agreement or the punishing Clean Power Plan. In effect, in 2017, the United States led the world in CO2 reductions, while China and India led the world in increasing CO2 emissions. How many people know that? All you ever hear about is that we are the guilty one in terms of our emissions. That is not true at all. Just think, both China and India led the world in increasing CO2 emissions. These are the guys our previous President, Barack Obama, would have us believe were actually making great sacrifices, and here they are leading in increasing CO2 emissions. When we passed tax reform, the Democrats claimed we would experience ``Armageddon''--Nancy Pelosi said that--and taxes on middle-class families would increase. As we have seen, tax reform has been a resounding success, with 4 percent unemployment and nearly 4.1 percent GDP growth in the last quarter. Right after Congresswoman Pelosi made the statement that taxes would increase on all middle-class families, the Washington Post fact-checked the Democratic claims, giving them four Pinocchios, as 80 percent of middle-class families are paying less in taxes. In other words, 80 percent of middle-class families are paying less in taxes now than they were. Yet she was saying that taxes on all middle-class families were going to have to increase. You hear these things--they can't look at success and see what is happening and really appreciate it without rousing everyone on the other side with extreme accusations. With every Executive order and Congressional Review Act resolution that rolled back regulation after burdensome regulation, we heard that the end of days was coming. Let's pause here for a minute and see how you get rid of some of these regulations. There are two ways of getting rid of regulations. One is you do it with an Executive order. Sometimes that doesn't work. You can't use an Executive order in certain types of regulation, so you have to go with the Congressional Review Act. It is kind of interesting because we started the Congressional Review Act over 20 years ago. Prior to this administration, it had been used successfully only once in 20 years; now it happens almost every day. With every Executive order and Congressional Review Act resolution rolling back the regulations, we heard that the end of the world was coming. You would not know it if you looked at the economy and saw what is happening in this country today with the increases in energy production, manufacturing, consumer confidence, GDP, and job opportunities. Meanwhile, jobless claims have dropped to a 45-year low--a 45-year low of jobless claims this year--and the Social Security disability claims last year were the lowest we have seen since 2002. I think it is kind of interesting to go back and look at the fact that we have 4 percent unemployment. For as long as I can remember, I have always considered 4 percent unemployment full employment. There are always going to be some unemployables, but 4 percent is considered to be full employment, and that is what we have. It is kind of interesting. I was in Texas last week, talking to one of my liberal friends down there. I said: What can you say now? Look at the economy. The economy has never been better. He said: No, the economy is bad. It is hard to find anyone to work in restaurants anymore. In other words, we have full employment, but that is supposed to be bad. That is the position we are in right now. In the last quarter, we had 4.1 percent growth in the economy. Let's stop and think about that. This is something that no one disagrees with. For every 1 percent growth in economic activity, that translates into $2.9 trillion of new income coming into the Federal Government every 10 years. Let's stop and think about it. We have a President who is trying to undo the damage from the last administration when the military was cut down to the bone and we didn't do anything in the way of infrastructure. This President is committed to that. People are saying: All right, where is the money going to come from? There is where it is going to come from. My gosh, if we can average just 3 percent growth--and we have been doing that; we are far exceeding that--that is going to be close to $6 trillion of new funding that will be there for the next administration. With each action the President takes, we hear that the consequences are going to be dire and that people will die. It is always that people will die. Yet those predictions have never materialized. We have seen the opposite happen. When it comes to President Trump's pick to replace Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court, the predictions are just as hysterical. If there is not any logical reason to be against something, they just start name- calling. That is what has been happening. In a recent speech, Hillary Clinton worried that with the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Republicans ``want to turn the clock back . . . to the 1850s.'' That came from Hillary Clinton. Her meaning was very clear. She wants people to believe that Judge Kavanaugh and the Republicans are taking the country back to the days of slavery, despite no evidence to back up this reckless claim. In fact, Republicans want more freedom, not less. Others are equally as bold in their predictions in saying that his confirmation will be the death--listen to this--the death of millions, that his confirmation will be the destruction of the Constitution, and that his confirmation will usher in the end of civil rights in America and make us complicit in evil. In other words, it will be the death of millions of Americans. Who, logically, can even look at that without smiling and saying that they have to be totally desperate in the accusations they are making against this guy? All of these baseless and extreme attacks on his nomination mean just one thing--that Judge Kavanaugh is an excellent pick for the Supreme Court. After meeting with him last week, looking into his record, and reading about his character--some of the stories that I have heard from other people--it is clear that he is a solid choice to become our newest Supreme Court Justice. With 12 years on the DC Court of Appeals, Judge Kavanaugh has amassed a record of over 300 opinions, and the worst opposition research we have seen against him so far is that he charged baseball tickets to his credit card and then paid for them. By all accounts, from those who know him, Judge Kavanaugh is a respected member of his community and of his profession. Professionally, he is known as a serious jurist who studies the law and is evenhanded in applying the law. In his op-ed for the New York Times, entitled ``A Liberal's Case for Brett Kavanaugh,'' Yale Law professor Akhil Reed Amar made this statement: ``Good appellate judges faithfully follow the Supreme Court; great ones influence and help steer it.'' He was referring to Judge Kavanaugh. By this measure, Judge Kavanaugh has been a great appellate judge. He ranks second among the current judges who have law clerks who have gone on to clerk for the U.S. Supreme Court. More impressively, the Supreme Court has agreed with the positions that Judge Kavanaugh took in the last 13 of his opinions, adopting his logic in the prevailing opinion before the Court. In other words, they came down on his side in the cases that he had decided in the last 13 of his opinions. Nine of those times, the Supreme Court adopted his dissenting opinion as their majority opinion. In fact, he has been reversed by the Supreme Court only once and only in part. Of those dissenting opinions by Judge Kavanaugh that the Supreme Court adopted as their own, one of them includes his dissent in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, in which he concluded that the EPA defined ``air pollution'' too broadly in its regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. He viewed the Obama EPA's burdensome greenhouse gas regulations for powerplants as exceeding its authority and argued that the courts should ``not lightly conclude that Congress intended'' to ``impose the enormous costs on tens of thousands of American businesses, with corresponding effects on American jobs and workers.'' Again, the Supreme Court agreed with him. They were on his side. This opinion is also instructive to see his thinking on the proper role of the courts in our system of government. In his opinion, he wrote: ``As a court, it is not our job to make the policy choices and set the statutory boundaries, but it is emphatically our job to carefully but firmly enforce the statutory boundaries.'' This is a consistent part of his jurisprudence. Because of his position on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Kavanaugh has had many opportunities to check the Federal Government's overreach. I served as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for quite a number of years, and one of the big problems we had at that time was that the bureaucrats were actually making the determinations. This is where he has actually overruled the bureaucracy many times. In fact, he has overruled Federal agency actions 75 times in his 12 years on the bench. That is really saying something. When the EPA wanted to impose massive emissions regulations but did not want to consider the costs, Judge Kavanaugh rejected that effort in White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA. The Supreme Court agreed. In the case of EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, Judge Kavanaugh held that the Obama EPA's cross-state air pollution rule was awful and imposed excessive regulatory burdens on the States. He also rejected the Department of the Interior's position to designate 143 acres of plaintiff's property as critical habitat for a shrimp based ``on a single 2001 sighting of four ant-sized San Diego fairy shrimp'' on the property. They would shut that down. He reversed it. These are just a few examples of Judge Kavanaugh's efforts to ensure that our agencies are acting and regulating within their authorizing statutes and the U.S. Constitution. This is the real reason we are seeing such vitriol from the left. They have long used our courts and our agencies to impose their unpopular agenda, mostly because they couldn't get it through Congress, as the majority of Americans recognized how stifling and burdensome their agenda is. Having another judge on the Supreme Court who recognizes the proper role of the courts and the agencies when it comes to setting policy that affects all Americans threatens their ability to force costly, ineffective, unpopular burdens on our economy, our job producers, and our landowners. With Judge Kavanaugh on the court, we will preserve the U.S. Constitution and our system of representative government for decades to come. As I told Brett in our meeting--he has been good enough to go around and have meetings with all of the Members of the Senate. As a matter of fact, I told him that, from his reputation, he didn't need to waste his time with me because I knew all about him, and I was going to support him. As I told him during that meeting, though, his nomination and the work President Trump and the Senate have done to process judicial nominations are to save our country, not for me but for my 20 kids and grandkids. So I look forward to the confirmation. We are going to hear more of the accusations, more of the extreme left making comments about this great judicial success. I look forward to having him there for many years to come. I am convinced that it is going to happen. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my honor to pay tribute today to two exceptional Oklahomans and patriots, retired Army Chief Warrant Officer Michael ``Tony'' Dunne of Webber Falls, OK, and retired Army Chief Warrant Officer Brandon ``Ray'' Seabolt of Skiatook, OK. On August 14, 2018, both were awarded the Office of the Secretary of Defense Medal for Valor, the highest civilian award presented by the Department of Defense. On August 7, 2015, Tony was working at Camp Integrity, just north of Kabul, Afghanistan, executing duties as contractors for the Department of Defense when a potent vehicle-borne improvised explosive device impaled the main gate and knocked down a guard tower. Without hesitation, Tony rushed to the fight and evacuated a wounded servicemember from the scene, undoubtedly saving their life. From his actions that day and others, Tony has been honored for exceptional gallantry in repeatedly putting himself in harm's way to assist in countering multiple insurgent threats, helping to save lives at the risk of his own. On December 17, 2015, Ray was serving as a counter-IED expert in congruence with U.S. Special Forces and Afghan partners when they were ambushed by enemy fire. Without regard for his own life, Ray jumped to action and single-handedly fended off the insurgent onslaught, allowing the recovery force to approach the scene with little resistance. Ray has deservedly been recognized for his bravery and confidence in supporting multiple engagements with the enemy with devastating effects and for providing tactical advice and assistance in the successful recovery of servicemembers. Oklahoma is truly honored and proud to claim Tony and Ray, two patriots that exemplify the ultimate in bravery and courage in support of our country's most critical national security missions both at home and overseas. Created in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Medal for Valor recognizes government employees and private citizens who perform an act of heroism or sacrifice, with voluntary risk to their personal safety in the face of danger. Tony and Ray's well-deserved medals, along with one other awarded on August 14, bring the total number of Medals for Valor to 17 awarded since September 11, 2001. This exemplifies the recognition of immense sacrifice that this small group has made for our Nation. Now, Tony and Ray's names will permanently reside in the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes, distinguished among our Nation's best.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, yesterday I had an opportunity to go through and thank all of the appropriate people. This is arguably the most significant bill that we will have this year--as we have had every year. This is the 58th consecutive year we had a Defense authorization bill. This is dedicated and named after Senator McCain. It is the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act. We are very proud of the input we had from his staff and from him, and we went through it in record time. I certainly thank my counterpart, Senator Reed. He and I have worked very closely together for many years. I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just follow up on the remarks of my friend from Iowa. I think most of us around this Chamber had a chance to meet Judge Kavanaugh. I am in kind of a unique situation in that I am not a lawyer. So I ask different questions than most people do, but I was already convinced, judging from his history in voting and his adherence and commitment to the Constitution, that he is my kind of guy. In fact, I even sent a message to him saying: Don't bother wasting your time on me because you don't need to. But, nonetheless, he came. This is what is interesting about this guy. Everything that the Senator from Iowa said is true, but over and above that, I have had personal conversations with people who were from his home church. There was one lady who was a close friend of Judge Kavanaugh whose husband died, and every time there is an event, such as a parent-student event, Judge Kavanaugh would go and get the children of his deceased friend and take them to the events as if he were their father. It is not very often that we see that kind of compassion in somebody. So we had a conversation about those things and I was very excited about it. National Defense Authorization Bill Mr. President, on Thursday we are going to be passing a bill that I consider every year to be the most significant bill of the year. We know it is going to pass because it has passed every year for the last 57 years. It is going to pass. It is named the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act, and I am pleased that this conference report is the result of an open and bipartisan process. I have to thank, first of all, Chairman McCain and his staff for working so diligently in leading the legislation that bears his name. This year's NDAA is a fitting testament to him. We are talking about John McCain's policies and his priorities and the lasting legacy on our Nation. John is a true American hero. So it is appropriate that we name this bill after him. I also want to thank Ranking Member Reed. Senator Reed has been by my side. The two of us have worked this Defense authorization bill now for several months, and we have been very busy doing that. We have been working closely with Chairman Thornberry over in the House, as well as with Ranking Member Smith in the House. I thank them for their hard work on this bill. It always gets around to the big four, after we all meet and we have the meetings with the House and the Senate, our joint conference meetings. But then there are always some things that need to be done, and they have to be done by the big four. I have been involved with several of these, and this year, of course, the chairman of the House committee, the acting chairman of the Senate committee, and the ranking members worked very hard, and we got this done. So we should all be proud of this week's National Defense Authorization Act, but we shouldn't lose sight of why it is so important. We need to remember the degraded state of our military. I don't mean this in a partisan way, but we had 8 years of the Obama administration, and one thing that I have always appreciated about previously Senator Obama and then-President Obama is that he is a real, sincere, in-the-heart liberal. Quite often, the priorities of those individuals are not the same as some of us, particularly in a strong national defense. So we are really hurting. At the end of the Obama administration, in 2016, only 33 percent of our brigade combat teams were at sufficient levels to be deployed; only a quarter of our aviation brigades were ready; and just 40 percent of the Marines' F-18s were flyable--only 40 percent--because the first thing somebody does when they are cutting down on the expense of a strong military is they do away with the maintenance, and that is the problem we had. We were short 1,500 pilots and had shrunk the force by nearly 100,000 servicemembers despite growing threats around the world. I don't think anyone can argue that this is a threatened world. I think it is the most threatened our country has ever been. Countries around the world have the capability of firing a rocket and hitting a city in America. That didn't used to be the case. You had to be a giant in order to be one of the leaders. Now we have people out there whose judgment we have to question, and they have this capability. So we have a lot of things. We have fallen behind China and Russia. This year's national defense strategy--the first in a decade--rightfully recognized that China and Russia are strategic adversaries and competitors. We are also falling behind especially in technologies that will define the future of deterrence and capabilities. Look at hypersonic weapons. Hypersonic weapons operate at five times the speed of sound. They are still in the experimental stage. We are working on it, but we are behind China and Russia. They are both ahead of us at this time. The nuclear triad is a modernization program. Over the 8 Obama years, we didn't do anything in that. Consequently, during those years, both China and Russia passed us up. Long-range artillery. Artillery is measured by the rapid fire and by the range, and right now, in both cases of rapid fire and range, China and Russia are ahead of us. The national defense strategy identified these vulnerabilities, but it is our responsibility to take that strategy and turn it into policy, and that is exactly what we are doing. This year's NDAA does that. We are investing in training, maintenance, and modernization, restoring our qualitative and quantitative advantage around the world. I say restoring, not achieving, because we lost it. The Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the fifth year of the Obama administration, said that we are losing our qualitative and quantitative advantage around the world. It is kind of hard for people to conceive of this. I am used to the fact that most people believed and probably still believe today that the United States has the very best of everything. Well, we have the best troops and the best-trained troops, but our equipment is not all that good, and so we are doing everything to try to change that. So that is the situation in which we find ourselves. This year's NDAA will fully fund the key priorities we have identified that will ensure that our Armed Forces have the training, resources, and equipment they need to complete their mission. We fully fund what is needed to modernize the force, including procurement for aircraft, shipbuilding, and artillery. Procurement has always been a problem. It has been a problem since I was serving in the House on the House Armed Services Committee. We are addressing this problem as it has not been addressed before. We have now fully funded in this bill the modernization of our Nation's nuclear strategy, including the development of low-yield nuclear weapons and a layered missile defense. A lot of people don't realize that Russia had low-yield nuclear weapons and we didn't. So we are trying to catch up in those areas. We fully funded support for critical allies and partners, including the Afghanistan security forces, coalition support, Iraqi security forces, and Israel. We have increased end strength to align with the President's budget request and adapt to the growing threats from around the world. Now, this sounds easy, but it is not because we are starting from behind. The NDAA bill we are going to vote on on Thursday goes beyond the President's request to provide greater funding for research and development, ensuring that we can continue to focus on new and emerging threats, like hypersonics, space, and cyber. We are standing up to China by strengthening our position across the Pacific region. This bill provides support to our allies who stand up against China's military and economic coercion and procures deployable airbase systems to enhance credible combat power. The NDAA also calls out China for illegally creating and fortifying islands in the South China Sea. I was in the South China Sea about a month ago. Our allies are looking at us and looking at China, and wondering, whose side do we want to be on? Because all they see is what is happening in China. Those are illegal islands. They don't own the land under them. There are some seven different islands exceeding 3,000 acres that are as if they are preparing for World War III. So we know what their capability is. We know what the problems are. Then, of course, the NDAA counters Russia's growing aggression and influence across Eastern Europe by directing a study on permanently stationing U.S. forces in Poland and conducting a study on Russia's malign influence around the world. That is in this bill. So we are actually going to take some action. It wasn't long ago--I think in March--that the RAND Corporation, which makes assessments as to what our capabilities are, said that Russia is to the point right now that if they were to take on NATO, including our forces in NATO and Western Europe, that they would win. That is a pretty frightening thought. The bill continues limitations on U.S.-Russia military cooperation and provides defensive lethal aid to Ukraine. I happened to be in Ukraine with President Poroshenko way back when they had their Parliamentary elections. I think it was about 4 years ago. That was the first time they had a Parliamentary election where there was not one Communist in the Ukraine Parliament. He was very, very proud. Of course that upset Russia, and Putin started sending people into Ukraine and killing them, and our President at that time, President Obama, would not allow us to send defensive weapons in there to help them. It keeps faith with our troops by providing a 2.6-percent military pay increase--the first one in about 10 years--and it is modernizing the officer personnel system and supporting our troops and military families. When Senator Reed and I started on this process, we shared a commitment to making sure that this year's NDAA is more than just another piece of legislation; rather, that it is a message to each and every one of our servicemembers. And we did that. The NDAA tells them that they are our top priority. It is what we have to do to defend America. After all, the No. 1 thing we should be doing around here is defending America. A lot of people have forgotten that there is an old document around that nobody reads anymore called the Constitution. The Constitution says what we are supposed to be doing: defending America. I am proud to say that we did. Every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine can look at this legislation and know they have the support and commitment of their country. I want to speak for a minute about the historical significance of this legislation because the history of the National Defense Authorization Act is a distinguished one. As I mentioned before, we have passed this for 57 consecutive years. This is the 58th year. But what is unique is the fact that we are passing the legislation this week--a record for how quickly in the year it will be passed and signed into law. This was deliberate. We are moving quickly, but we are thorough, considering hundreds of bipartisan amendments in both committee markup and on the floor. This will be the earliest an NDAA has passed since 1996 when we were considering the legislation for fiscal year 1997. So it is the result of the legislative process working. We set a budget in February and are authorizing the funding well in advance of next year's fiscal year. So now we can and should turn our attention to passing the necessary appropriations bill on time that aligns with that which we are authorizing today. About 5 years ago, we were all the way to December before we passed this bill. To remind you, if we don't get it done by the end of December, it means we are not going to get flight pay and hazard pay to our troops who are standing in harm's way. So we have done a good job on this. I am anxious to get this out of the way and vote it into law, which is going to take place on Thursday. We have to remember that without consistent, continued funding, the critical reforms in this year's NDAA will not be possible, and we won't be able to make the needed investments to restore our competitive advantage over China and Russia. That is exactly what we are going to do--we are going to restore what we have lost, and it is all happening in this bill. I think we will have the chance on Thursday to vote for what I consider to be the most significant legislation each year. Mr. President, I yield the floor.