Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this is my fourth speech this year arguing how we are going to have to match our defense resources to our national defense strategy. And this is a reminder--this is the National Defense Strategy. People seem to be forgetting about this. It was put together in 2018. Here are the names of the individuals. One was a former colleague; it was Jon Kyl. So we had 12, 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Everyone agreed that this is what we need to do, not just for 2018 but for each year afterwards. For this year, for example, they actually have in here that we should be increasing the defense budget by between 3 and 5 percent. I show this because we all adhered to these, Democrats and Republicans, up until this year. This is the first time I have had a chance to talk about this budget in the Biden administration where we now have a lot of the details actually released in terms of the budget and what it does to our military. Remember, our expert, bipartisan NDS Commission Report said that we need 3 to 5 percent real growth in the defense budget each year to actually execute this strategy. The defense budget the Biden administration sent us does not achieve this goal. In fact, it is really a cut, in this administration. Even worse, just last week, the Fed predicted that inflation next year will be bigger than predicted. If that continues, this budget will mean even bigger cuts than expected and will hamstring our troops even more than we thought. A lower defense top line than last year is just the first problem. The details of this budget are also worse than we forecasted. We have a flow chart here that shows that the budget puts shipbuilding on a starvation diet. The Navy tells us that we need 355 ships, probably more than the 400 that we have--that we are talking about right now. Right now, we are under 300 ships, and the trend is down, not up. What is the administration's answer? They joke around about having a 355- ship Navy with only tugboats, but we don't have the luxury of jokes. The people don't know this out there. The people don't realize that China is ahead of us and that Russia is ahead of us in some of these areas. They assume that we are always like it was right after World War II for so many years. The Chinese Navy already has 355 ships. They already have them. That is not something they are looking for like we are right now. We are at 300 ships and looking for 355. They already have them. Then there are the Russians to add to that. That is another 223. So we are talking about far more that they have right now than we have, and nobody understands that. It is as if we have only one opposition out there, one adversary. We don't. We have several. The two prime adversaries are China and Russia, and they are up right now to 595 ships, and we are at 300. So what does that tell you? I am not the only one who is concerned about this. A lot of people say: Well, the Republicans are the only ones who are concerned about our military. And that is not true. Democratic Congresswoman Elaine Luria said it well. She said: The Navy budget is not a serious budget for great power competition. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record her recent article about the Navy's fleet

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I complete my remarks before the vote is called.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for such time as I shall consume.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, last year, the Federal Communications Commission approved an application by Ligado Networks to repurpose the Federal spectrum in a way that will drastically interfere with GPS and satellite communications. This a big deal. There are so many people who understand this situation. There is a list of companies behind us that grows every day. Almost every company in America that you know of or have heard of--their name is on this list. The decision that was made will threaten GPS and satellite communications reliability for millions of Americans who depend on it. The reliability of GPS and satellite communications is necessary for safety of life operations, national security, and economic activity. I am going to pause here for a minute to drive home what this actually means for every American because people don't know this. They don't know how important GPS is. Yet there is not an American I can think of by description who isn't using it every day. So if something happens to it, there is a serious problem. Here are some of the day-to- day activities that would be difficult when experiencing GPS interference from Ligado. A big one--using your credit card or your debit card. When you are making a purchase or using an ATM, our financial systems rely on GPS timing in order to work. Another one--making a phone call. Cell phone networks rely on GPS to synchronize cell towers so calls can be passed seamlessly. If they experience interference, your call could be dropped when moving from one tower to another. Another one that people are not aware of and don't expect is energy, whether that is filling up your tank with gas at the pump or electrical grids to light our homes. We rely on GPS timing to safely operate underground pipelines and our electricity grid. Farmers and ranchers--this is something that a lot of people are not aware of, but they depend on GPS and satellite communications when planting crops, applying fertilizer, and during harvesting operations to move large and critical machinery with precision. Working out--a lot of people don't. I don't as much as I used to, but a lot of people do. They say that one-fifth of the population, 20 percent of the population, of all Americans, use a fitness tracker or a smartwatch. The majority have used GPS to count steps to track distance. We all know that. You see them out there every day. They depend on GPS. Taking a flight--I have been involved in aviation for over 70 years now and had occasion with three friends to fly around the world in 1991 using GPS. At that time--it may have been the first--the equipment I used was a Trimble TNL 2000. Trimble is one of the big GPS companies. I was using one, the TNL 2000. At that time, that may have been--we are checking to see--the first time that had been used for private aviation, flying all the way around the world. Again, that is GPS, and that was 1991. Driving around right now, each day, countless Americans rely on Google Maps, Waze, Apple Maps, and any other navigation system to get them from point A to point B. While no one hopes to ever need a firetruck or an ambulance or the 9-1-1 operators, the EMS, they use GPS on a daily basis. There is more--weather forecasting, the movement of goods on our highways, surveying maritime harbors, channels, and everything else. The list goes on and on. How do we know that Ligado will cause interference? The FCC told us when they approved the Ligado order. I will read that now because people need to understand. I guess you could say we were warned. The FCC said in their document--that was the document they used on their approval order. They said: Ligado shall expeditiously repair or replace as needed any U.S. Government GPS devices that experience or are likely to experience harmful interference from Ligado's operations. That is a quote. That is what they said. That is what the FCC said at that time. Over 21 organizations and companies and industries filed petitions for reconsideration after the order was released, documenting the damage they would face from the Ligado interference. This thing right behind me is now up to 82; it was 78 this morning. The list goes on and on. You can hardly think of a corporation in America that isn't on this list. So it is something that is a very serious problem and widespread. Here is one way to put the interference into perspective. Because GPS signals travel from satellite in space, by the time those signals get to Earth's surface, they are low power. Because the FCC order allows Ligado to repurpose spectrum to operate a terrestrial-based network, Ligado's signals on Earth's surface will be much more powerful than GPS, causing substantial and harmful interference. While the FCC required Ligado to repair damage to Federal Agencies that results from the interference, congressional action is needed because the FCC's Ligado order fell short in two important ways. First, the order did not provide an adequate description of costs to the Federal Agencies that would result from Ligado's interference. We took bipartisan steps to correct this last year in the NDAA. The NDAA is the largest bill of the year. I happen to have been for several years the chairman of this thing. The NDAA is the national defense authorization bill. It does all the things that we do in the military. So that is the bill we are talking about. We included in that bill a provision directing the Department of Defense to produce an estimate of damages and costs associated with the harmful interference to GPS. We also directed DOD--Department of Defense--and the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent technical review of the harmful interference that Ligado can cause. Secondly, the FCC failed to require that Ligado bear the costs of interference in State governments or pay for interference to devices owned by individual users. Now, we are talking about all Americans out there now--not just government, not State government, not Federal government, but everyone else, these individual users. I talked already about how many ways we rely on GPS in everyday life. None of that would be protected from interference under the existing Ligado order. That is why I am introducing legislation--it is a long name, but I am going to say it anyway. It is called the Recognizing and Ensuring Taxpayer Access to Infrastructure Necessary for GPS and Satellite Communications Act, 2021. Got that? All right. I call it the RETAIN Act. That is a little more accurate and easy to understand. My legislation ensures that Federal Agencies, State governments, and all others negatively impacted by the actions of a private actor are not left holding the bag when it comes to costs, the amount of money it would cost to rectify, and, worse, aren't put in a position where they have to push the costs onto the American consumers. Why is this legislation necessary? Reliable GPS and satellite communications are important to everyone in the world and drive much of the Nation's economy. That is why I am going to ask my colleagues to embrace, endorse, and cosponsor this legislation. Otherwise, others may be forced to pay for damage that is done by the system. Anyway, I am going to ask our colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. If we don't do this and something happens, then it will be paid for not by those responsible parties but by the taxpayers. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am joining others who have the same problem with what the majority party here in the U.S. Senate is trying to do. It is something that surprises a lot of people, something that would completely revamp, completely change, a system that has been in place since 1787. I understand that they are soon going to be forcing a vote on a bill they are naming the For the People Act, and it is anything but for the people. For those unfamiliar, this is a Democrat bill to nationalize our elections and to give Washington unprecedented and unconstitutional power over States and local governments. Each speaker, including myself, who has spoken so far has been jealously guarding their system because we have put into place a very safe and honest way of handling our elections. Now, keep in mind, this bill is not new. House Democrats passed this back in 2019, right on party-line votes. In fact, the only bipartisan aspect of the bill is its opposition, as was just stated by another speaker. Back in March, along with every single House Republican, one brave House Democrat voted against this bill, and the reason is clear--and it has been stated--but let me put all five of these things into one area so that it is a little easier to understand. The bill is filled with dangerous, anti-democratic provisions-- provisions that make it easier to steal votes. One, legalizing ballot harvesting. Each Member has been talking about ballot harvesting and the threat that is out there. Banning voter ID. In my State of Oklahoma, we have ID laws to safeguard our votes. They are attempting to restore felons' right to vote. Why would you want to restore a felon's right to vote? And I have not heard anyone yet give a good argument that is persuasive. Allowing voters to cast ballots outside of their precincts. That is just one step further and one step easier to falsify ballots. Subsidize political candidates with Federal funds. We are going to talk about that. It is unbelievable. I mentioned some of the--how it might affect some individuals. It is more accurately named the ``For the Liberal Politicians Act.'' In their mind, it not only ensures that they can control elections forever with ballot harvesting and other questionable practices, but they would also give millions in taxpayers' funds to bulk up their campaigns. I just reminded them, and others have mentioned this, too, it sounds like you might be criticizing Ted Cruz when you say this, but it is not because he knows it is wrong. He observed that--when he was running for office, that if he had been able to harvest the opportunities you have from the Federal Government, he would have raised some $24 million in Federal funds in the first quarter of this year for his campaign. The Oklahoma State Election Board Secretary, Paul Ziriax, shared with me his strong concerns about this bill and what it would do to my State of Oklahoma and our election integrity laws. It would impose policies that contradict State law, like legalizing ballot harvesting and preventing voter ID for in-person voting. As he is responsible for managing the elections in Oklahoma, he knows how bad this would be for Oklahomans. Today, Oklahoma's elections are safe, secure, and fair. Secretary Ziriax said it best in 2019, when he testified before the House, that Oklahoma's voting system is ``one of the most reliable, most accurate, most secure, most efficient, most cost-effective, and speediest voting system in the entire world.'' We pride ourselves on that. That is Oklahoma doing it, not the Federal Government--not the Federal Government doing something that might benefit one segment of our society. It is clear the Democrats are playing politics with S. 1. Now, following the 2020 Presidential election, Democrats complained about efforts to remove States from running their elections, but now Democrats are seeking sweeping Federal control over elections. I am going to mention something that no one has mentioned before, and I guess the only reason it comes to my mind is I have been doing this for a long period of time--being concerned in trying to preserve our electoral college. Back in 1787, we had a problem. They were putting together a Constitution to try to establish a way of voting in the United States of America that would be safe for everyone and be equitable. And so they came out and--they didn't want to do it just on a one- person vote because if you do that, that is a decided advantage for all of the large States. And so what they did was come up with what they called the electoral college, and that was that they made the effort to correct the problem. We are talking about back in 1787. In 1787, we had a system where we had four very large States and nine small States. So if you just--the four large States were comprised of more than 50 percent of the electorate so that wouldn't work. That wasn't going to work. And, of course, the same thing is true today. Today, nine States have a majority of the votes. And so it was the clear intent not to let the large States have control of our system. Now, I am sure some of the large States disagree with that. Some Democrats--a lot of Democrats disagree with that because it would be a decided advantage in an interim election. So what we did, we established the electoral college, and I have committed that is my main cause right now because it is in jeopardy now. The electoral college is being attacked on a regular basis. In fact, one of the prominent Democrats who is currently in the leadership in the Democratic Party has introduced a resolution to do away with the electoral college. That is something we cannot allow to happen. And, oddly enough, it has survived for, what, 233 years now--233 years. And yet, it has survived all that time, but there are those attacking it right now. So that is another one of the major issues that we are concerned with, and that is that we are not only giving up all the creativity and the safeguards that are in a secure system, put together not by the Federal Government but by the States, and trying to take that over for the Federal Government. They have been attempting to do this, now, for 230 years. They haven't been successful, and I am hoping they will not be successful on my watch. Thank you With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, the chairman of our committee and I have both agreed that we need to be debating this during our markup, and we intend to do that. For that reason, I object.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, today I honor a superb leader, liaison, and soldier for his tireless commitment to the U.S. Army, which includes 2 years of service with the Army Office of the Legislative Liaison, as the chief of the Army's Senate Liaison Division. As COL Nathan E. Cook II prepares to retire after 28 years of dedicated and distinguished service to our Nation, I believe it is fitting to recognize his exceptional service and relationship with this Chamber. Colonel Cook's congressional liaison assignment is only the capstone to what has been an outstanding career of service to the Army and our Nation. Colonel Cook is a 1993 graduate of The United States Military Academy at West Point. He was commissioned into the Army as a field artillery officer and has served in command and staff positions from the tactical to the strategic level in the 2d Armored Division, 4th Infantry Division, 8th Army, 3d Infantry Division, 1st Cavalry Division, Headquarters Resolute Support, and Headquarters Department of the Army. He has led our Nation's soldiers during multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan during OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, OPERATION NEW DAWN, and OPERATION RESOLUTE SUPPORT. Likewise, he commanded our soldiers in combat as the commander of the 3d Battalion, 82d Field Artillery Regiment from Fort Hood, TX, and the 75th Field Artillery Brigade from Fort Sill, OK. Prior to his assignment as the chief of the Army's Senate Liaison Division, he served as the senior advisor to the Afghan Minister of Defense, where he provided timely and critical advice across the Ministry of Defense and the NATO coalition. The Army has continuously relied upon Colonel Cook for his exceptional leadership and unparalleled work ethic throughout his career. Over the course of the last few years, Colonel Cook's tireless efforts proved invaluable in broadening the understanding of Members and staff on Army priorities, policies, and initiatives that ultimately provided resources and authorities for the Army and enhanced trust and confidence across the Senate. He managed all of this while leading and managing numerous congressional delegations to various locations around the world. Colonel Cook has become a trusted adviser and friend to many of us, distinguishing himself by continuously going above and beyond the call of duty to serve the needs of Congress. This Chamber will feel Colonel Cook's absence. I join many past and present Members of Congress in my gratitude and appreciation to Colonel Cook for his outstanding leadership and unwavering support. There is no doubt that the strength of our soldiers comes from their families. Colonel Cook's strength comes from his wife Traci and his two sons, Nathan and Joshua. This Nation is grateful for their commitment and personal sacrifices made throughout Colonel Cook's career. On behalf of the U.S. Senate and the United States of America, I commend Colonel Cook for his tireless efforts in the support of our Army, our military, and our Nation. As Nate and his family transition from the military, I congratulate him on completing an extremely successful military career and wish all of them the best in all their future endeavors.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, today I honor a servant leader, liaison, and combat warrior. After 2 years of service as Director of the Air Force Senate Liaison Office, Brig. Gen. Neil Richardson is deservedly moving on and assuming the responsibilities of Deputy Director of Operations of Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base, IL. On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize General Richardson's distinguished service and dedication to fostering the relationship between the U.S. Air Force and this Chamber. A C-130 weapons officer and navigator by designation, General Richardson has led our Nation's men and women in combat, overseas, and at home. He has led at every level with highlights as an instructor navigator at the C-130 Weapons Instructor Course, the commander of the 447th Expeditionary Operations Support Squadron, leading joint and coalition airfield operations at Baghdad International Airport, Iraq, and the 87th Air Base Wing commander at Joint Base McGuire-Dix- Lakehurst in New Jersey, the Defense Department's only triservice joint base. The Air Force has consistently relied upon General Richardson's exceptional leadership and unparalleled work ethic. General Richardson has excelled in numerous other leadership positions in the Air Force, most recently as the Director, Air Force Senate Liaison. In the Russell Senate Office Building and around the globe, General Richardson facilitated communications between the Chamber and the Department of the Air Force in establishing the U.S. Space Force. He supported the Department of the Air Force in twice gaining confirmation of the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. General Richardson and his team twice supported successful legislation of the National Defense Authorization Act despite challenges resulting from the unprecedented coronavirus pandemic and heightened security on Capitol Hill. His team facilitated 200 congressional engagements with Air Force and Space Force senior leaders to include seven Air Force Caucus events and the establishment of our new Space Force Caucus. Furthermore, his team escorted congressional delegations for more than 84 Members of Congress on visits both stateside and abroad to include our annual trip to the Ronald Reagan National Defense Forum. Next month, General Richardson departs Washington for Scott Air Force Base, IL, to serve as the deputy director of the greatest airlift, aerial refueling, and aeromedical evacuation logistical force in the world. This Chamber will feel General Richardson's absence. I join many past and present Members of Congress in my gratitude and appreciation to General Richardson for his outstanding leadership and unwavering support of the missions of the U.S. Air Force and especially recognize his patient and supportive family, Mrs. Melissa Richardson, their daughter Megan, her husband Air Force SSgt Nathan Brock, along with the rest of his children; Katie, Garrett, and Gage. I wish this Air Force family safe travels and endless gratitude for their dedicated service to our Nation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been down here a lot talking about why we need to increase the defense budget: We face more threats than ever before. China and Russia are investing more in modernizing their militaries than ever before. We need to strengthen our alliances to discourage our adversaries from acting, and the best way to back up our friends is with a strong military. These are all good reasons, but we have 2.2 million other reasons we need to increase our defense budget: all the brave men and women who serve our country in uniform. May is Military Appreciation Month, and I could talk all day about all the ways our servicemembers are the best in the world and how much I appreciate them. But we shouldn't just talk about it; we need to show these brave men and women just what they mean to us. When I travel, I always eat in the mess halls with our troops--not the officers, the enlisted men and women. When I do that, I get a real sense of what our troops need to do their jobs and defend this country. So I have a pretty good idea of what will show them our appreciation. We should show them by providing adequate, consistent and stable funding on time. When budgets are delayed and defense spending is cut, you know who feels it the most? Our troops. It hurts their morale. It hurts their readiness. It hurts their families. It affects everything. We should show them with more and better training that focuses on their safety. We should show them by giving them modem weapons and equipment that work and work well. We should show them by taking care of their families, making sure their spouses have good employment opportunities, their kids have access to high-quality childcare and education, and they all have the best healthcare. We should show them by giving them high-quality housing. Over the last 2 years, this was my priority, and it will be this year too. Senator Reed also understands this sacred duty we have. The last two years, we have given our troops a pay raise of 3 percent or more--some of the largest annual pay raises ever. We increased hazardous duty pay by 10 percent last year; that is what we give our troops in the most dangerous jobs. We have made changes to fix the broken housing system because no servicemember should ever be living in bad housing. We are continuing to keep an eye on this until all the necessary fixes are in place, including the Housing Bill of Rights we are waiting for. We have helped make sure military spouses have good jobs, even when they move. We have focused on building a modern healthcare system that works for our servicemembers and their families, and we have prioritized mental healthcare for those who serve. I am proud we have been able to do all this. But here is the thing: Taking care of our troops--that is at least a third of our defense budget right there. That is the right thing to do. Our servicemembers are the backbone of our national security. It's also the necessary thing to do for our All-Volunteer Force. No one is forced to enlist anymore. The military needs to compete for our country's best and brightest, and that takes money. The troops lay everything on the line to defend our Nation. They sacrifice time with their families and friends. As we remember each year on Memorial Day, many make the ultimate sacrifice. There aren't enough words to express our gratitude. That is why we have to show them. But the math of President Biden's budget doesn't add up when it comes to taking care of our troops. Not when we have to do all these other things--defend against more than one serious threat, support our allies and partners, and take on new domains. We can do things to make things more cost-effective for the taxpayer, but we can't go back on our promises to those who agreed to serve. They are all volunteers, after all. So it concerns me when people talk about us spending more than China, Russia, and other countries--it is just not true. One of the reasons our defense budget is large is because we take care of our people. China and Russia--they don't do that. They give them a gun and tell them to fight. No one else takes care of their people the way we do. That is why they don't have the caliber of people we do. Our military personnel are the best in the world. So yes, a strong military budget is about sending a message to our enemies. It is about sending a message to our allies and partners. But it is also about sending a message to our troops: that we are going to take care of you and your families while you serve. We are going to make sure you have what you need to defend this country--the equipment, the training, the personnel, the weapons, the support. President Biden's budget equals a cut to national defense. While we are going to prioritize taking care of our troops they are going to feel that cut somehow, someway, no matter what we do. We are asking them to do more with less, and we have been asking them for decades now. There are things President Biden and I agree we need to do when it comes to our national defense--keep the Indo-Pacific open and free, enhance our cyber defense, innovate and modernize, and beyond. But President Biden's got more on his list of things he wants to ask our military to do--stuff that really falls outside the core mission of the Department of Defense--and he is not even giving them more budget to do it with. This is not a message we should send our troops. It is not what they deserve. One month for military appreciation--it is really not enough. But we can show our troops our appreciation year-round by giving them the budget they need, a budget with real growth to match the strategy they are carrying out.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, over the weekend, the State Department-- that is, our State Department--imposed visa restrictions on several Ethiopian and Eritrean Government officials. They claim these officials have not done enough to end the hostilities in the Tigray area. Now, the Tigray area is in the northern part of Ethiopia, and it is an area that is one of the very old parts of that continent. First, we need to be clear. Everyone, especially the Ethiopian Government, wants nothing more than a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Tigray, but this action puts the terrorist organization TPLF--that is a terrorist organization--on equal status with the Ethiopian Government. Now, that is unacceptable, and it is wrong. It is outrageous that we have them in the same issue as if they are somehow equals. Let me say something to be 100 percent clear, to make sure no one can misunderstand this, and that is that humanitarian atrocities are wrong and have no place in our world. I am proud that Prime Minister Abiy of Ethiopia has clearly stated that any atrocities are not condoned by the government and those responsible will be held accountable. That is going to happen. To truly understand this issue and why putting the Ethiopian Government on equal footing with the TPLF is so offensive and downright wrong, you need to understand how we got here. Indulge with me in just a little bit of history. Now, I know the changes Ethiopia has seen over the last decade. Since 2005, I have visited Ethiopia 19 different times, engaging and developing relationships with Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, legislators, businesspeople, aid workers, and everyone else in between. I say this to show that I know Ethiopia probably better than anyone else in this Chamber. But more than that, I know its history. Ethiopia is the oldest independent country in all of Africa but one that is newly democratic. That comes with problems, and we understand that. The current controversy and why we are here today started back in the 1970s with a man named Mengistu. From 1974 to 1991, Mengistu was the leader of the Communist Derg. That is the Communist Party in Ethiopia. This was the controlling party at the time. It is a Communist Party. They ran Ethiopia. It was a terrible time for Ethiopia. That was during one of the worst famines they ever had on that continent or actually anywhere. It killed over a million people. That might be the most significant famine in history in terms of deaths. Then, in 1991, the Communists were booted out. At the time that this took place, one person who was responsible for the getting rid of the Derg Communists and the Communist threat in Ethiopia was a guy named Meles. He was a member of the Tigrayan political party. Now, we got to know him quite well. He is the one who got communism out of that part of the world. He ended up as Prime Minister. This is really the election that a lot of people don't like, and they forget about the fact that he was the Prime Minister who actually got rid of the Communists in Ethiopia. So he became the Prime Minister. He started to build democracy. He died in 2012. I got to know him quite well during his lifetime, and I saw the progress that he made and the advances that they made. He was then replaced by another Prime Minister whose name is Hailemariam. Now he became Prime Minister, and he continued to push for democracy. Hailemariam worked diligently to improve things. Under his tenure, Ethiopia established the Independent Ethiopian Human Rights Committee that reported on violence and human rights problems, and it was tremendously successful. They didn't just establish it; they acted on it. They came out with a report and acted on it to hold perpetrators accountable and to make the improvements that were being made at that time. Our relationship wasn't just government-to-government; it was brother-to-brother. In February of 2017, Prime Minister Hailemariam suggested that since the provinces were all fighting at one time--and at that time, there were nine provinces in Ethiopia. Each province had a Governor. We suggested on the phone with the Members of the Senate here in Washington and the House prayer group in the House of Representatives that what we ought to do is follow the recommendation of Eisenhower. We are talking about former General Eisenhower, President Eisenhower. He was a great, great President of the United States. This was right after World War II. He said--this is a quote. I am quoting Eisenhower now. He said: The problems of this world are so great that we will never resolve the problems until we learn to sit down and pray together. So we decided, let's all get the Governors, the Prime Minister, Members of the House, Members of the Senate, and the rest all together, and we will pray with them. We did this. In fact, we had five Senators with me at that time, and we went over. The problem was, only two of the Governors showed up, out of nine, so it didn't work. Eight months later, we had occasion to be back there, and we put together the same thing, but we talked to them to let them know--we talked to the Governors at that time, the nine Governors who were in Ethiopia. So we got them and explained what it was all about. The Governors who had been fighting with each other and had been fighting with Hailemariam all prayed together, and we were joined in prayer by 18 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. We were joined with them by phone, and the Prime Minister and all of us, Members of the Senate and others who were there, we all rejoiced and embraced each other. That was really significant. The nine Governors had never been together before. They didn't like each other. They never had been in the same room before. But most of the people didn't live in cities, and that made this effort that much more difficult. The vast majority of people who live there are in rural communities, and that made this widespread change in development a longer and more difficult path. In Ethiopia, the tribal factions also played a great role. If you go from province to province, that used to be from tribe to tribe, and they historically have not gotten along until this time. So it made it more difficult because of the factions and all of that, but it worked. We unified them together, and that was unlike anything that has ever happened. One of the Governors who was there at the time was named Dr. Abiy. You might remember that name because he is now the Prime Minister of Ethiopia. I have often said that Dr. Abiy is arguably the most educated, the smartest guy I have seen in that position in--of the entire continent of Africa. He is just a tremendous person. We got them together at a leaders breakfast. We put something together where he told the story of his journey in faith in Jesus. This is Dr. Abiy. We met a year later, where we prayed and talked about how to unify the country in peace, not conflict. It is from these meetings that I know Abiy is committed to democracy and committed to the future of Ethiopia. He is showing that with his actions as well. Abiy was elected Prime Minister in 2018 after active and spirited protests against the existing ruling party, the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front, which had run the country for almost 30 years. Abiy was elected by a country looking for fresh leadership. He immediately took steps to create positive change. He promised unity and reconciliation, and against all odds, he delivered. He passed liberal democratic reforms, and he freed political prisoners and journalists. Abiy even did what was once believed impossible: He negotiated a peace treaty with Eritrea after decades of long cold war and was recognized with a Nobel Peace Prize for his work. He was the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize for all the wonderful work he had done. That was in Africa. It was a leading operation. So how does all this play into the situation before us today? The Ethiopian People's Democratic Front--the previous ruling party--is dominated by people from Tigray, the area up north that we talked about before, one of the regional provinces. When Abiy set up a new governing body and focused on governing for the whole of Ethiopia, and not just a few politically powerful regions, the TPLF wasn't happy. That is the terrorist group. They felt like they were losing the outsized influence that they held for decades and decades. They also weren't happy about the peace deal with Eritrea, the TPLF, who were ruling Ethiopia in the 1990s when the bitter Eritrea-Ethiopian conflict was going on. Decades later, they still feel aggrieved and didn't want peace. The result, they started acting out. In 2019, they started to refuse to participate in the new government and the new ruling party. They expressed their frustration in more overt and destabilizing ways. They held their own regional parliamentary elections in September during the height of the coronavirus pandemic instead of agreeing with the other provinces and the Prime Minister that they should be postponed because of the pandemic. The militia affiliated with the TPLF--that is the terrorist group that has been designated by the Ethiopian Parliament as a terrorist group--attacked an Ethiopian army base in Mekelle on November 4 and stole weapons there. Let me restate this plainly. A regional party, TPLF, attacked a government military base. The government rightfully responded, and the regional terrorist group is well equipped and has been fighting back and continuing the conflict for a long period of time now. That is what is going on right now. That is the situation we find ourselves in, and that is why it is astounding to me that our government continues to treat this situation with both sides being equal when clearly they are not. One side is the democratically elected government, and the other side is a disgruntled faction that is reacting with violence because they are no longer in power. It is a terrorist group. And again, the Ethiopian Government has been clear that they do not condone any of the reported atrocities, and they will hold anyone who commits atrocities accountable. We, the United States, need to continue to engage Ethiopia and try to understand how what we are seeing today is a product years in the making. It is not a simple matter of two aggrieved parties. It is Prime Minister Abiy working to protect a unified, peaceful, stable Ethiopia. We should be talking to him about how we can help him restore peace, not slapping punitive sanctions on his government--an action that does nothing but demonstrate that we can't or won't appreciate the history and the regional differences that lead to this situation. And I want to close by speaking to Prime Minister Abiy and our friends in Ethiopia directly: Brother, I am with you. Those of us who understand the history of what you are facing and what you are working to support, we are with you, Prime Minister Abiy. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, next week is a summer anniversary, 100 years since the Tulsa massacre. Before 1921, Greenwood District, also known as Black Wall Street, was a vibrant, thriving, prosperous Black community. But then, on the evening of May 31 into the early morning of June 1, 1921, there was a horrific massacre where hundreds of Black Tulsans were murdered and thousands were made homeless overnight. It was awful. But as terrible as it was, that is why it is important to come together to honor the victims and their families and share their stories today with future generations. I am honored to cosponsor Senator Lankford's resolution today to remember this anniversary. Together, we can all work to lift up the story of Black Wall Street and use this anniversary to remember, reflect, and work, as we do every day, toward reconciliation. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, Chairman Reed, that this important issue deserves a robust debate as we consider this year's National Defense Authorization Act. I would also like to thank Senator Gillibrand for her leadership and her tenacity on this issue. As Senator Reed referenced, I am one of those who do not support removing the commanders from the decision-making process. Nevertheless, I appreciate Chairman Reed's commitment to ensuring this issue is debated and voted on during the full committee markup of the NDAA. The NDAA markup process is unique in the Senate. We debate and resolve contentious issues every year. But the regular-order process is important and has served us well for many, many years--actually 60 years. When it comes to important issues like this, we should not rush anything without making sure it is going to do the right thing by our servicemembers, and so I thank Chairman Reed for his action

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, China is a 360-degree threat. They are competing with us in every area--economics, technology, military, diplomacy, information warfare. You know, we operated for the better part of a decade under the idea that we should have parity in defense and nondefense increases. I mean, this is a bipartisan thing. This is Democrats and Republicans alike. We did this every year for--every 2 years as we did the Budget Control Act, and that was an agreement until all of a sudden, somehow, we are changing from that. So what Senator Shelby's and my amendment does is very simple. It says that for every dollar that we increase nondefense spending, we have the same amount of money that is going to increase defense spending. I talked about this yesterday at some length. How can you justify changing that policy when the greatest threat that we are facing right now is China? You know, they are competing in every area, and to leave that out conspicuously is not reasonable at all. So I think that the--I remember that the majority leader and the Speaker of the House back in 2019 said: ``Democrats have always insisted on parity in increases between defense and non-defense.'' So why would they change now? And I don't think that they will change now. So, again, I am unsure people understand what this is all about. This is a very simple thing. It says that--our amendment says that for every dollar we increase nondefense spending, we also increase defense spending by the same amount. It is called parity. We have lived with this right now for 8 years. We have been in agreement, and somehow this has changed, as if the threat that we are facing right now with economics, technology, diplomacy, information warfare are more important than military. Military is the No. 1 threat.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it's my honor to recognize Roger Beverage, a distinguished Oklahoman and dear friend, who recently retired from his role as president and chief executive officer of the Oklahoma Bankers Association. While Roger is a native of Plattsmouth, NE, he has called Oklahoma home for decades. He began his career as a trial lawyer, where he transitioned to a leading role with the Nebraska Bankers Association and later as the director of the Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance. For the past 33 years, Roger has led the Oklahoma Bankers Association. He devoted much of his life to advocating for the banking community across Oklahoma and Washington, DC. There is no question his tireless work has left a lasting impact on our State. While it is sad to see him retire, I have great confidence that his successor and son, Adrian, will carry forward the influential legacy of his father in the years ahead.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, before the Senator from Texas leaves the floor, I want to acknowledge that in Oklahoma, last Sunday, I was with a group of people, and, independent of each other, they asked the same question: Where is America, and what is happening over there right now? Our best friend and most loyal ally in that part of the world, Israel, is being hit by terrorists, and we are sitting back and not doing anything. It is just not thinkable that that could happen. I think one of the most meaningful things that I had not heard before, stated this way, that the Senator from Texas stated was, if Hamas were to stop the attacks on Israel, Israel would do nothing, but if Israel were to stop responding, there would be no Israel left. That is the situation we have there. It is something that is not understandable. It is something that we are going to do everything we can to reverse. That is not why I am here on the floor, but I just wanted to mention that

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize MAJ Aimee A. Mack, U.S. Army, on the conclusion of her current assignment. Since May 2020, Major Mack has served with great distinction as the legislative liaison for the Countermeasures Acceleration Group, which was previously known as Operation Warp Speed. Throughout the development, production, and distribution of the various coronavirus vaccines, Major Mack has been an outstanding source of information for my staff and me, helping us understand a fast-moving and game-changing program that is saving millions of American lives. I think we all need to pause and marvel at the miracle that Operation Warp Speed fostered. Today, based on the successful foundational work of Operation Warp Speed, it is extremely easy for any eligible American to receive a coronavirus vaccine. So it might be hard to remember just how far-fetched that objective seemed when Operation Warp Speed was launched during the height of the pandemic, approximately 1 year ago. At the time, many in the mainstream media doubted that a coronavirus vaccine could be produced so quickly. President Trump's plan to make a coronavirus vaccine available by the end of 2020 was repeatedly ``fact checked,'' and leading political and medical figures viewed the program as either a low-odds gamble or a political stunt. This was the very difficult information environment that Major Mack confronted when she was appointed as Operation Warp Speed's legislative liaison in May 2020, but she was uniquely suited for the assignment. Like all of the best legislative liaisons, Major Mack had the confidence of her commanding officer, GEN Gustave A. Perna, and was meticulous in her provision of precise, detailed information to Congress. She is also a Nurse Corps officer, and her medical knowledge made her an exceptional asset to Members of Congress and their staffs, particularly when it came to explaining the program's revolutionary scientific and medical testing decisions, which were vital to finding, testing, and receiving emergency approval for three vaccines in record time. In this sense, Major Mack was not merely a source of information but of education. Thanks to her efforts, when the first coronavirus vaccines were administered in December 2020, there was broad, bipartisan congressional confidence in the vaccines' safety and efficacy because she taught our staffs and us what we needed to know. In the months that followed, as attention shifted from the development of the vaccines to their production and delivery, Major Mack continued to provide regular and detailed updates for Members and staff. Again, I think we need to admire Operation Warp Speed's achievement here: For the first time in history, vaccines are effectively going from conveyor belts to arms within days. Major Mack's deep knowledge of the process and her outstanding work in sharing it with us bolstered congressional confidence in the program. To put a finer point on it, when our State health departments needed the latest information on vaccine allotments and projections, we knew who to call--MAJ Aimee Mack. Major Mack will soon depart for Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, KS, and she will be greatly missed. I want to thank her for her exceptional service and thank her family as well--her husband, MAJ Jamaal Mack, and her children, Daunte and Alisa. I wish her every success in the future and sincerely hope we get to work with her again soon.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Winston Churchill famously said: ``There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them.'' Republicans and Democrats agree: Strong alliances and partnerships are key to the asymmetric advantage that the United States has over our strategic competitors. Like every President before him, President Biden has rightly made America's alliances and partnerships a cornerstone of his administration. It is a national security policy. Alliances and partnerships are not a substitute for a strong American military. A strong military is the foundation of our alliances. Military power creates leverage and credibility for our diplomats, and just as importantly, it creates a deterrent. Real deterrence cannot be achieved unless it is credible, and it cannot be credible unless we properly fund our military and have our allies and partners with us. It has to be both. You can't have one or the other. Why? Because our partnerships are two-way streets. Alliances aren't just for show. They are not just empty statements that we are blindly sending money to support vague goals. These relationships are built on mutual interests. They benefit us just as much as they benefit other countries. Look at the billions of dollars that some of our allies have contributed to U.S. bases in their countries. ``National Defense Strategy''--this book is the one that was put together in 2018. It was put together by 12 people, 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats, all experts in their field. In fact, one of them just this morning was in a committee hearing before our committee. This document has been our blueprint for a long period of time, so this is what we have, and this is what we feel is going to be something that will stay with us for a long time. In this book, it states that--and I am quoting from it now-- ``mutually beneficial alliances and partnerships are crucial to our strategy, providing a durable, asymmetric strategic advantage that no competitor or rival can match.'' But maintaining that asymmetrical advantage requires much more than simply saying nice things about our allies and partners. The bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission report, written by six Democrats and six Republicans, makes this very clear. They talk about how ``these alliances and partnerships . . . have ultimately rested on a foundation of military strength.'' So when President Biden says that ``America's alliances are our greatest asset'' and then goes to underfund the military, it defies common sense. Underfunding the military threatens that very foundation that underwrites the effectiveness of our alliances and partnerships. Let me explain a little bit of how it works. We will start with nuclear modernization. The United States maintains a safe and effective nuclear arsenal to protect American families but also to protect our partners and allies. Our nuclear umbrella has three benefits. First, it makes clear to China and Russia which countries stand with us. You know, they don't know otherwise, and they have a terrible practice of lying about which countries are with us or are with them. So this makes it very clear. It is on the dotted line. Second, it has the benefit of giving those countries the security of relying on our deterrence rather than feeling like they have to develop their own nuclear weapons. Thirdly, our umbrella of extended nuclear deterrence is a pillar of our goal of global nuclear nonproliferation. If we cut back our own nuclear deterrent and take away that umbrella, which is what would happen if we reduce our defense budget, it is likely that nuclear weapons will become more common, not less. President Biden has said nuclear nonproliferation is one of his priorities. Do you see the disconnect here? That is why it is so concerning to me that some administration officials--now I am talking about the current administration--some of those officials are talking about drastically reducing our nuclear modernization efforts. I am also concerned that some in the administration and in Congress are targeting our fifth-generation stealth air power. Don't get me wrong--the F-35 has had its problems. We all understand that. But it is the cornerstone of our ability to operate with allies and our partners. The F-35 program--that is our program--has 21 allies and partners in it. For many, it is their main capability and will be their primary contribution to any kind of a high-end problem that should come forward. When we talk about cutting the program or moving away from it, their governments question our commitment. There is no substitute aircraft or capability for these countries. We want our allies and partners to fight along with us; there is no question about that. Let's remember what happened. First of all, the F-35 is a fifth- generation vehicle, and we only had one other one, and that was the F- 22. I remember so well, just a few years ago, at that time we were going to have 700 F-22 aircraft, but we only ended up with 187 of them because at the last minute, they were talking like they are talking today, a lot of people in the administration, saying maybe we don't need to have as many F-35s. Well, we absolutely do need to have them. We don't want to make the same mistake now that we made several years ago with the F-22 Our combatant commanders have already told us that we will be outnumbered in terms of stealth fighters in the western Pacific by 2025, and it will be even worse if American F-35 cuts lead--because you know that other countries, like our allies in Australia and Japan, they would be cutting theirs if we cut ours. That is just one of the many serious problems we have in the Indo- Pacific. Our partners and allies are worried about U.S. force posture and our ability to deter and, if necessary, defeat China's use of military force. I heard that for myself way back in 2018 when I was in that area of the South China Sea. Many of our allies and partners in that region--they were clear. They saw firsthand how China was preparing to swiftly defeat our forces in the Pacific. They were trying to figure out how--if we would be there for them when that happened or if they would be needing to start cozying up to China. They are not going to sit around and wait for us to perform. They are going to have to know that we are going to be there for them. Our competition out there in that area is clearly China. We know what they are doing, we know what their plans are, and we are concerned about it. Fortunately, our significant investment in the military under President Trump was an encouraging sign to our allies and partners. They were all very proud of us. But after watching China's Communist Party dismantle democracy in Hong Kong and commit genocide on the Uighurs in northwest China, our partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific are now worried that China will try to invade and annex Taiwan. How many years have we been talking about that? Now they are really concerned about it. General McMaster testified that Taiwan is ``the most significant flashpoint that could lead to large scale war,'' saying that China would take military action against Taiwan as soon as 2022. The former and current commanders of INDOPACOM both emphasized the near-term threat. It is a real threat. It is out there. This is the primary reason why the Armed Services Committee with overwhelmingly bipartisan support has put in place our Pacific Deterrent Initiative. We call it the PDI. The PDI is intended to bolster our degraded force posture in the Indo-Pacific to counter China's military buildup. We have to restore the favorable balance of power in the region where the problem is the most acute, and that is west of the international date line, where our partners and allies are most immediately threatened by Chinese aggression. PDI is fundamentally about building basic infrastructure so that we can operate with our allies and partners. It will mean more distributed and smaller bases, maybe hardened communications, as well as increased and more realistic exercises with allies and partners. If we want PDI to succeed, we need to resource it properly. Both Admirals Davidson and Aquilino told the Armed Services Committee that much just last week in a hearing we had in our committee. After the hollow promises of the Obama administration to ``Pivot to the Pacific'' and after almost no change in the U.S. military posture in the region over the last two decades, our partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific are worried, and justly so. They want to see sustained investment matching sustained commitments, especially after President Trump rightfully pushed them to step up their own investments. They answered the call. But President Biden will create a credibility problem if we don't continue to invest as well. We want them to do that. This is the case. We are going to have to get this done. Our INDOPACOM allies and partners throughout that region are watching closely to see what we do with the defense budget top line and with PDI. What they see is that President Biden's defense budget does not even keep up with inflation. We are talking about the defense budget that he came out with just a couple of weeks ago. That actually had a reduction. It didn't even beat inflation at that time and didn't come close to what was really recommended by this document that we are supposed to be using--it is a bipartisan document--let alone matching the real growth we need to implement the National Defense Strategy. So over in Europe, Biden proclaimed, ``America is back,'' and that sounds good, claiming a reversal from the previous administration. It is just not true. Again, actions are not matching words. Rhetoric without resources will devastate our credibility and undermine our alliances here too. If defense cuts impact the European Deterrence Initiative, it will serve to weaken our European posture and make our allies and partners more susceptible to Russian aggression. Without a strong defense budget, the Biden administration's goal and pledge to support NATO and deter Russia will ring hollow for our European allies and partners. Sharing the burden is a key benefit of our international alliances and partnerships, but our NATO alliances might see the administration's military reductions as a signal that they no longer need to meet their commitments to spend 2 percent of their GDP. Now, remember when the previous President, President Trump, talked to our allies to start bellying up and participating. NATO-- those nations are our friends, but they are not coming to the level that they are going to have to do to carry their end of it. Don't forget--whether we are facing Russia, China, or other adversaries in other parts of the world, operating jointly with our allies and partners is a core part of our ability to deter conflict in multiple theaters, but it requires investment. Take the refueling support we provided for our French allies in Mali--6 million pounds of fuel to allow the French to take on that critical counterterrorism mission and support their troops on the ground. It would have cost us billions to do this mission by ourselves. That is why we need the allies. The same goes for Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and elsewhere. A good portion of our defense budget pays for our military to support our allies and partners so that we don't have to send our own troops over there and our allies can do it for us. It gives us insight into its operations. So do you see what would happen if our military's ability to posture forward and stay ready is choked by inadequate defense spending? Our allies and partners would suffer, not improve, and the United States would end up spending more money for less security. This goes directly against the Biden administration's stated goals. Thinking that alliances and partnerships can substitute for U.S. military capability and capacity is wishful thinking. It is illogical. That strategy will harm our national security. As former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said, ``Throughout history, we see nations with allies thrive and nations without allies wither.'' If we want to win against our strategic competitors, it will take both a strong, fully resourced military, as well as strong alliances and partnerships. Let's be clear. One is not an alternative for the other. You got to have both. So it is clear then that we need our allies. So how do we maintain this mutual relationship with robust defense spending of 3 to 5 percent real growth? That is what it calls for right here. This year, we should have a 3- to 5-percent increase, and the President's budget actually came out with a net decrease. That is why this whole thing is so important. Just this morning, we had a hearing, and we had one of the authors of this book. I asked him the same question. I said: This was put together back in 2018. Is it still accurate today? He said: Yes, it is. And it doesn't even increase enough to keep up with inflation. So Eric Edelman--he is one of the cosponsors of the NDS that we are referring to here that has been our blueprint for 5 years now. The report said it best in an article this week by Eric Edelman. He said in this article: [I]t remains a fact that allies and adversaries will see the U.S. commitment to defense as a crucial benchmark for assessing U.S. willingness and ability to succeed at long- term competition with its authoritarian adversaries. He continued, and this is Eric Edelman: A tough declaratory policy without adequate military means to reinforce it is a recipe for disaster, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. So I would just say this: President Biden walks the walk, but when it comes to supporting our allies, they don't do it, and I and many others know that it is meaningless without a strong defense budget to back it up. And we need a higher topline. We need a higher topline. It is going to have to be somewhere in the range that was put together by a group of Democrats and Republicans that outlined what we have to do for America to survive. So we need a higher topline, and we are going to end up getting a higher topline. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues strongly to vote against the nomination of Colin Kahl to serve as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. That position is the No. 3 position in the Department of Defense. Last week, Colin Kahl became President Biden's first nominee not to garner one single Republican vote on the Senate floor. The Vice President had to cast the tie-breaking vote. Every other nominee, even some of the most partisan progressives, earned at least one or some Republican votes. What makes this nomination even more out of the ordinary is that this truly never happens with DOD nominees. If you look back over the last decade, recorded votes on DOD nominees are rare and only a few times did a nominee receive support from fewer than two-thirds of the Senate. It just doesn't happen. It happened this time. Some of his tweets have raised concerns from a number of our colleagues that Dr. Kahl might have shared sensitive or classified information on Twitter. The junior Senator from Tennessee highlighted this on the floor last week. Furthermore, Dr. Kahl's tweets also show a history of volatile behavior that goes further than just being highly partisan and unbalanced. He is also somewhat of a conspiracy theorist. In May of 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel had seized a major nuclear archive from Iran. That archive has since revealed many previously unknown nuclear sites, and the International Atomic Energy Agency is working to gain access to inspect these sites today, thanks to Israel's discovery. But what did Dr. Kahl say about Israel's discovery at that time? He was skeptical, and he added: ``This sure has an eerie pre-2003 Iraqi vibe to it.'' In other words, rather than being alarmed about the fact that Iran had many undeclared nuclear sites, Dr. Kahl alleged that Israel was trying to goad America into war. Somehow, for Dr. Kahl the problem is never Iran or the weak 2015 Iran deal that didn't cover the nuclear sites that Israel revealed. He wants to give Iran massive sanctions relief to return to that deal. No, for Dr. Kahl the problem is Israel, especially when our Israeli friends reveal information about Iran's nefarious behavior. Again, this isn't about a policy disagreement. This is about whether Dr. Kahl is someone who can accept facts, even when those facts undercut his policy preferences. National security is a bipartisan priority. It always has been and always will be. As I said at the beginning of this, traditionally, nominees for key DOD roles receive bipartisan support in the Senate. In fact, I can't recall a single nominee for a top DOD position in the past 40 years who didn't garner at least one vote from the other party--either party. Now, I hope President Biden keeps this in mind as he staffs the rest of his administration. We need nominees who will work with Members on both sides of the aisle, and those Members have to trust that person in return. Moving forward, I would urge President Biden to listen to his own calls for bipartisanship and unity and send us nominees who could be approved without controversy. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was listening intently to the Senator from Texas, who is certainly familiar with the problems on the border. It happens that I spent 30 years down there as a builder and developer many years ago. I got to know the border people. They are trying to do a great job down there against some pretty impossible odds. You know, one thing I always think about is, it has nothing to do with Central American citizens or Mexicans; it is the people from the Middle East, terrorists from all over. Open borders don't work. So I applaud him for his efforts on that

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Let my start by urging my colleagues in the Senate to vote against the motion to discharge from the Senate Armed Services Committee the nomination of Colin Kahl for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. This is not a decision I take lightly. I have always felt that any new administration should have his team or her team, and I have generally been very supportive. When President Biden nominated Dr. Kahl for this position, my expectation was that, if confirmed, he and I would often disagree on policy, but we would actually get along together; we could coexist together. I quickly learned that this would really be impossible with Dr. Kahl. I don't think I have ever said that about any nominee for any position that I can recall. My Republican colleagues in the Senate Armed Services Committee--all 12 of them--reached the same conclusion. We opposed his nomination unanimously. That is very unusual. Before I explain why not a single Republican was able to support Dr. Kahl's confirmation in committee, I want to emphasize how rare this is. The Senate Armed Services Committee, as everyone knows, is extremely bipartisan, certainly in the years that I was chairing that committee with Ranking Member Jack Reed. We got along famously. We got things done that other people couldn't get done. The Senate Armed Services Committee has always been bipartisan. We have disagreements, of course, but Republicans and Democrats on the committee have a legacy of consensus. National security and taking care of our troops are bipartisan concerns. This is how we succeeded in passing the National Defense Authorization Act. The National Defense Authorization Act is the largest bill every year. It is the one where it sets out the guidelines for the coming year, and it is the one where we always have gotten along. We passed it every year for 60 consecutive years. It shows and demonstrates very clearly how well we get along. The Department deserves a nominee with bipartisan credibility. You have to keep in mind this position is the No. 3 position in the Pentagon. It represents our shared bipartisan vision of effective national security and healthy civil-military relations. This position demands a nominee who can carry out the President's policies while engaging those who disagree in good faith. That isn't the case with this nominee. That is why we are faced with this vote today. I also want to clear up a common misunderstanding. Republicans on the committee did not vote against Dr. Kahl simply because we disagreed with his policy views. Policy is what that position is. It is the policy position of the Pentagon. This should be obvious to anyone who paid attention to the confirmation of President Biden's nominees for Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary. We got through both of them quickly. I don't remember a time when any new administration got the two very significant positions of Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense so fast. We got them in record time. There are some things that we disagree with policywise, but we supported their confirmation, as did most of my Republican colleagues, for one reason: They were eminently qualified. I am talking about the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary. Both of them were eminently qualified, with long track records of bipartisan cooperation and strong professional judgment. I have dealt with both of them for many, many years. In fact, we expedited the nomination to give the President his national security team just about as quickly as we could. Republicans may disagree with him, but we can work with them very well. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Colin Kahl. The national security problems we face are wicked and complex. We wrestle with them constantly on this committee. What I cannot support are nominees who reduce complex national security conversations to partisan sound bites. For instance, as many of my colleagues will recall, back in October of 2019, Republicans and Democrats disagreed about our policy in Syria. When President Trump announced a full U.S. troop withdrawal from northeastern Syria, some of our colleagues worried about extended deployments. This is a reasonable concern because here is how Dr. Kahl chose to characterize it: Republicans are ``the party of ethnic cleansing,'' he wrote. He actually said that. He said that publicly. Good and kind people can disagree with each other. They don't have to resort to name-calling and accusations of war crimes. That is not an isolated example, as we discovered during our review of Kahl's writings and public statements. He often embraces conspiracy theories. For example, he alleged a ``Kushner-Kremlin quid pro quo'' referring to the President's son-in-law. And when given the opportunity to correct this type of conspiracy theory during his confirmation hearings, he refused to do it. He stood by those statements. Dr. Kahl also has a long history of claiming every policy decision with which he disagrees will lead to war. Thankfully, he has never been right. Dr. Kahl predicted that President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Iran deal would lead to war. It didn't. He said by sanctioning Iran's Foreign Minister, President Trump was boxing ``himself into war.'' There was no war. It didn't happen. At one point, Dr. Kahl suggested that President Trump might ``start a war with Iran for political diversionary purposes.'' This is a ridiculous claim. Obviously, it didn't happen. According to Dr. Kahl, the strike on Iranian terrorist leader Soleimani, the appointment of John Bolton as National Security Advisor, and the events of the Korean Peninsula, among others, were going to lead to war. And none of the wars happened. His public declarations and policy judgment are consistently partisan and consistently wrong. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy serves as the Defense Secretary's top national security advisor. It requires a leader with sound judgment and even temperament, and Colin Kahl simply doesn't possess either one of these qualities. Even worse, Dr. Kahl has a long track record of maligning people whom he disagrees with. I mentioned the Syrian example earlier. He also said that the Republican Party has a ``death cult fealty'' to Trump. That is seriously what he said. The bare minimum for the Defense Department's top policy position is good judgment and even temperament. Dr. Kahl lacks both of these qualifications. It would set a terrible precedent if we confirm someone like him for the job. I have a history of working so well with people on both sides, which is why I can and have supported many nominees whose policy views differ from mine. That goes with the job. We have someone who is elected President of the United States. I disagree with him on many of the issues having to do with our defense policy, but because I trust that while we may disagree, they understand that we are all trying to do the right thing for our Nation and for our kids and our grandkids. Unfortunately, I don't have that trust in Dr. Kahl. Confirming him would create a real political challenge for the Department over the years to come. Every time DOD lays down a new policy or makes a critical military decision, we will have to wonder: Was this the decision informed by the Department's skilled professionals or by the partisan conspiracy theorist that happens to run the Department? That is why all 13 Republicans on the Armed Services Committee voted to reject this nominee. This is why I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to discharge and urge President Biden to consider another nominee--one who can work productively with both sides of the aisle, even when we disagree. Mr. President, I would like to have you consider these things to make your job and my job a lot easier. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last week--no, it wasn't last week; it was about 3 weeks ago, I guess, now, President Biden released his ``skinny budget,'' which gave us a top-line for defense of $715 billion. This is a reduction, and I want to make sure everyone understands this because the cut is actually below inflation, and that is not where we are supposed to be. You know, we have this document here that everyone agrees with. I don't know one person--and this was written by six Democrats, six Republicans, and this was in 2018. This has been used as our blueprint ever since that time, and it is just remarkable the way it has come out. The recommendations on this, as I said, were made by six Republicans, six Democrats. All of them were experts in the field of defense, and they came out with recommendations. In this year, the amount in the budget for our military is supposed to be between 3 and 5 percent. This is in the document in front of us here. Of course, this is actually a reduction. So it is way below what has been prescribed. When it comes to China, there are two big reasons we need to make sure our budget matches our strategy. First of all, China is spending more on their military than ever before. As a result, they are getting more technologically advanced and starting to sway the military balance of power in their favor. There is no question about it, and I will document that in a minute. The threat the Chinese military poses is not a distant threat. It is not something that might happen in 2030, 2035, or sometime in the future. It is a problem we face today, right now, and it only gets worse over time. Admiral Davidson told the Armed Services Committee that he expects the threat to manifest ``this decade, in fact, in the next six years.'' That is the sense of urgency. That is when they become greater than we are in many areas of defense and aggression. So today I would like to spend some time dealing with the Chinese military and what they are doing. This is what we are up against. This is why it is so important that we get our defense budget right. Let's start with China's military budget. Since 2000, Beijing's spending on the People's Liberation Army has gone up 450 percent--450 percent. Now, we knew that back during the Obama administration, that actually went up. Our reduction--it was a reduction in the last 5 years--was 25 percent. At the same time, China went up by 83 percent. So this is what is going on in the world today. Beijing's budget for the military went up 450 percent. Now, you compare Beijing's buildup with the rest of East Asia. At the same time, our core allies and partners in the region--that is, Japan, Australia, South Korea, and Taiwan--have had basically flat defense budgets since 2000. Compare it with our own military spending. As I mentioned on the floor a couple of weeks ago, at the same time China was adding $200 billion to their defense budget, ours shrunk by $400 billion. We are certainly not provoking them with defense investment, and we have barely touched our force posture in the Western Pacific over the past two decades. So, if anything, our lack of action, our lack of investment, is what is provoking China into thinking they can push around and threaten our friends in the region. The Biden administration says they want to take our allies and partners seriously. So we should listen when they say they are concerned about Chinese aggression. And they are, and the administration knows this. I have had visits with the President. He is fully aware of that. Another progressive talking point is that the United States spends more on defense than the next 10 or 12 countries combined. Now, that is not true. The reality is that any honest comparison of numbers shows that, combined, the Chinese and Russians almost certainly spend more than us in real terms. China's purchasing power is significantly greater than ours because they pay their workers next to nothing and have much lower material costs. They also focus their defense spending on hard power. I am talking about airplanes, tanks, ships, missiles, and the like. Why? Because they don't take care of their people. People don't understand this. At least 40 percent of our military budget goes to supporting our people. That is not true with any of the Communist countries that are out there. All they do, they give them the guns and say go out and kill people. We don't do that. And 40 percent is a conservative figure. You remember the housing issue that was such a big issue; that you were concerned with; I was concerned with; we were all concerned with. That is something that other countries don't have to worry about. China doesn't worry about that. Russia doesn't worry about that. These are things that--and yet that is almost half of our total budget goes to those things for our troops. We take care of our troops. The rest of them don't. That is the right thing to do. But that is just another reason you can't do a dollar-for- dollar comparison between the Chinese and the defense spending. We need a better accounting. And incidentally, Senator Romney introduced an amendment to our last year's NDAA, military defense act, to get us a real comparison in spending. And the Pentagon owes us that report by October. Now, in October--we are going to talk about this. We are going to talk about this in our military because this is what the real spending is, not what a lot of people think that it is. All of this is to say, we don't have a good sense of China's true defense spending, but we do know it is going up. General McMaster called it ``the largest peacetime military buildup in history.'' That is what General McMaster said just the other day at one of our hearings. It is not just expanding their military; they are modernizing and professionalizing at the same time. Secretary Austin, our Secretary of Defense, rightfully, calls China our ``pacing threat.'' But here are a few of the ways that they have been outpacing us because they are investing where we are not investing. The American people think we are, but we are not. China has a 355-ship Navy. You know, we have been talking about that for a long period of time here--how we are going to grow to a 350-ship Navy, and we haven't done it. Well, China has done it. They have achieved that last year. And while we were just talking about it, they were on the attack to get 460 ships by 2030. By comparison, our Navy is around 300 ships, and it is likely to stay there if our defense budget doesn't grow. In the air, the combatant commanders assess that China will have more fifth-generation aircraft than we do in the Pacific by 2025, again, the fifth-generation aircraft. We are down right now to the F-35. There are not any others. We had the F-22. The F-22 was our first fifth-generation fighter, and it was one that we were all very excited about. They started out wanting 700 of them, and we ended up with 187, just for fiscal reasons. Again, that is where China is right now. That gets worse if we have a flat or declining budget here. China is expanding its arsenal too. The Pentagon's missile experts tell us that China is now over 350 launchers for medium-range ballistic missiles, which are capable of hitting Guam and striking the U.S. warships in the Pacific. They have produced exact copies of our bases, our ships, and our aircraft to serve as targets. And they are out there right now shooting those targets. That is us. That is America, and they are shooting on the replicas of our equipment to show that they can down them. By the way, they hit those targets successfully, I might add. And that is going on today. They also have thousands of short-range missiles. Many of those are going right at Taiwan. China is also dubbing its nuclear stockpile and completing their own nuclear triad. That is something that we have criticism in this country, that we have a triad; that is, three ways of deflecting nuclear attacks on America. So that is what is going on right now. China's military is charging ahead in just about every area. But a lot of the people who don't think China is a problem--they say that none of the Chinese weapons are as good as ours. Well, that was true in 1990. That was true in the year 2000. That is not true anymore. The Office of Naval Intelligence said in 2015 that China's latest surface warships were comparable in many ways to the mos modern Western ships. China has deployed thousands of ground-base missiles. We are still developing ours. They have fielded hypersonic strike weapons. We are still in the research and development. You might remember, because we saw that, the parade that was taking place in Beijing. They were demonstrating that they have these weapons that we don't have. And that was invested a year ago. Just last month, the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence assessed that the China rate of investment--they will soon dominate us in artificial intelligence unless we do something different than we are currently doing. And while the Chinese will spend almost $50 billion on tech infrastructure over the next few years, national security infrastructure is apparently the only thing that President Biden doesn't consider infrastructure. Not only is China spending more on its military, but it has the tools to beat us. Don't take my word for it. The bipartisan NDS--again, this is the document that we have been using, and it has been remarkably accurate, since 2018. That NDS Commission said, right in this book, the U.S. military might struggle to win or perhaps lose a war against China or Russia. That is what they said in 2018. And China has been going up ever since. Admiral Davidson told us the other week--only 2 weeks ago--that ``there is no guarantee that the United States would win a future conflict with China.'' China's military buildup isn't just investment for the sake of it; they are already flexing their new muscle to challenge America and American allies and American interests. And the PLA has deployed missiles, radars, stealth jet fighters, and bombers to islands in the South China Sea, claiming and militarizing islands in violation of international law. Just last year, the PLA fired anti-ship ballistic missiles into the South China Sea, clearly practicing to target U.S. Navy ships in the area. And that is what they are doing today. Those are Chinese troops walking on Woody Island in the South China Sea. And the PLA has been expanding its network of strategic ports and bases around the world from Djibouti to Pakistan and Cambodia and Sri Lanka and elsewhere. Last year, China started going after the territory of India, which has resulted in dozens of dead Indian soldiers. They have continually harassed Japan and Taiwan in the air and on the sea. Their fishing fleets have terrorized small Pacific island nations. Over 200 Chinese boats are staking out a reef in the South China Sea claimed by the Philippines. China has just completed a new satellite constellation over Taiwan that allows for almost constant coverage of the island, the highest known frequency of satellite coverage in the world. A few weeks ago, Taiwan reported the largest ever Chinese incursion when 25 combat aircraft flew into its airspace. And as the cochair of the Taiwan Caucus, this is of specific concern to me. Some people have forgotten that aggression by nation states is not a thing of the past. People have forgotten how costly it is when deterrence fails. That is why I am arguing for sustained real growth in the defense budget. We know it is necessary. We know that it is attainable because the burden of defense spending on the economy today is half what it was at the height of the Cold War. The Biden administration is trying to tell us that we can invest in economic and technological competition or the military competition. That is a false choice. We have to do the military. The reality is, the Chinese are engaged in every dimension of this competition, especially the military dimension, and they are not going to stop anytime soon. I would have to say, do we really want to be there for our allies or partners? Do we want our children and grandchildren to live in a world where our status of leader of the free world is in name only? You know, my wife and I have been married for 61 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids so I have a stake in this thing. I have a real concern. Do we want them, these kids, to grow up in a world where China--the same country that is committing genocide against the Uighurs, silencing free speech, and jailing activists in Hong Kong-- gets to set the rules of international engagement? This isn't a hypothetical question. That is a question that we are answering each year when we set our military budget, and, frankly, I am disappointed in how the current administration is answering that call. We have to be prepared to take on China from all angles of national power. And this begins with adequate resourcing of our U.S. military with real growth in the defense budget. It is kind of a myth floating around. I know every time I give a speech someplace in the State of Oklahoma or elsewhere, there is a kind of an assumption that we in the United States have the best of everything. And following World War II, that was true, but that isn't true today. And if America chooses to sit on the sidelines in this competition, and we ask our allies and partners to face China alone, the failure of military deterrence becomes more likely. And that is an outcome that nobody there or here wants. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.