Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this week marks the 26th anniversary of the worst domestic terrorist attack in history, and that was the Oklahoma City bombing. Each year, we mark this solemn occasion, and this year, we come together to do it again. I remember that day so clearly where 168 people were murdered. I remember the thundering cadence of the police officers, the firemen, and all the first responders as they were going into the--standing there watching them going into a burning building, risking their lives, and many of them died. I had close friends who died that day, and I know there were so many others who lost family and friends and loved ones. It was a day that forever changed our proud State. I was flying my plane back from the Mexican border to Tulsa, and I didn't have quite enough gas. I had to make a stop in Dallas. I looked up at the FBO, and there were crowds of people around that TV set in Dallas. I went to see what they were watching, and I recognized it. It was our downtown Oklahoma City buildings. The disaster had taken place, and everyone was watching. We could have let that moment define us and change us for the worse, and it would have been a lot easier to do that, but that is not the Oklahoma way. Second Corinthians reminds us to not lose heart in times of struggle and tragedy, and Oklahoma did not lose heart. What arose from the rubble that day was the Oklahoma Standard--strangers helping strangers, giving sacrificially, and performing acts of service for each other. I also want to take a moment to recognize the work of the Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum. For the past two decades, they have upheld their charge to honor those who were killed, those who survived, and those who were changed forever. So, today, please join me as we remember the victims, their families, and loved ones, as well as extend our thanks to all the first responders who were forever changed on April 19, 1995. Let's honor them by taking a moment to rededicate ourselves to live the Oklahoma Standard embodied in the actions of so many on that fateful day. We owe it to them. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on January 25, 2021, America lost a great patriot CPT James ``Jim'' Ronald Putek, 75, of Alpharetta, GA. Born in Chicago, IL, Jim was a decorated Army veteran having served in the Vietnam war, where he received the following awards: the National Defense Service Medal, the Bronze Star with one oakleaf Cluster, the Air Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with one Silver and one Bronze Service Star, the Army Aviator Badge, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal. Captain Putek's heroism will live forever. Following his retirement from the Army, Jim continued his passion for aviation as a commercial airline pilot for Piedmont Airlines and US Airways. Captain Putek is survived by his wife Tricia Putek, his sister Delores, his sister-in-law Mary, and his nieces and nephews Hank, Gwen, Joanne, Janet, and Jon. He was preceded in death by his parents Walter and Frances, and his brother Henry. Jim Putek was a fine gentleman and a true hero, respected and revered by everyone who met him. When Captain Putek passed, we not only lost a good man, we lost a great American.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I hope everyone heard this. I haven't met the Senator from California real well yet. I look forward to it. I look forward to serving with him, but I hope that everyone heard what is going on now: Just open the borders. You know, people in other countries--I won't mention some of them because I don't want them to be put in an awkward position--they say: Why in the world don't we have stronger borders in the United States of America? And we don't. Our previous President, I talked to him this morning. I talked to former President Trump this morning, and I talked about what is going on down there at the border. And the reason I am familiar with this-- much more familiar than the Senator from California or anyone else--is that I worked down there for 30 years on that border, all the way from Brownsville, TX, to McAllen. I know the border people down there. I know the agents down there. And for them to tell me that they have been told not to talk to the media about what is going on--I hope everyone knows what is going on right now, today. This is going on. You know, President Trump is all for people coming into America the legal way. He has made that very clear over and over again. He has spent time down on the border, both borders, making sure that we can have a legal--one of the most gratifying things in my job as a U.S. Senator, and I have been in these Chambers now since 1994--one of the most enjoyable things is to go to naturalization ceremonies. And you talk to these people who have come and worked to come across legally to our country. I defy you to find any one of these individuals who ha come here legally and gone through this naturalization process--they know more about the history of this country than people on the street, than people who were born here and people who are serving here in the U.S. Senate. They know the language. They learn the language. They did it the hard way. How do you tell them: You have gone through all this in the process of becoming legal, but you didn't have to do that. You just march right in. They are inviting you in. They want you in. Put it back up. Yes, that is what is going on right now. That is what is going on at the border. So I want everyone to know what is happening now. We can be sympathetic to a lot of people, but the idea of saying that we had a President who was putting kids in cages, come on. Let's get real. We don't want to do that. We don't have to do that. We just want to make it very clear to the American people that we have borders, and we ought to be protecting these borders. A lot of the people who come in, they aren't necessarily from Central America or from Mexico. These are--a lot of them are terrorists coming over. They are coming from the Middle East, coming from all over the world, coming into our porous borders. Now, is that what people want? No, it is not. Overwhelmingly, they have rejected the idea of open borders, letting everyone come in. Well, we are to going stay with this, and I am going to resubmit this very simple resolution, as follows: It is the sense of the Senate that the current influx of migrants at the southern land border of the United States constitutes a crisis. It is a crisis. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President. It is obvious to just about everyone outside of Washington that the situation on our southern border is a crisis. I can't believe that anyone wouldn't believe that it is a crisis, but there are some who would answer that it isn't a crisis. President Biden and the DHS Secretary refused to call it a crisis. It is not just a challenge. They called it a challenge. This isn't a challenge. This is a crisis. Ask anyone you see on the street if it is a crisis--people lined up, coming in illegally. You don't have to take my word for it. Look at the facts. We have had a 173-percent increase in border apprehensions compared with 1 year ago--173-percent increase. This past February, apprehensions were at the highest total for February in 14 years. DHS admits that we are on track for the most illegal migrants in more than 20 years. This is on the border. This is today. This is what is happening. Last week, mainstream media news reports found that the administration is restricting information Border Patrol agents are allowed to share with the media about the crisis. The border agents claim that they are under an unofficial gag order. These are the border agents. These are the ones who do this for a living. They are down there. They are protecting our laws, stopping illegals from coming in. That is what their job description is, and yet they are under a gag order. They don't want the media to find out. And they are being told to deny media requests for ride-alongs at the border. Now, that is so the media can tell the people of America what is going on down there, and they are being denied that opportunity. The DHS Secretary claims that he is committed to openness and transparency, but this is not openness and transparency. This is hiding from the people what is going on. Maybe this administration is doing this and refusing to call it a crisis because their policies have invited this surge. This surge is coming as a result. President Biden has frozen funds from Congress directed for the building of the wall. He ended the ``Remain in Mexico'' asylum policy that was put there by the previous administration. It is a crisis. Illegal aliens know Biden is opening our borders up, and they intend to take advantage of that. And the illegals are wearing the Biden T- shirts. Do you see this photograph over here? There they are. Biden, we are coming in. I know a lot about the southern border because I have been there countless times, seeing firsthand the problems on both the Mexican side and the American side of the border. I was a builder and developer for 30 years down there. I know that border. I was there for 30 years, all the way from Brownsville to McAllen, TX, on both sides. I know the individuals that are down there who are the career people protecting our borders. I am disappointed that the administration is reversing the progress we have made over the past 4 years and shocked that they simply won't acknowledge it is a crisis. The border security should not be a partisan issue, and I am glad there are a few Senate Democrats who share my concern about this crisis. I applaud them for speaking out. It took guts to do it. Well, I have got a resolution, and I am going to introduce this resolution. I introduced it, actually, already. I think every Senator will agree with it. It is a simple resolution. We haven't checked this out yet, but I think this might be the shortest resolution in the history of the U.S. Senate. I am going to read it to you. It simply states: It is the sense of the Senate that the current influx of migrants at the Southern land border of the United States constitutes a crisis. That is it. Nothing more. So, with that, Mr. President, as in legislative session--this is a unanimous consent request, Mr. President. I am making it right now. As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 132, submitted earlier today. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I understand we are not in a quorum call.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am down here today to talk about something that I have talked about many times before, and that is the need to have a strong defense budget so we can deter our adversaries. You know, it is not like it used to be in the old days. It is for real. These guys--China, for example, is in a position they have never been in before. I think it is important that we talk about this budget that is coming up again. It is more important now than ever. Over the past few weeks, the Senate Armed Services Committee has been having hearings in which we have heard from top military leaders, defense experts, and Pentagon officials. What we have heard has been grim. LTG H.R. McMaster told us that since the 1990s, China has undertaken the ``largest peacetime military buildup in history.'' Admiral Davidson, who leads the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said, ``I think our conventional deterrent is actually eroding in the region.'' Last week, Admiral Faller, who leads the U.S. Southern Command, said, ``Now more than ever, I feel a sense of urgency about global threats we face in our neighborhood.'' Now, I agree. I thought the Cold War was bad, but the threats we are facing now, especially from China, are more complex and more dangerous than they ever have been before. In fact, I look back sometimes wistfully at the days of the Cold War when things were predictable. We had two superpowers. We knew what they had; they knew what we had. Mutual assured destruction meant something. It really doesn't anymore. Times have changed. I agree that the Cold War was bad, but it is worse today. I am glad to hear President Biden and members of his administration say that China is our top pacing threat. Both Secretary Austin and Deputy Secretary Hicks told the Armed Services Committee during their nomination hearings that was the situation. What concerns me is, I haven't seen the Biden administration take any action that backs up these words. Instead, we are hearing rumors that the Biden administration is considering a flat defense budget, which is actually a 2-percent cut when you adjust for inflation. At the same time, China is increasing theirs by 6.8 percent. It kind of reminds me of the last 5 years of the Obama-Biden administration. That would have been from 2010 to 2015. During that 5- year period, the budget for the military was reduced by 25 percent. At the same time that it was reduced by 25 percent, China was increasing theirs by 83 percent. This was happening out in the real world. People are not aware of this. This sort of thing tells me that the administration isn't serious about pushing back on China. And do you know what? It also tells China the same thing. So talk is cheap, but defending our country is not. If we really want to send the right signal to Beijing--a signal that says you can't ever win against us--we need sustained investment in our defense. We have seen what happens when we cut defense spending before. Look no further than the Obama administration's 25 percent cut over 5 years. If we had just increased defense spending with the rate of inflation over the past decade, we could have invested another $400 billion in modernizing our military--money we wouldn't have to spend today. Instead, we are playing catchup with China, which added at least $200 billion that we know of--we never know for sure with China--to its defense budget over the same time period. Chinese military modernization has been nothing short of astonishing. Their ability to move fast and increase production rates is leaving us back in the dust. We have invested heavily in the advanced capabilities we know we need, like hypersonic weapons, biotechnology, and quantum computing. We are already spreading our military too thin. Our servicemembers have been asked to do too much with too little for too long. But we know how we can put our military on a better track. We have a blueprint--the 2018 National Defense Strategy. This strategy actually has been very effective. It was put together back in 2018 by six Democrats and six Republicans, and they all had expertise in the area, where it has not been questioned. So we actually have a document here that shows us what we can do. If we had increased--the Chinese military modernization has been nothing short of astounding. Their ability to move fast and increase production rates is leaving us in the dust. Here we have something that we can follow, and it has been successful so far. We have all agreed that this is what we should be doing, but we have not been doing it successfully. We know the strategy is right when it comes to priorities and the long-term nature of this competition. Secretary Austin and Secretary Hicks said as much in our committee hearings. So why are they talking about adding more missions, including the Department's role in climate change and pandemic response and not countering China? So we know what the strategy needs to be, and that tells us what the demands on our force look like. Those demands keep growing. Now we need to mesh the budget with the strategy. We know what it looks like, and that is at least a 3- to 5-percent real growth above inflation. Now, that is what was determined some time ago, in 2018, and that is what we really need to be doing, but we are not doing it. And yet we know what should be done. So, you know, this is a new administration, and I am going to do all I can. I have already met with the President, with the administration. I know that they are concerned, but we are going to have to get down and actually get it done. It means, in real dollars, an increase of at least $75 to $125 billion each year. Now, that would be if we stuck with the 3- to 5-percent increase that is predicted as being necessary in this book. This kind of investment for 5 years in a row would completely close the difference between U.S. and Chinese defense spending. And what does the investment get us? It allows us to keep our commitment to our servicemembers to not only take care of them and their families but also to give them the tools and training to do their jobs. You know, often, we hear about the fact that we are spending too much on the military. We talk about that we spend more on the military than both China and Russia put together. But there is a reason for that. The most expensive line that we have in our military is taking care of the troops, their families. You know, in the communist countries, they don't have to do that. They give them the guns; they go out and kill people. They don't have to spend the money that we do. But we do it, and we do it right. But we need to continue to increase so we can get dug out of the hole that we have dug over decades of insufficient funding and overuse of the force. The bills have been piling up for years. This is a down payment to get the U.S. military healthy for decades of strategic competition. Now, I am hesitant to even entertain this idea, but I think it is important to talk about it. I know that there are some out there who would like to see the President go even further and cut defense spending by 10 percent. This is wrong, and Congress has already flat rejected it on a bipartisan basis last year. In the Senate it was defeated by 77 to 23. Even in the Democrat-led House, it was defeated on a 3-to-1 margin. Now, take it from the President's own Deputy Secretary of Defense, Kath Hicks, who wrote that a 10-percent cut would turn the United States into a regional power, increase nuclear proliferation, and weaken our allies. This is completely opposite of everything President Biden says he wants to do. It would preemptively surrender the 21st century to the Chinese Communist Party. A strong defense budget is the first step. It underpins all of our efforts when it comes to diplomacy, the economy, and technology. Is China going to slow its military investments any time soon? No, it is not. In fact, we know their actual level of spending is a lot larger than it looks. Economics, yes, but the Chinese Communist Party also lies about its military budget--no surprise. We know that they lied about COVID-19, and they continue to lie about their human rights atrocities against the Uighurs. So if we don't properly resource our military and put our right forces in the right place at the right time with the right staff, we are going to fall further behind. So it is kind of early right now, and this is the time, though, that we need to be talking about it immediately to be preparing for the future. The bipartisan 2018 NDS Commission report already said the U.S. military could very well lose the next state-on-state war it fights. We need the Biden administration to lead here--to walk the walk and not just talk the talk when it comes to China. And if the Biden team won't lead, I will make sure that we use our role in Congress to send the message. It is not just Beijing that needs to see that we are serious, but our allies and our partners need to see this as well. The best signal we can send is a strong defense budget topline. This can't simply wait any longer. This is common sense, and this is something, I think, that we will, on a bipartisan basis, recognize that we need to do and prepare for immediately. That is what we intend to do, and that is what is expected of us at this time. With that, I will yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, President Biden has a lot of duties and obligations and a lot on his plate right now. The important thing that we are involved in, that we are all concerned about, are the nominees, who they are, what the process is, and what leverage do we in the minority have to impact that. I think that Xavier Becerra is not fit to be our Secretary of Health and Human Services, and I say this because of his appalling track record disrespecting the sanctity of life, blatantly attacking First Amendment rights, and his extreme policy views. Now, throughout his career, Mr. Becerra has proven he has no shame when it comes to his pro-abortion beliefs. As attorney general of California, Becerra led a yearslong lawsuit targeting the Little Sisters of the Poor. This order of Catholic nuns is devoted to caring for the elderly poor. All they want is to be free to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs, and I think we can all understand that. But Becerra sued the Federal Government to force the nuns--and we are talking about the Little Sisters of the Poor--to provide access to birth control and abortion-inducing drugs, completely disrespecting their religious beliefs. During his confirmation hearings, multiple Senators asked Mr. Becerra about his lawsuit, and he said: I've never sued any affiliation of nuns. [M]y actions have always been directed at the Federal agencies. But I think it is pretty misleading because he may have sued the Federal Government, but his actions certainly were directed at the nuns. And that is not his only assault on life. Mr. Becerra also fought against the Trump administration's title X rule in court. We all remember this. This is where he ensured that Federal tax dollars would only go toward family planning clinics that don't offer abortions. And, during the pandemic, Becerra has been an aggressive advocate of expanding access to chemical abortions, thereby providing abortions by mail that are done at home and without the supervision of a medical provider. And all abortions, in my view--and I know a lot of people don't agree with this, but I think all abortions are bad. But increasing unsupervised access to chemical abortions, which are four times more likely to cause problems and complications for the mother than surgical abortions, shows that Mr. Becerra's concern isn't about health; it is about his pro-abortion agenda. We shouldn't be surprised. During his time in Congress, Mr. Becerra voted against multiple pro-life bills, including the partial-birth abortion ban, and that was one that was sponsored on both sides. It was a bipartisan bill. It banned the horrific procedure in which a baby is partially delivered and then painfully destroyed. But Becerra isn't just radical in his support for abortion. He also goes after the First Amendment rights of individuals who disagree with him. I am sure everyone here remembers the shocking, heart-wrenching evidence collected by two undercover journalists in 2015 that showed Planned Parenthood's involvement in selling the body parts of aborted babies. Becerra has chosen to prosecute the journalists rather than take the action to protect babies and investigate the evidence of this behavior. Becerra also targeted the California pro-life pregnancy centers by forcing them to advertise abortions, in violation of their First Amendment rights. Now, he fought them all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and he lost. But he didn't give up. Last fall, he supported California's ban on indoor worship services, also in violation of the First Amendment, and he lost again in the Supreme Court. He doesn't give up. Justice Gorsuch said--and this is a quote from Justice Gorsuch. He said: If Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California's churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry. I agree with Justice Gorsuch in that observation. Becerra also wants to decriminalize illegal immigration, saying: They are not criminals. They haven't committed a crime against someone. Should he be confirmed to be the HHS Secretary, he would be positioned to give illegal immigrants access to his programs. So, lastly, I just want to send a message to the pro-life movement, to people in Oklahoma and Americans all around the country who really believe in the sanctity of life. We are not going to give up in trying to block this nomination, and we will do everything we can to stop the confirmation of Xavier Becerra. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment up No. 786 and ask it be reported by number.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this amendment shouldn't be controversial to anyone. It has been our position in the United States for 25 years that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and we should have our Embassy in Jerusalem. This is not controversial. In 1995, the same amendment was 93 to 5. In 2017, it was 90 to 0. With that, I retain the balance of my time Vote on Amendment No. 786

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 15 seconds from our time to our friend, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Hagerty.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have a hard time with that, I say to my friend from Connecticut. Somehow, in protecting those with Down syndrome, you are killing those with Down syndrome. Right now, I am really shocked that people would talk about protecting children. The previous speaker was from Pennsylvania. He had a bill on childcare and taking care of kids. Yet now we are talking about the fact that a baby, in having been diagnosed with having Down syndrome, somehow should be aborted. I can't think of how anyone could oppose this bill, especially because the American people overwhelmingly--70 percent of them--oppose aborting a child on the basis that the child would be born with Down syndrome. That includes 56 percent of the people who consider themselves to be pro-abortion people. Fifty-six percent of the people who support abortion oppose this on the basis of a Down syndrome diagnosis. In the United States, over two-thirds of the unborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted right now. Why? Instead of receiving information, resources, and support, mothers often resort to feeling pressure to abort. Justice Clarence Thomas put it a little bit more directly. He said: ``I am deeply concerned that for babies with Down syndrome, abortion has become `a tool of modern day eugenics.' '' That was from a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. My bill would protect these innocent lives from systematic discrimination through abortion. We say that we support equality in the United States. Yet countless babies' lives have been stolen because of their chromosome counts. So I am surprised that my colleagues can object to this commonsense bill and that they reject protecting the most vulnerable among us, and, certainly, those who are born with Down syndrome are among the most vulnerable among us. I just want the people to know out there, our friends in the Down syndrome community--and there is a community--that a lot of people are concerned about this. I am going to keep fighting for you even though some are using any kind of excuse that they can think of from protecting these babies. Before I yield the floor, I will respond to any comments from the Senator from Connecticut. Hearing none, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 75 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think there is something that may be coming up that is worth addressing right now and addressing early. It has been a concern, a bipartisan concern, for a long period of time, and that is that President Biden has made it clear that he intends to reenter the 2015 Iran deal, better known as the JCPOA. Now, this was something that disturbed a lot of people--a lot of Democrats as well as Republicans--back during the Obama years, and I want to get it on record here to make sure that reentering that Iran deal would be a terrible mistake and that the administration would face stiff opposition in Congress if he tried to go that route. There are things that we can do but not reentering that one. There can be no return to a deal with limitations on Iran's nuclear program that begin to expire in 4 years or the return to a deal that, ultimately, allows Iran to enrich enough uranium for a nuclear weapon after those limitations. Keep in mind that Iran is the country that is right in the middle of all of the terrorist activity, promoting terrorism around the world, and to even think about allowing them to keep some kind of a nuclear capability that can be used as a bomb--it is just unthinkable that it could happen. We couldn't return to a deal that lifts the sanctions on a government that is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and is targeting U.S. personnel and partners across the Middle East. You don't need to take my word for it. My Democratic colleagues warned the Obama administration in 2015. I was here. I remember when it happened. They were talking about the shortcomings of that deal. One was the senior Senator from New York, the current majority leader, Chuck Schumer, who warned that, under the Iran deal, ``inspections are not `anywhere, anytime,' '' and ``the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.'' That would be right. Essentially, what he said was that they can do anything they want to do for 24 days before we restrict anything that they are doing. He was right. He further said: ``That delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions-- the tools that go into building a bomb but don't emit radioactivity.'' That door was left wide open that this could take place. Or listen to the Democratic colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. He is the new chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and he warned that the deal meant ``we are now embarked not on preventing nuclear proliferation, but on managing or containing it, which leaves us with a far less desirable, less secure, and less certain world order.'' Or listen to my Democratic colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin. He serves with me on the committee that I had chaired for quite some time, the Senate Committee on Armed Services. He warned us. He said: ``Lifting sanctions without ensuring that Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is neutralized is dangerous to regional and American security.'' I mean, these are no-brainers. These are things that Democrats and Republicans alike were warning us about--of the frailties that were in that proposal back in 2015. Now, my Democratic colleagues were pretty prophetic in what they were warning. They were warning three things. First of all, we still, after this period of time, do not know the full scope of Iran's nuclear program. Secondly, Iran's nuclear production slowed, but it did not end after that. Third, Iran did, in fact, use its sanctions relief to fund terrorism, and it continues to support groups who target Americans for murder. I just wish that then-Vice President Biden had listened to my Democratic colleagues and their warning about the Iran deal's shortcomings then, and I hope that he will listen now that he is President. It is more significant, and there is simply no good argument for returning to a bad deal. Too often, supporters of the Iran deal have accused the Iran deal's critics--talking to me and others, I am sure--of being opposed to any deal at all. Back in 2015, the Obama administration depicted the opponents of the Iran deal as warmongers. Let me just be clear. Nobody wants war with Iran. If anything, I believe the Obama-era deal makes war more likely by enriching one of the worst state sponsors of terrorism and by giving it a clear pathway towards nuclear weapons capabilities. I am not making this stuff up. This is serious. Calling the people who oppose him warmongers couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, after killing Iran's arch-terrorist, Soleimani, last year, President Trump explicitly called for a deal that makes the world safer and more peaceful. He was calling for that at that time. So we don't want war, but we also don't want a flawed Iran deal. That terrible deal isn't and never has been the only choice. But we would absolutely consider supporting a good deal. What would a good deal look like? I want to highlight four main principles that we would look for, and this is something the President can do now. First, the deal has to be comprehensive. That means addressing all of Iran's bad behavior: its funding of terrorism, terrorist proxies, its ballistic missile program, its nuclear program--the things my Democratic colleagues were worried about back in 2015. Secondly, the deal has to be inclusive of the views of Israel and our Arab partners. The Obama administration sidestepped their concerns, and President Biden should not do the same now. We should have learned from that. Third, the deal must be permanent. The 2015 deal allowed for sunset provisions that would ultimately allow Iran to possess a nuclear weapons capability. And I will be clear: Iran should never be allowed to have a nuclear capability. Fourth, the deal has to be transparent. It has to allow for regular and unconditional inspections of Iran's nuclear program, just as the majority leader called for 6 years ago. I mean, what is wrong with making sure that we are allowed to make inspections to make sure they are doing what they have agreed to do? There is nothing wrong with that. Now, these are things my colleagues and I agree on. President Biden can find bipartisan support here. To repeat, we want a diplomatic resolution, not war, but that means a good resolution. Of course, it is far from clear that the Iranian regime is ready and willing to engage in serious negotiations. So I call on the Biden administration to lay the groundwork now so that a new deal has the foundation to succeed when the Iranian regime is ready. You know, that is a logical thing that I think would encompass a lot of support from the Republican side and support from the House. Specifically, this means maintaining our leverage with Iran through sanctions and a strong U.S. military posture in the region. It also means opening discussions with our European allies and our other regional partners to coordinate priorities for the new deal. Most importantly, it means working with Congress early and often so that there is a sustainable, bipartisan path forward when the time is right. Along those lines, I was disappointed by President Biden's decision to appoint someone who negotiated the Iran deal as his new Iran envoy. A new deal requires new thinking. Bipartisan cooperation won't be achieved by elevating the partisans of the past. If something didn't work back then, just try somebody else. Send new personnel working on these problems. Moving forward, the Biden administration should expect difficult confirmations for any nominee who was involved in negotiating that deal back in 2015. President Biden has an opportunity to correct the Obama administration's mistakes on Iran. It has a chance to build bipartisan congressional support for a diplomatic resolution that is truly comprehensive, inclusive, transparent, and permanent. A successful Iran deal allows the United States to focus more squarely on the challenges of Russia and China. A return to the Iran deal, however, will empower the Iranian regime and keep us mired in the region. I think everyone knows Iran. It is the world leader in terrorism, and we should do everything we can to make sure they don't get a nuclear capability to develop a nuclear weapon. I can't imagine that anyone could argue with that. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, one of the best presentations I have heard in a long time was just a couple of hours ago by James Lankford. What he was talking about, I have never heard a presentation more heartfelt and compassionate than he did on the unborn, and I couldn't touch that. But there are a couple of things I wanted to add that perhaps were not on his--he didn't have time to get around to. It is really important that we recognize celebrating this March for Life that is taking place. It is something that has happened each year for a long time now. I have always enjoyed being a part of it. We have large groups of people coming up from Oklahoma. However, it is virtual this year as everything else is. It is more important than ever under this new administration and its radical abortion practices and the personnel that have been suggested to be part of the administration. So it is going to be maybe a greater fight than it has been in the past. In light of that, I am introducing a bill I have introduced before, but we have never been able to get it passed. It is called Protecting Individuals with Down Syndrome Act, which will prohibit abortions being sought because the unborn baby has Down syndrome. All abortion is tragic, but this population has been specifically targeted. In the United States--it just turned out this way, and there is no law that influences it--in the United States, approximately 67 percent of the unborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. All lives have inherent worth regardless of their chromosome count. I think we all understand that. But my fight does not stop there. I am also joining my colleagues in introducing several pro-life bills as we prepare for March for Life, including Senator Sasse's. He has a bill that is the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. His bill ensures that a baby who survives an abortion will receive the same treatment as any child naturally born at the same age. People don't realize this, but babies who have been in an attempted abortion and they survive the abortion, they don't get the medical treatment that they normally would get, which this bill directly addresses. This has been going on for a long time. I have a feeling that we have an opportunity. The numbers are changing in our direction in terms of the unborn and have been for some time. Now, my wife Kay and I have been married 60 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids, so I know something about babies. I know something about babies who are born. And I looked up and I saw--because of the great presentation that Senator Lankford gave, I was looking for some material I had used in the past. It was 28 years ago that I came down here to tell the story about Ana Rosa Rodriguez. This is what I said. I was in the House at that time. This was in the House Record, and this is what I said at that time. I said: Mr. Chairman, there is a big misconception regarding abortion and the issue of women and their right to protect their bodies. It is not that right that I object to, but the right that is given them to kill an unborn fetus--an unborn [baby]. I want to share with you a story that my colleague, Chris Smith told some time ago on this very floor. Ana Rosa Rodriguez is an abortion survivor. At birth she was a healthy 3 pound baby girl except for her injury--she was missing an arm. Ana survived a botched abortion. Her mother attempted to get an abortion in her 32nd week of pregnancy when she was perfectly healthy--8 weeks past what New York State law legally allows. In the unsuccessful abortion attempt the baby's right arm was ripped off [from her body], however they failed to kill Ana Rosa. She lived. And I got to know her after that. Pro-life supporters agreed that nightmare situations like the Rodriguez case are probably not [all that] common, but abortion related deaths and serious injuries occur more [often] than most people are aware. It is amazing that we can pay so much attention to issues such as human rights abroad and can allow the violent destruction of over 26 million children here at home. We are fortunate that Ana was not one of those children--she survived. That was in 1992. I was in the House at that time. But today we still don't have explicit Federal protections for babies who survive the brutal abortion process. Now, as I said, this issue is not about abortion but about caring for a baby outside the womb. These kids are--they failed an abortion, so they are alive. In most cases, they are in a hospital setting--in many cases, anyway--and yet they don't get the same care. They don't look at them as someone you can save. You don't want to use lifesaving talents on these babies. The need for these protections become even clearer as we see States like New York and Illinois that allow abortion for virtually any reason up to the point of birth and support infanticide by removing protectants for infants born alive after a failed abortion. Just a few years after that speech I gave in 1997, I was on the floor with my good friend former Senator Rick Santorum to try to pass a partial-birth abortion ban and end the horrific practice of late-term abortions. Fortunately, we won the battle against partial-birth abortions and finally ended that practice in 2003. That ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007. But we have yet to pass legislation banning late-term abortions. Only seven countries allow abortion after 20 weeks, including the United States and North Korea. Now, that is horrific. The United States is supposed to be an example in regards to global human rights. Yet we are on par with North Korea when it comes to protecting the unborn. Senator Graham's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would help roll back this horrific practice by prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization. That is when we know that babies can feel. It is not even debatable; they can feel pain at that time. It is another commonsense bill that should not divide us along party lines. A baby is a baby whether in or outside of the womb, and each baby deserves a chance to live as an individual created in the image of God. There is still much more we need to do to end the abortion-on-demand culture. Under the last administration, we protected the Hyde amendment, reinstated and expanded the Mexico City policy, and stripped abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from using title X funding for abortions. Unfortunately, President Biden is trying to undo all those accomplishments that we made in the last administration. The need to stand up for our babies is as important today as it has ever been--certainly in 1992 and 1997 when I quoted from talks I made back at that time. We will overcome evil with good by upholding and affirming the dignity and inherent worth of every human being. We will just keep fighting, and we are going to win this one. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Don't forget Cal Ripken, the Cal Ripken of climate. That is pretty good. Well, Madam President, that is not what I came to talk about. I came to listen.

Mr. INHOFE. Before my friend leaves, I just want him to know that I relished the opportunity to be here for his, what, 400th or however long it has been--but his final speech. And I am excited about the final speech because I have got it pretty well memorized now. And while I have to say this--I say this about another person who has been on the committee with me for a long period of time--that while I don't agree with very much of what you say, you say it so well. That goes with you, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, because we cover a lot of issues in that committee. I think it was--we have a new majority now. We will see some things that you will seize upon as opportunities that may make some changes. And I will be there to try to keep that from happening, but, nonetheless, we will enjoy it. There are so many issues right now in the committee, I say this to my friend from Massachusetts, that we are involved in. You know, one of them is an issue we discussed in some detail about the Western Sahara and some things that have gone on there. We find so many things that we can agree on. And I look forward to being in the new position of being in the minority and combating from a different perspective. So congratulations on the commitment that you have made to your cause and the time and the effort and the eloquence that you have used over the years.

Mr. INHOFE. I will yield, yes.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, there are many other areas, I recall so many times, during a long period of time when Democrats were in the majority, Barbara Boxer was the chairman of our committee; and when Republicans were in the majority, I would be the chairman and then she would be the ranking member. But I have to say this, in that committee, we got things done. You overlooked the infrastructure thing and how important that was. And I have a confession that is good for the soul. I have to admit, every time we had a new infrastructure bill, I started off on the Democratic side because they seemed to be more interested in some of the things that I was interested in. Anyway, that is the way it works around here, and we all love each other. All right?

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, yesterday I had the opportunity to respond to the majority on my support for Tony Blinken to be the Secretary of State. He is someone I have known for a long period of time. I think we will see that with the new administration here and myself being a conservative Republican, there will be some appointments that I will not really be excited about and agree with, in which case I will state it. But in the case of the Secretary of State, I expressed myself yesterday and I want to do it again today for what I consider to be a really critical first appointment--second appointment that the new administration makes, and that would be for General Austin to be the person in charge at a time that is very unique. I agree with the Senator who just spoke about the qualities of this general. We know that he rose through the ranks through the Army to become the first four-star general and commander of Central Command from 2013 to 2016. He has done everything right. We, right now--I know the Presiding Officer is aware of this and certainly the ranking member of the committee is aware of this--we are in the most threatening times that we have ever been in. We have China and Russia out there with capabilities that we didn't really believe we would find ourselves with. So that is going to be the primary concern of this new administration, and I can't think of a better person to take the helm than General Austin to provide the leadership. And it is true that we had to have a waiver yesterday. That waiver was overwhelmingly supported in a bipartisan way. So everyone knows that we gave a lot of thought to it. And this is at a time where we really needed someone with the background of General Austin to take that position, and I strongly support it and look forward to serving with him. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks from the Senator from Arkansas that I be recognized.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, let me just compliment my friend from Arkansas on his great remarks. People are not aware of the threats we are facing in this country. I want to join him in encouraging the new administration to understand and address these threats