Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Let me know, and I will be glad to suspend.

Mr. INHOFE. Anyway, during that time, during the Obama administration, during those 5 years, he reduced the funding for the military by 25 percent. Now, this has not happened, in my memory. It hasn't happened since World War II that we have gone through a 5-year period of doing that. And the tragedy is that during that same time, China was increasing theirs by 83 percent. Stop and think about that--83 percent--when you realize that we were reducing our expenditures by 25 percent while they are increasing theirs by 83 percent. Now, that is serious enough, and that is something that is very much a concern to many of us. So we know that they were increasing, we were decreasing, and, as a result, things happened. There are some things that they did-- hypersonics, for example. That is one of the most recent exercises that is out there. They are actually, today, as we speak--they are ahead of us. Both China and Russia are ahead of the United States of America in hypersonics and that type of technology that is out there. This President came along--and I know there is a lot of controversy about this bill. I know that the President wanted to have something in there that was having to do with language that had nothing to do with the military. I agree wholeheartedly with him, but you can't. You have got to have a defense authorization bill. Our kids in the field demand it. With the NDAA, we are implementing the policies and programs to make sure that this doesn't happen, to ensure that America is able to prevent and, if necessary, win wars of today and tomorrow. At this point, I would like to defer to the minority leader, and I do ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his remarks that I be recognized to make my remarks.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call.

Mr. INHOFE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I did want to get some final comments. I mentioned a minute ago and, of course, it is the right of the leaders--Democratic and Republican leaders--to have the first time. It is fine with me, but I just want to make one comment about it. The minority leader was talking about what is going on right now and who would be favored and all that. I think one of the things we don't talk about, we should talk about. You know, I know the media doesn't like our President, and a lot of things he has done he didn't get credit for it. One of the major things--and this is all going to come out-- unfortunately, this didn't come out before the election, but it should have because there is--what do they call that? Warp speed? Is that right? Yes, this Operation Warp Speed. This was back in June. The President came out with this. General Perna was put in charge of it. I wasn't prepared to talk about this, but I think it is important right now that we do because I want to follow up with what the minority leader talked about because everyone is concerned about it. They are all concerned about the coronavirus and those things. This has never happened in this country before. But it has happened. It had nothing to do with this administration. They did a great job. And to demonstrate what a great job they did, they had the Operation Warp Speed--this was back in June of this year--and they put General Perna in charge of it. I chair the Senate Armed Services Committee. They wanted us to have a hearing on this. I was so excited. No one could have sat through that hearing last June without coming to the conclusion that this thing is going to be behind us. We are winning this thing. And you come to the conclusion that we are going to have the virus under control. We are going to have this system. We all know that is happening today, right now, as we are speaking. We have several companies--five companies--who have come so close, and they are now distributing the necessary equipment so that people become immune to this thing. That is happening right now. It happens that even though this was last June--it was last June that we had the hearing in my committee. Everything that they predicted, that General Perna predicted at that time, is happening. They said by December we would have it. Well, here it is, December, and we have got it. And then we said it is going to take about 3 months to be able to make the distribution around the country. And that time is coming up. It is getting close to that time, and that is going to happen. I mean, we are looking right now at April as the time that we have got this thing defeated. And right now, this administration--I want to give them credit for this. They have got this distribution system set up so it is going to be going around the country, and this thing is going to come to an end. I have to tell you that the President is responsible for putting this in place, and it is, right now, on schedule. I don't want to take a lot of time. I see that Senator Reed has come in. Senator Jack Reed is the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Let me just tell you, I can't think of anyone I would rather have as a partner in putting together the Defense authorization bill--the most important bill of all year--than Senator Jack Reed. He has been there by my side, with me, working together. We had a Big 4 meeting. We always end up with a Big 4 meeting. To tell you what that is, that is the ranking Democrat and Republican in the House, the Democrat and Republican in the Senate; and the four of us get together and decide what are we going do, what is this going to look like. And then we pass it. We passed this bill. It is a good bill. It is one that we have the opportunity to vote on today, the most important bill of the year. And if voting against it, you have to stop and think about those kids who are out there in harm's way and the threats that they are facing on a regular basis. This is a problem. This is a serious thing that is out there. I can't imagine wanting to have to face these people in the field, in harm's way, and say: Well, we didn't pass the Defense authorization bill. We are going to pass it. These kids are going to get the right treatment that they need. They are going to get the resources they need. I did mention just a few minutes ago about the previous administration. I don't want people to misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying this critically of the Obama administration. I am saying he didn't have the same priorities that many of us have. His top priority was not defending America, in spite of what the Constitution tells us what should be the top priority. And so we went through that time with--as I mentioned, between the years of 2010 and 2015, 5 years, reduced the funding for the military by 25 percent. At the same time, China was increasing their funding for their military by 83 percent. This is what we looked at, and that is what our President was faced with. And that is why--I don't know who is ill-advising the President to be concerned about an issue that has nothing to do with the military. And I know that the President has been the strongest--I don't know if there has ever been a President who has been a stronger supporter of our military and our kids in harm's way than President Trump. I am just looking at this now, and I am thinking, we are now 1 minute away from passing a bill that is the most significant bill. At this time, I ask if the minority would like to make any comments at all because I will tell you right now, I mentioned the names of all the people who worked on this bill for the last year, and side by side have been Senator Jack Reed and I in the leadership of this bill. It is going to be a reality. I want to thank you and give you an opportunity to get a last word in here because we are going to vote on this in less than a minute.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I sound a little redundant here because we have been talking about this bill for a long time now, for several months. People don't realize how long it takes to get a defense authorization bill all the way through the system. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the most important bill of the year, every year, and the importance, I think, is pretty well demonstrated by the fact that we have successfully passed a defense authorization bill every year for 60 years. And I feel we will do the same thing. It could be today, it could be tomorrow, but nonetheless, it is a bill that has to pass. Now, when President Trump came into office 4 years ago, we had a problem. He inherited a military that had serious problems. In fact, during the last 4 years of the previous administration--that would have been 2010 to 2015--the President depleted the budget or reduced the budget for military by 25 percent. I don't say that really critically of President Obama because he had different priorities. He was up-front about it and didn't consider this to be high enough of a priority. Now, the sad thing about this is that at the same time that he was reducing our military spending by 25 percent, Russia was increasing theirs threefold and China's was increased by 83 percent. So we dropped ours by 25 percent, and at the same time, China increased theirs 83 percent. That is really serious. People have this assumption that America has the best of everything and that we don't have any problem out there, but we do, and we found several systems where they were actually getting ahead of us. So, working with Congress, we passed the NDAA appropriations bill. We secured nearly $3 trillion in funding for our Nation's defense. This year alone, the administration will provide more than $740 billion for resources our military needs to keep our country and our troops safe. The fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act cements President Trump's hard work to restore our military to be the best fighting force. That is what we are supposed to be doing in America. The NDAA authorizes critical investments to protect our military advantage across all domains, from the skies to the seas and even now through space, a whole new program. With the President's leadership last year, the NDAA created the Space Force. It is the first time there has been a new branch since 1947, and that happened this year. This year's NDAA makes sure that it is set up successfully. One of the things about the Space Force that I think people who are somewhat critical of--we were doing a good job in space before without the Space Force, but the fact that we can concentrate all those efforts in one force and be on equal footing--because that is exactly what our primary problem is out there with China and Russia. They both have what would be in their interpretation a space force, so it was important that we did, too, and that was the right thing to do. This also authorizes the procurement of 93 F-35s, the Joint Strike Fighters, to continue the rebuilding of our overworked combat aircraft. It also includes authorizations for C-130J aircraft, which will modernize our fleet, used for transportation of personnel and also for refuelers and things that we have to do in the military. That is an upgrade of the old version. The J model of the C-130 is a great vehicle. We have to have it authorized and all of the priorities set. That is what this bill does. We also have authorized the procurement of nine new battle force ships, including the Virginia-class submarines. We talked about that for a long time, and now we are finally doing that. Another area that we have been doing is our nuclear forces. Our President has been a champion for our nuclear modernization efforts-- and for good reason. Our nuclear deterrent is the cornerstone of our national security. The NDAA ensures that our Nation wields a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent by authorizing the resources needed to modernize. Now, we didn't do this for a long period of time. We fell behind. This bill is reversing that, and we are getting back into the competition--the nuclear competition. That is where the real threat is. Everybody knows that. I think having the best weapons and equipment is critical, to be sure, but we also need the infrastructure and manpower to support it. Over the past several years, Congress has provided the military with significant funding increases and authorizations to begin and continue critical military construction projects overseas, as well as in our country. These military construction projects can be found everywhere--from Arkansas to South Carolina, Oklahoma to California, and Missouri to Massachusetts, and all across the country. These investments will also build on our improvements to family housing. I have heard people complain about what we do for the military in this country, and they try to say that we are spending more on our military than both China and Russia put together. Yeah, that is true, but there is a reason for that, and the reason for that is that the most expensive thing in building a military is individuals--what we are spending on individuals, on housing, and on all these things. Now, when you are dealing with it, and looking at Communist countries, and you look at Russia and you look at China, they don't take care of their people. They don't have that expense, and that is why we spend more than they do. You know, just in the last 2 years, what we have done to improve housing for our troops--troops and their families--other people don't do that, but we do it. So that is why it is so significant that we do this. I have a concern that I would like to share, and I hesitate to do this because it will take a little bit of time. People out there don't realize, in a bill like this, what all goes into it. I looked at the people who are heading this thing up, and, yesterday, Senator Reed talked about the Democrats and the Republicans and their staff people, who worked so hard. Let me say this: We could not have done this without the cooperation and the love that we have for each other, with Senator Reed. I mean, he heads up the minority, and I head up the majority, and we want, together, to make sure we have the best product in the world and that we get the best of everything for our troops in the field. So I want to really single out Senator Reed for all the work that he has done. He has been a great partner and friend throughout this process. And we want to thank our colleagues in the House also-- Congressman Smith and Congressman Thornberry. We all worked together. You know, I have been involved in a lot of these things, and they always end up in the Big 4. That is where you have the leading Democrat and Republican in the House and Democrat and Republican in the Senate, insofar as defense is concerned, and we iron these things out. But in the meantime, this long bill is one that has taken just a lot of work. And I know that, yesterday, Senator Reed got a chance to mention the names of and show his appreciation for the Democrats that worked in the minority, and I want us to do the same thing for the Republicans in the majority. John Bonsell--I don't think there is a person in Washington, DC, who knows more about the military than John Bonsell does. And he put together a group of people. These are all experts. They all work--you know, people don't understand this, but I am talking about weekends, Sundays, times that they have to work to get these things done and to get that bill into position, because you have to pass it through the Senate, and you have to go onto the Senate floor. Then you have to go to the House and the House committee and the House floor, and then you have to have a conference. There are some things in this bill that we avoided having--and I am thankful that we did, quite frankly--that the House wanted and the Senate didn't want. We were able to iron out these differences and get them done. But to do that, we had to work long hours. I can assure you that the staff worked a lot longer hours than I did. So I single these people out as really experts, and I want to show them appreciation, and I am just going to read them off to you here: John Bonsell. We know about John Bonsell. We know what he has done. He has been with me since he was, years ago, stationed at Fort Sill in my State of Oklahoma. He has been with me, and he has been heading up this group and putting the group together. This group consists of: John Wason, Tom Goffus, Stephanie Barna, Greg Lilly, Marta Hernandez, Rick Berger, Jennie Wright, Adam Barker, Adam Trull, Al Edwards, Sean O'Keefe, Brad Patout, Jason Potter, Katie Sutton, Eric Trager, TC Williams, Otis Winkler, Gwyneth Woolwine, Katie Magnus, Leah Brewer, Debbie Chiarello, Gary Howard, Tyler Wilkinson, John Bryant, Griffin Cannon, Keri-Lyn Michalke, Soleil Sykes, Brittany Amador, and Jillian Schofield Now, these people, they are just names to a lot of other people, but each one has just really performed long and hard hours. There has been more staff work go into this bill than any other bill that is before us, than anytime year round. So I just appreciate so much the hard work that has gone there, and we will pass this bill. It is one that if we don't pass it, we are not going to give the resources necessary for our kids in the field to have the safety that we can provide them and to have the equipment. We want to get to the point where we have the very best of everything out there, and right now, we don't. China and Russia are knocking at our door. We have to do a better job than we have done in the past, and I am going to be working with the administration to do everything we can for the coming year. But right now, we need to get caught up and go ahead and pass this. This bill is the roadmap for the next year, and that is why this is important. So I encourage all of us to do what we have to do to get this bill done--hopefully, today, but definitely by tomorrow. I believe that will happen because people do care about our troops. There is no one more deserving in America than our troops who are out there in harm's way, and we are going to make sure that we do the right thing for them. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the remarks of the next speaker, I may be recognized for such time as I may consume.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have already asked unanimous consent that I be recognized for such time as I may consume. This is what I want to do. Something happened today that is deeply troubling to me, and I have a written response to what happened today. I am going to go ahead and read that written response. Then, I want to talk about it. My written response is--and I will take it so everybody will have the benefit of this. I am talking about people here in this country, people in Africa, people all around the world who are interested in this issue. OK, this is the written response: I think that all countries should recognize Israel, and applaud the president's unprecedented efforts to foster recognition between Israel and Arab nations through the Abraham Accords. Today's White House announcement alleging Morocco's sovereignty over Western Sahara is shocking and deeply disappointing. I am saddened that the rights of the Western Saharan people have been traded away. In 1966, as West Africa was being decolonized, the UN General Assembly agreed-- This is 1966--agreed the Sahara deserves a referendum of self- determination for its own future. The United States has supported this policy for decades and has worked to accomplish a referendum of self-determination. Until today, this Administration had continued our long history, one that has remained consistent across administrations-- Democrat and Republican-- We're not alone in this position: the African Union, the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the European Union have all agreed--the Sahrawi people have the right to decide [what] their own future [is going to be]. The president has been poorly advised by his team; he could have made this deal without trading [away] the rights of a voiceless people. During my most recent visit to the Sahrawi refugee camps, I visited with the children that live there. They were joyous, happy, ordinary children who didn't know yet that they were part of a frozen, forgotten conflict where their hopes and freedoms were dying a cruel death. I'm thinking about them and all the Sahrawians today. I won't stop fighting for them. I won't let the world forget them. Today's announcement does not change the United Nations or the EU positions, nor the charter of the African Union nor the opinion of the [International Court of Justice]--a referendum must still happen. I urge these organizations to stand strong to support Western Sahara's right to self-determination and am confident the [United States] will be able to return to the policy we've held since 1966. Let me tell you what this is all about. During the colonization period in Africa, when different countries had colonies there, Spain had the colony of the land that is in question today. It was called the Spanish Sahara area at that time. Now, if you remember your history, Franco was President at that time, and this was back when things were falling apart for Spain. Franco was losing a lot of the control, and they were not in a position to hold onto their colonies--not just in Africa but anyplace else in the world. So at that time, the U.N. came in, in 1966. This goes all the way back to 1966. The U.N. asked for a referendum for self-determination for those people. So they recognized all the way back--that is, the United Nations recognized--the sovereignty of the Western Saharan people. That has been consistent since then. That was 1966. Now, in 1975, when there were a lot of people kind of lining up to see who could get control, Morocco jumped in with all of their resources and did all they could at that time to capture that area and to absorb that within Morocco--in other words, to take away from the free people of Western Sahara their land. And they did that. So the International Court of Justice went on to say: Well, if the United Nations couldn't do it, let's at least give them the right for a referendum for self-determination. That was 1975. Immediately after that, Morocco invaded Western Sahara. Now, you have to keep in mind that this is Morocco, with all of the resources and all the wealth that they had, taking on a country that was armed with crude instruments. These are the people who rightfully owned and have lived in Western Sahara. Western Sahara, if you look--if I had time, if I had known about this, I would have brought the charts down to show where this land was and where it is today. But, in 1975, the International Court of Justice made it very clear that they had the right to the territory--that Morocco had no right to the territory of Western Sahara. Now, they invaded Western Sahara. Spain and France were complicit at that time. Spain had already colonized that area, and France had desires to do that. But today--today, as we speak today--there is not a country out there that recognizes the right of Morocco over Western Sahara--until today, when this statement came out that we are trying to recognize those rights. Nobody--now, I am talking about what I have already listed, all of the people: the African Union, the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the European Union--all of them--they recognize Sahrawi as the people who have the right to decide their own future. Everyone is in agreement. I can remember talking, at one time, to Netanyahu over in Israel and explaining to them why Morocco should not be able to trade and somehow get control of land that they are not entitled to in order just to say: We recognize Israel. Yes, we want all Arab nations to recognize Israel, and this is something this President has done. But this is the area that involves not just two countries, Morocco and Israel. It is all of the countries in Africa, virtually everybody in East and West Africa and all the surrounding area. They all agree that that is the territory of Western Sahara and that they should have a referendum of self-determination. We all have agreed with that for years. We are talking about back to 1966. Everyone is in agreement that they are the ones who are entitled to that. So in 1991 they had a ceasefire, and a mission began to provide a referendum for self-determination. That was the United Nations and virtually everybody else. Everyone was in agreement on that. Certainly, it was initiated from the United Nations, and that was to have a ceasefire in 1991, by the U.N., and work toward a self-determination. Then, in 2004, the United States and Morocco signed a free-trade agreement. Now, this is kind of interesting, because this is a joint effort between our country, the United States, and Morocco for a free- trade agreement. In that free-trade agreement, they agreed to explicitly exclude Western Sahara because Morocco does not have sovereignty over it. Now, that was in the agreement in 2004 that was signed by both the United States and Morocco. So they agreed at that time, as everyone else did, that that should be an independent country with the right of self-determination. Then the African Union came along. So far, you have the United Nations. You have the United States and Morocco in a signed free-trade agreement. But then you also had Morocco, when it joined the AU, signing a document. This is when it came from the African Union. They recognized Western Sahara as its own country. This is the African Union. Now, we are talking about 52 nations in the African Union that all agree on this. No one is in disagreement on this. And then Morocco, when it joined the AU, signed a document. When they joined the African Union--we are talking about Morocco now, up on the northeast edge of that territory. When they joined the AU, or the African Union, they signed a document acknowledging all member states and their borders; that is, acknowledging the Western Sahara area as not a part of Morocco. Now, this is Morocco agreeing to this. So you have the United Nations in 1991. You have the United States and Morocco in the free-trade agreement in 2004. You have an agreement explicitly stating where the lines should be. Then you have the African Union coming along and recognizing. This is all of the countries, 52 nations in the African Union. So we have all of them in agreement with this. South Africa is the present chair of the AU, and one of their priorities is to resolve the Western Sahara issue. Now, all of that happened prior to today. And, as I say in my written statement, I really believe--I know our President has a big heart. I have argued for him and to benefit him. The various times that we have had conflicts out there--and one of them was when they came out with a statement that they were going to immediately--this was a couple of years ago--move the people out of Germany and move them back to the United States; that that was going to be done before the end of the year. And I made the public statement. That was not the President talking. That was a policy that came out of the White House, and I seriously doubted that he even knew about it and certainly would not agree with it. If there is one thing the President is compassionate about, it is the families. You can't just uproot the families who were stationed in Germany and move them back to the United States--kids in school and all these things. He is a compassionate person. He is the first one in line to take care of our troops every time there is a problem. This is the same situation. In this case, he is not the type of person that would bag the freedom-loving people of Western Sahara to Morocco. So that is what happened. This is an old issue. It dates back to 1966. I can remember--and this is highly unusual--as a Member of the U.S. Senate, there was a hearing in the House--this is about maybe 5 or 6 years ago--and I served. I asked to be a witness in that hearing. The hearing was about Western Sahara and Morocco. Now, keep in mind that Morocco is a very wealthy country. Virtually every lobbyist in Washington is paid by them. At that time, I could remember standing there in that hearing, in the House of Representatives, and listening to all the lobbyists that they had hired against a country that didn't have any money. They don't have, really, any formal armaments. They are heroic people. They are fighters. They want to continue to fight for their freedom, but they don't have the resources. So this is way back then, and I pointed out that Morocco has used all of their wealth to try to get the land that justly belongs to Western Saharan people. So that is not anything new. That has been happening for a long time. At that time, I remember I took the transcript at that time--I think it was 6 or 7 years ago--in that hearing. I said that Morocco owns every lobbyist in Washington, DC, and it is kind of the giant out there against this small group of people who are being thrown out of their land that they justly own. It is self-determination. Who can fight and argue against self- determination? Certainly, our President is not the type of person who would fight against self-determination. He would be for self- determination. That is the kind of person he is. That is why this thing--I just think it is some poor advice from some advisers that threw in that thing. As I said in my formal statement, he could have done that with them without giving away the rights and the land of the Western Saharan people. So I just want to make sure that everyone knows that this is--I strongly support everything that this President has successfully been doing in bringing the Arab world into the Israeli world and doing something for peace in the Middle East. Everybody else has tried. Every Democrat and Republican President I can think of, in memory, has tried to do this and has not been successful, until this President did it. It is just, in this case, I don't think it was necessary to give away--to stand up the people, the just people in an area where they don't have any resources. They have been living in the desert. Three generations now have come and gone, and all of them know that at one time there was peace and they owned their land and that day would come that they would get their land back. That hasn't happened yet. I think with this mistake that was made, it is certainly not in the interest of all of our friends. I say that without any exceptions. They are all on our side on this thing. Our policy has been clear since 1966, and we have been committed. Some time ago, 1994, I came from the House to the Senate, and I had a long visit at that time with Jim Baker, who had been the Secretary of State in the previous administrations. I called him up, and I said: You know, this is such a huge injustice, what has happened, what Morocco has done to these people of Western Sahara. He said: You are right, and we have done everything. I said: We have got to change that, and I am going to make that commitment. This was back in 1994. He said: Well, I admire you for doing it. I will do all I can to cooperate with you. This is Jim Baker talking. He said: I don't think you will be able to do it because they have too many resources, too much money, and the Western Saharan people don't have any money. They don't have any resources. And they are the ones who have been abused in this. He said: Good luck. I will do everything I can to help you. That was back when Jim Baker was Secretary of State. That was a long time ago. Since that time, every administration--and not just Republican administrations but Democratic administrations--have all been lined up saying: This is a sense of fairness. It is something that has to be corrected. We can't allow that giant to take over the righteous people. And that is what has happened. So it is not over yet. I can assure you that I will make every effort I can to make sure that we go back to the policy that we had and that ultimately we will achieve. Maybe this will be just the thing. This shock treatment for the American people and for people around the world might be just the thing that is going to offer them an opportunity for a referendum for self-determination. Who can be against a referendum for self-determination? Certainly no Americans whom I know of. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was listening to the previous speaker from Rhode Island, and I figure it is time to clarify a few things that are said about our President. I know that right now a lot of people are believing that we are going to have a change; that we will have a Democratic President. A lot of decisions are being made, talk is being made. But to show you that there is a big difference of opinion, I want to say a few things about our President just to remind people. They have forgotten what has happened. Now, I know there are differing opinions on that, partisan opinions and all that. Right now, my very close friend from the Democratic aisle and I are going to, hopefully, have a vote tomorrow that will take place, the Defense authorization bill--the biggest bill of the year, the most significant bill of the year. Senator Reed and I have an agreement on almost every element of it. And we have both come to the conclusion that it is a tremendous bill. It is one you really can't justify opposing. A lot of things have been said that are not true, but I want to just mention a couple of things because this is a good time to do it. We have a President who has done things that just have never been done before in terms of accomplishments, positive accomplishments. I remember 2 years ago, I wrote this little card because I was keeping track of all these goods things that have happened. I remember showing it to the President at that time. He read that, and he was very excited about the way that we had composed them. Keep in mind, this was 2 years ago. Look at these 10 things that this President has done: First of all, the big tax cut that he had. By the way, when we look at the fact that he did such great things for the economy--prior to the pandemic, we had the best economy we have had in my lifetime. The pandemic changed all of that. But he did this by looking back at history--and it was not a Republican; it was a Democrat. It was President Kennedy who had the wisdom to say, when he was working on the Great Society programs that were going to cost so much money: Well, we have to raise our revenue, and the best way to increase revenue is to decrease tax rates. So he decreased tax rates. We all remember that. While it worked, unfortunately, the President died before he could really take advantage and enjoy the benefits of the work he had done by his tax cuts. It has been tried since that time, and it has worked. But what this President did in addition to that, he didn't have just tax cuts; he had regulation cuts. I call it the golden day of regulation relief, the best economy we have had in that period of time. They say that full employment is 4 percent unemployment, when, in fact, we actually got down below 3 percent. That was something that has not been done in my memory, and all these things happened and good benefits came from that. There is a difference of opinion between Democrats and Republicans, and we understand that. I have always felt the best thing and indicator of success in the economy is to see how many people you get off of food stamps, and a lot of liberal friends say that they measure it by how many people get on food stamps. Nonetheless, we have 5 million people off of food stamps. That is what happened, and that is why we had the economy that we had. I hate to think of where we would be today if we had started with an average economy. We started with the best economy we had in my lifetime, and that was because of the President and the support he had from our party. The second thing I hold up--now, keep in mind, I am from Oklahoma. We are an oil State. We renewed--during the Obama administration, there was a war on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are coal, oil, and gas, and it was an effort to try to get it back into renewables. Someday we may have the development of renewables. They are not there now. In spite of what the previous speaker said, they are not there and available now. So what this President did was he stopped the war on fossil fuels. As a result of that, we had--and this is in the first 2 years--a 277- percent growth in crude exports, 132-percent increase in coal exports, and a 52-percent increase in natural gas exports. A lot of that translated into the economy that we were enjoying. In terms of illegal immigration--I know this became very controversial--the wall. People didn't like the idea of the wall. I can remember a conversation I had with Netanyahu when I was in Israel once, and he said he didn't understand how a modern State can have borders that are not secured. He said: You can't do that. That doesn't work. Well, he has now gotten that done against a lot of opposition--we all know that--in Israel. How many Presidents--every President I can think of in my career here in Washington has said we need to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, but they don't do it. So this President just went ahead and did it. He is a little abrupt--we understand that--but he got these things done. The WRDA bill--the Water Resources Development Act--right now and, actually, the FAA reauthorization were both booming successes. They were his efforts. And then the judges. I don't know that it is a record, but in the period of time, the 4 years that this President has been in office, we have had about 220 judges who have been confirmed. These are all judges who have one thing in common: They really believe in the Constitution. They are Constitutionalists. In addition to that, he has three of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Then, on the repeal, if you talk to anyone in business in America-- this was a couple of years ago--about the biggest problem they had was the Dodd-Frank effort. That was the overregulation of business and industry. And so he relaxed those rules, and that created a lot of prosperity, a reason for the economy that we have today, and the record employment that he has given us of 157 million jobs. This is back 2 years ago. Now, I would say, if you single out one thing--I don't say this critically of the Obama administration. We all have different priorities, and I have considered President Obama to be a friend. However, his top priority was not a strong national defense. He had other priorities. We all know that. As a result of that, if you will take the last 5 years--that would have been from the year 2010 to 2015--in the last 5 years, he reduced the funding of the military by 25 percent. It has never been done before. But that is something that this President came in and immediately-- and I chair the committee, so I was very much involved in this. But we ended up with all these things that--the lifting of that and putting it back in the position that it should be. Now, this is interesting because somebody reminded me--John Bonsell reminded me this morning. He said: What you ought to do is get a list of these things that have happened since 2 years ago. So real quickly, just to say, identifying China as the No. 1 adversary in the NDS--that is the National Defense System, which has worked very successfully. That is a program that is put together by six Republicans and six Democrats, all experts in the field. I talked about national defense, and he stuck with that and has identified China for the problems that they are giving us right now. He had new investments in the future. Hypersonics is a good example. After the last administration, China and Russia both surged ahead of us in the research on hypersonics. That is one of the most recent developments of modern equipment. That has worked, and we are not quite there yet, but we are catching up in the cyber world. He is advancing it in that area. Then as far as the terrorist leaders Baghdadi and Soleimani, both of them were considered to be the worst terrorists on the planet, and he has taken both of them out. He established the Space Force. The Space Force is something that we really needed to do not because so much that we were behind in anything but the fact that our competition--Russia and China--were in their particular space forces, and we wanted to make sure everybody knew and our partners knew that we were right there with them. Then, of course, he eliminated the widow's tax. We remember that. And the Abraham accords--this is really interesting. We have Arab countries right now that are working closely with Israel. This hasn't happened before. The UAE is right now working with them. And the Israelis didn't have to give up anything, so that is a major advancement that we are enjoying. Then, of course, one of the issues we are working on right now is on the arms sales. We feel that we need to be selling arms to our allies, and we want to make sure that the whole world knows that, as a loyal friend of ours, we want to make sure that we do for them what we should be doing for them. During that timeframe he rescued 55 hostages in 24 countries. That is a big deal. So, anyway, all these things have been going on--and getting tough. I know people are upset with his attitude toward NATO. He believes in NATO, but he believes that the partners in NATO need to start carrying their fair share. And it worked. It increased their share by about $130 billion. That is something that, when you talk to real people--when you get out of Washington and you talk to the people on the street, they say: Why are we in NATO when they are not carrying their end of it? Well, that is all changing. Anyway, that is what this President has done. But there is one thing that is happening that I think is maybe the most significant thing that this President has accomplished. He came out with something. I don't know who thought of the words ``Warp Speed'' because I have had a hard time remembering that. I have to write it down because I forget it. But he came out with something where--General Perna is a real expert and has been monitoring what is going on and getting the medical equipment necessary to defeat this thing that we have been under now for almost a year. And he said--keep in mind, this is back in June. In June, he said, by year-end--by December, maybe as early as November, but by December we are going to have the decision made and have a way to stop the pandemic that has been plaguing us for so long. We had a hearing--and the Presiding Officer knows this because he was in attendance at that hearing--and we looked at the things that General Perna was coming up with that showed us conclusively that we were going to have a vaccine that was going to work by year-end and then it would take about 3 months after that to get the distribution going. So we are talking about having this thing over by April. Now, the interesting thing--that happened in June, yet that is still, today--we are right on schedule for that to happen. My fellow Senator from Oklahoma, James Lankford, gave a speech yesterday. It was fascinating. He took a long time to do it, but he went into all the indicators that were out there, and you come to the conclusion that this plague is going to be over and we are going to be able to get back to normal. And that will be certainly good. So I just want to mention that those things are happening, and those things are things that were on behalf of our President. There are, out there, a lot of people--I have never seen the media turn against someone like they have our President. So people don't even know these good things, but I am hoping we can get this out so that people will be aware of it. Now, back to the bill that we are going to have. I know that my partner, who is the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, is going to want to be heard concerning some of the great things that we are going to be doing in that bill. I will be doing the same thing tomorrow morning. So this is a bill that we can all be proud of. I have never seen it misrepresented as much as this bill has been misrepresented. With that, I am anxious to hear my partner talking. I will yield the floor.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Let me first of all say that my colleague, ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Reed, is absolutely right. I think about the people that he was praising, the staff people. You don't very often hear people back in the real world really appreciating the time and effort that comes from the staff. In this case, the two individuals that Senator Reed talked about, John Bonsell, Liz King--I don't remember one weekend that they have had off during this whole thing. They are just workaholics. They know how significant this is. They know we had a defense authorization bill for the last 60 years, and the worst thing we could do to our kids in the field who are risking their lives is not send them the resources necessary that are in this bill to defend America

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the Moran substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 7105 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4996, introduced earlier today.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be withdrawn, the Peters substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 511, S. 3418.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2315 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, December 10; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 6395.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 9, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 9, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Veterans' Affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 9, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 30, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing. Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy The Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy of the Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 9, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety The Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety of the Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 9, 2020, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.