Jim Inhofe

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 3; 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; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Waller nomination, under the previous order.

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 the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions, which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 783, S. Res. 784, S. Res. 785, S. Res. 786, and S. Res. 787.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, last week, while most of the world was focused on our elections--myself included--and the pending results, a very significant action was taking place halfway around the world in Western Sahara. Simply put, Morocco chose that time--likely purposely, when everyone was occupied doing other things--to threaten to push back on protests by Western Saharans on their own land. There they are. These are the protesters. These are people who owned the land, have been there for generations, and are protesting the problems they have with Morocco trying to eject them from their land. It seems simple, but you have to remember how we got here. While the status of the Sahrawi people is still in question, what we need to do to is create a lasting solution. How we got here, as West Africa was being decolonized, Western Sahara was clear and declared itself an independent nation a long time ago. That was despite Morocco's attempt to claim it as a territory. In 1966, the United Nations General Assembly resolution agreed that a referendum of self-determination should be held. That is a referendum of self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. Everyone agreed and planned to hold that in 1975. Self-determination--merely letting the Sahrawi people decide for themselves the imperative principle of action--the right to judge for themselves to be independent or to be a part of Morocco. This was just the first promise of a referendum. That was 1975. To date, none have been kept. An International Court of Justice opinion from 1975 also agreed that Morocco did not have sovereignty over the land and that a referendum of self-determination should be held. Everyone agreed. That was the second promise. Morocco maintained its unlawful claim to their land and after decolonization, attempted to annex the territory with force. That was actually in 1975. Western Sahara--officially called the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, through the Polisario, defended their rights to land. We are talking about this area right here. Morocco is up to the north, in Western Sahara. The independent Western Sahara land that Morocco is trying to claim as their own is to the south of that. After a decade of violence from Morocco, the United Nations finally came in, in 1991, and both sides agreed to a cease-fire and a path forward. Everyone agreed. It was called the Settlement Plan. It solidified that Morocco and Western Sahara agreed to hold a referendum and created the United Nations Mission for the referendum in Western Sahara. That is called MINURSO. For those keeping track, that was the third promise. It is worth noting that the United Nations regularly reaffirms the 1991 commitment to a referendum for self-determination. This is something that happens on a regular basis. The planned referendum in 1992 never took place, and the process stalled through a cease-fire that was held. Morocco just wouldn't hold up its end of the bargain. Former Secretary of State James Baker--it is kind of interesting because back in 1997, he tried to do this again. I can remember talking to him--this was several years ago now, about 15 years ago--saying that sometime we have to get this problem resolved. It has been hanging out there for generations and decades. He said: Well, good luck. We have tried to do everything we could do. Back at that time, he was Secretary of State under President Bush. He named a special envoy to Western Sahara. Baker worked the multiple plans with Morocco and Western Sahara. He thought he could get it done. He was a special envoy way back in 1992. The former Secretary of State tried again in 1997. He named a special envoy to Western Sahara. Baker worked multiple plans with Morocco and Western Sahara again. The most notable--the Houston Agreement--was signed by Morocco and Western Sahara and recommitted to the referendum of self-determination, planned for 1998. To keep track, that is the fourth time that was promised. That was promised also by Morocco. Morocco, recognizing they would likely lose the vote, quickly tanked all negotiations the next year by declaring they would never accept a referendum that included independence as an outcome, despite years of promises. It has been called a frozen conflict--where no outcome exists. Yet there is no perceived active conflict. It makes it easy for the rest of the world to forget about it. But to call this a frozen conflict makes it seem harmless, when in reality it is anything but that. Tens of thousands of Sahrawi people live in refugee camps, primarily in Tindouf, Algeria. They have been forced from their homes, waiting for a resolution for decades. Allowing this process to stall has cost them a generation of freedom. I have been to those camps many times. I have been there. I have seen it. I have talked to the people. We are talking about these people here--the ones who are protesting. That is where we have been and talked to the individuals. And they don't give up. They continue generation after generation with the hope that they would get their land back. Beyond denying the Sahrawi people the right to freedom and self- determination, the Government of Morocco is trying to steal and pillage as much as possible from the land they have unlawfully claimed. They are stealing their natural resources, unlawfully mining and selling valuable, critical minerals--specifically phosphate. They are illegally fishing in the Western Sahara's waters. And what does Morocco do with these riches? They pay millions of dollars each year to lobbyists in Washington. Their goal? To convince the world they are innocent and demonize the Sahrawi people. The Moroccans believe that they can wait out the rest of the world. They want us to forget about the human rights of these people, in this picture, who are peacefully protesting today--right now--as we are speaking on the floor. They know a frozen conflict benefits them and hurts the cause of independence. They know that they can push the boundaries of what is acceptable. That is how we got to this point. That is why we are here at this point now--where just a few weeks ago, while the people of Western Sahara were peacefully protesting in Guerguerat--that is the region. The Guerguerat region is down there. It is not even close to Morocco. It is down to the south end of Western Sahara. It actually comes into Mauritania down there. That is the area that has the red square around it. That is what we are talking about. That is where they are now. That is where these people are right now. Morocco has repeatedly attempted to use a road in this region to transport the goods in violation of the U.N. cease-fire agreement. Let's keep in mind, it is the U.N. cease-fire agreement. They are the ones who are supposed to be promoting--not just protecting a cease-fire on both sides but promoting a referendum. It was this illegal use of the territory that Western Saharans were peacefully protesting Rather than recognizing their rights to protest, Morocco has once again raised a call to arms and is threatening to crush these legitimate protesters. In fact, I heard just the other day--3 days ago--that they have some 200 trucks coming down from Morocco down to Guerguerat--that area down there where the peaceful protests are taking place. Rather than recognize their right to protest, Morocco has once again raised a called to arms and is threatening to crush these protests that are going on. King Mohammed of Morocco this past weekend said: ``Morocco will not waiver in its position.'' That is in spite of what the--all the agreements that have taken place, including the United Nations. We are also hearing concerned reports that he is sending military forces to the region as well as in a clear escalation. This isn't a new problem. Morocco has been trying to illegally use the Guerguerat issue for a long period of time. That is the bridge that goes across from Western Sahara to Mauritania. The problem has been there for a long period of time. It is a concern for a couple of reasons. The first is simple. Morocco is escalating this situation again to claim more and more land, resources, and rights that they have no law behind them to claim. And they know it. They are fully aware of this. In 2017, the United States was encouraging the United Nations to send a technical team to Guerguerat. Western Sahara welcomed this. Morocco blocked it because they didn't want to be exposed. The second is that no one else--no one around the world--is raising the cause for alarm. Where is the United Nations now? They are charged with enforcing the 1991 cease-fire agreement. Yet they are nowhere to be found. They have been very silent, tolerating Morocco's abuse for years and Morocco's violations of the U.N. orders. That is why the time is now to move from this frozen conflict and force Morocco to live up to their agreement of nearly 30 years and hold a referendum, not in a year and not in 3 years--they are always talking about what they are going to do out in the future--but now. Now is the time that we can do that. We need to take steps to hold the referendum for self-determination now. Morocco is escalating and, left unchecked, they are going to keep their escalation going. The result would be inevitable. We would risk turning back to the times of open conflict. The U.N. needs to step up now and enforce their agreement, and the world needs to prove we all stand for our values of freedom and democracy by extending those values to the Sahrawis. They have waited too long. Everyone is for this agreement--everyone is. I mean, we have the African Union, which is comprised of some 55 member states, and they are strongly in support of this independence for the Sahrawis. We have most of the European Community that supports the U.N. efforts. The European Court of Justice also ruled that Western Sahara is not a part of Morocco and that no EU economic agreements can cover Western Sahara. In 2004, the United States and Morocco had a free-trade agreement where they did reaffirm--and that is the United States reaffirming--the independence of Western Sahara. That is what is happening right now. The rest of the world is on our side on this issue. Who does Morocco have? They have paid lobbyists. Some of the lobbyists Morocco has employed: JPC Strategies, Third Circle, Neale Creek--averaging over $1 million each year. In total, they have had some 10 lobbyists since 2016. And they have actually put in $11 million--$11 million in the Sahara. In Western Sahara, they have nothing. They have no resources. They are the giant with all of their lobbyists. I made it clear earlier when I testified--and by the way, I did something I don't think has been done before since then: As a Member of the U.S. Senate, I testified at a House hearing that they had on this issue way back 15 years ago. This has stalled because there is just no money on our side. Morocco has it all. Here is what we need to do. The time is right, and we have waited long enough. While we were to schedule a referendum, we need the United Nations to send a team to the Guerguerat area and confirm that Morocco is in violation of the agreement. Everyone knows they are in violation of the agreement. The agreement is very specific. It says that they are there to enforce this--the United Nations. This is the key part. They need to enforce the 1991 cease-fire agreement. This will restore faith with all parties and make real progress in reaching a referendum. The reason we are concerned today is that we know Morocco, right now, is sending military equipment down to the area--some 200 trucks full of equipment. That is why this time is right, and it is going to have to happen. Here they are. These are the people we are talking about. These are the people who are peacefully protesting to keep and use the land that is theirs and that has been theirs and that the whole world knows is theirs. They are the victims. They deserve a referendum for separate termination, and the U.N. is going to have to make this happen. I don't know any other way this can happen. First of all, they have agreed to it, and the U.N. is a party that can put that together. We are calling on them now to go ahead and do what they have agreed to do and end this conflict that has endured generation after generation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have already talked a couple of times about this great nominee whom we have in Amy Coney Barrett, and I am really proud to speak in support of President Trump's outstanding nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. To say that Judge Barrett is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court is an understatement. Judge Barrett is the definition of a leader. Her record of accomplishments is second to none. Everybody knows it. After we had a chance to really evaluate and talk to her and know her and visit with her, we found that she was born in New Orleans. She went on to graduate from Rhodes College in Memphis and also from Notre Dame Law School. She graduated at the top of her class and always has been at the top of her class. That is worth pointing out because, when confirmed, she will be the only Justice on the bench who did not go to Harvard or Yale. Now, that is a good thing. She clerked for one of America's finest Supreme Court Justices--the late Antonin Scalia. Since 2002, she has taught law at Notre Dame, where she has been selected ``Distinguished Professor of the Year'' three different times. In 2017, after being attacked by the Democrats about her strong faith, she was confirmed to the Seventh Circuit by this body--and with Democratic votes, I might add. Let me repeat that. She was confirmed on a bipartisan basis only 3 years ago. But, today, liberals are recycling their same stale tactics in an attempt to tarnish another exceptional nominee without having any basis in fact or truth. They are attacking her Catholic faith. Some operatives have even attacked her for adopting children from Haiti. I am not kidding. They are attacking her for that. It should go without saying that Judge Barrett should be commended for this loving, selfless act, not disparaged for it. I personally know that adoption is one of God's greatest gifts. I am the proud grandfather of Zegita Marie. I found her during a mission in Ethiopia, and my daughter and son-in-law adopted her as a baby. She is in college now and is one of my greatest blessings. Yet, like clockwork, the Democrats use bogus propaganda to try to scare the American people into opposing a Republican President's Supreme Court nominee. Over the years, they have made outrageous claims, like saying these nominees will take away America's healthcare. They have done it time and again. They did it with Anthony Kennedy. They did it with David Souter. They did it with John Roberts and, recently, with Brett Kavanaugh. Now they are doing it with Judge Barrett. Most Americans can see through this far-left hoax, but it is important to set the record right. Judge Barrett is not and has never advocated in favor of taking away anyone's healthcare--period. Liberals have gone after Judge Barrett for her views on abortion. First of all, Judge Barrett has every right to enjoy her religious freedom. I think we all understand that. I am saddened to see the attacks that she has received due to her Catholic faith. Nevertheless, her record shows that she will thoughtfully apply the Constitution to all cases while honoring Supreme Court precedent. At the same time, she has proven that she impartially and faithfully exercises her duties as an appellate judge. There is no reason to believe that she would not continue to do so as a Justice. Now I want to speak about the precedent for acting on today's vacancy, which differs from the vacancy of 2016. The Democrats and liberal media have called Senate Republicans hypocrites for opposing the confirmation of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee in 2016 but supporting the confirmation of the President's nominee today. What they fail to recognize is that we followed Senate precedent. We followed it in 2016, and we are following it again right now. In 2016, we had a divided government. What a divided government means is that we have different parties controlling the White House and the confirming body, the U.S. Senate. In 2016, we had that divided government, and they were controlled by different parties. The Senate Republicans followed the Biden rule then, which is that the Senate does not confirm an election year vacancy in which the White House and the Senate are controlled by different parties. Despite the Democrats' insistence on confirming President Obama's nominee, Senate Republicans followed precedent. The reality is that, in the modern era, the Senate has not confirmed a Supreme Court nominee under a divided government. It just hasn't happened. The last time the Senate confirmed a nominee under these circumstances was in 1888. Today, we have a united government. The same party that has the Senate has the Presidency. The voters elected President Trump in 2016. The Senate Republicans grew their majority in 2018. In nearly every instance in history in which there has been a Supreme Court vacancy under a united government, we have voted to confirm. In fact, the only time in history that the Senate did not confirm a nominee under a united government was in 1968, wherein there was bipartisan opposition on ethical grounds. They all agreed that the nominee should be withdrawn, and he was withdrawn. It is simply false to state that Senate Republicans are going against precedent. As a matter of political convenience, the Democrats have flip-flopped from what they said in 2016 and are adamantly opposed to a vote during an election year. It is not surprising that the media has ignored their about-face. I am proud of the efforts by Leader McConnell and our Republican majority, who have confirmed dozens of President Trump's exemplary judicial nominations. I think the number right now is somewhere around 212, and that may be a record, but those are a lot of nominations Senate Republicans and President Trump have followed through on our promise to remake the judiciary with more judges who interpret the law as written, not legislate from the bench. We all know what we are talking about there. With Judge Barrett, we have the opportunity to confirm the President's third Supreme Court nominee to the bench. Everyone knows Judge Barrett is hard-working, principled, and committed to serving her fellow Americans. In a 2017 letter, a bipartisan group of law professors called her work ``rigorous, fair- minded, respectful, and constructive.'' I couldn't agree more. I know she will serve our highest Court with honor and distinction, and I look forward to voting to confirm the nomination soon. She is, I really think, the most gifted, talented jurist to be found in America today. My wife and I have been married for 60 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. They are the ones who are going to be the beneficiaries of the service of Judge Barrett. She is going to be confirmed as an Associate Justice on our High Court in a matter of hours, and this is going to be a great thing for America. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I actually listened to the comments that were made by my good friend from Michigan, but I have to say this, that she is talking about someone who is considered by me and many others as arguably the most gifted jurist ever nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. I want to talk about that. I have something else to talk about first because I think people know Judge Barrett by this time, but they may not know a couple of people they should know about. Earlier this year, Aurash Zarkeshan or ``Zark.'' Because of the complications of his name, he is called that by most of his close friends. He was overjoyed. He had just graduated earlier this year from the Tulsa Police Academy and was sworn in as a police officer. That was his life's ambition. He was a guy who was so excited that he was taking that step. He was a shining example of everything that you want in a new officer. He was bright, engaged, committed to public service. He wanted to give back and make his community a better place. That was him. At the end of June, only 6 weeks on patrol, he pulled over a car for a routine traffic stop. As we all know, there is no such thing as a routine law enforcement process. He and Sergeant Craig Johnson pulled over a car, and what happened next was horrifying and tragic. They were viciously shot in the head during that stop, despite many attempts to deescalate the situation. Tragically, Sergeant Johnson succumbed to his injuries. While Zark remained in critical condition, Sergeant Johnson left behind his wife Kristi and sons, Connor and Clinton. That is him here on the left-- dashing young man. In that moment of sorrow, the Tulsa community united in prayer and hope for the recovery of Zark. Since the shooting, Zark has undergone several surgeries. He spent months recovering in rehab. Throughout these months, Zark provided us with updates of his recovery and the progress he has been making. He even called into a class of new Tulsa Police Department recruits. He also went in person to his squad meeting and met with them. His progress is truly remarkable. As Tulsa Police Captain Kimberly Lee put it, ``He really is an example for all of us.'' That is exactly right. Zark is a hero. He persevered through extraordinary pain and strife and is now making a speedy recovery. Last week, on October 15, Zark returned home from 3 months of rehab, and he was met by friends and family and supporters who welcomed him with open arms. Our mayor, G.T. Bynum, declared October 15 Officer Aurash Zarkeshan Day in the city of Tulsa and proclaimed that Zark is ``Tulsa's Hope.'' I couldn't agree more. Zark embodies everything that makes Oklahoma great. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that proclamation be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Zark wanted to give back to his community, and he delivered. October 15 will hold a special place in the heart of the thousands of people who call Tulsa home. In August, I spoke on the Senate floor regarding the riots and anarchy happening around the country, but I was specifically referring to Portland, OR, and how these events and hateful rhetoric aimed at law enforcement have endangered countless brave men and women who serve in law enforcement and how they have certainly depressed them. They talk about things like peaceful protests. Yet, in that case, they were throwing bricks at officers. They sprayed officers, nearly blinding all three of them. This was actually going on. I highlight the contrast between the violence happening in Oregon with how we appreciate our officers in my State of Oklahoma--what a contrast. Oklahomans have great respect and admiration for our men and women in blue. We know that law enforcement officers are our neighbors, our friends, and our family. They have a dangerous job, and they go beyond that job. I was talking to some of them the other day, and different ones gave different messages. While they are on duty, defending rights, a lot of them teach young kids how to play baseball. They are really great citizens. In the speech that I gave in August, I highlighted the attack on Zark and Sergeant Johnson. These attacks are a painful reminder of the sacrifices that law enforcement make every day. ``Defunding the police'' rhetoric may be politically appealing to some on the left, but we must remember that law enforcement is the first line of defense against threats like what we saw in Tulsa in June. I had the opportunity to talk to Zark this morning. He told me what was going through his mind while they were being rushed to the hospital. He said he was thinking: ``I hope our story reaches the Nation.'' Your story, Zark, has reached the Nation. It has reached the world. Right now, they know what happened. Zark wanted people to understand what police and law enforcement risk every day--a sacrifice too many take for granted. He wanted people to know the stories of good, honorable police officers. While his tragedy in Tulsa is a reminder of the threats our communities face, it is also a story of hope, of Tulsa's hope. Jerad Lindsey, who is the chairman of Tulsa's Fraternal Order of Police, said it best: ``There's not a lot of times you get to use the word `miracle'.'' Zark's recovery definitely fits that bill. Perhaps, what is most telling and most inspiring is that Zark doesn't lose sight of what was lost on June 29. On his return to Tulsa on a day that was proclaimed to recognize his heroism, he wore a shirt that honored Sergeant Johnson. It read: ``Fallen but not forgotten.'' Even this morning, he talked about Sergeant Craig Johnson and how he had wanted him to return to Tulsa with him as he himself did last week. Now that Zark is back in Tulsa, he is going to keep up his recovery, but he is also looking forward to enjoying these simple things: his own bed, his dogs, his Whataburger--he has already been there twice--and the love and support of all Tulsans. While there are many challenges and hardships ahead for Tulsa and the Nation with this tragedy, this is a story of optimism and faith in our community and in our future. Both Zark and Sergeant Johnson are American heroes, and they will always be American heroes. So we say thanks to Zark. Thanks, Zark. You are great

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize Mr. Vic Bird on the occasion of his retirement. Vic has been a champion for the Oklahoma aviation community for nearly two decades. He most recently served as the director of the Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission for 18 years, the longest serving director in Oklahoma history. You would never know it, but back in 2002, Vic Bird was a newcomer to aviation. Nevertheless, there is no one in State government who worked harder to make Oklahoma the aviation capital of America. Vic Bird led the charge on numerous State legislative initiatives that brought aviation employers to Oklahoma, and the proof is in one number. Today, aviation and aerospace is Oklahoma's second largest industry, with an annual economic impact of $44 billion. Throughout his tenure at the Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission, Vic has been a true friend to general aviation, supporting pilots and airports. Vic Bird was instrumental in making sure Oklahoma State law protected pilots at public-use and military airports by keeping dangerous structures from being built too close to airport infrastructure. Vic Bird promoted airports as anchor institutions supporting economic development and job growth in communities across Oklahoma and joined me in an aerial tour of general aviation airports across Oklahoma back in June 2017. Before I conclude, I want to highlight two of the awards and recognitions Vic Bird has received that speak volumes of his commitment to aviation. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association awards the Joseph B. ``Doc'' Hartranft Jr. Award to an individual in government service who has made significant contributions to the advancement of general aviation. Vic Bird was the first and only nonelected official to receive this award. Vic Bird is also the first and only Oklahoman elected to serve as chair of the National Association of State Aviation Officials. Vic Bird has remained an unwavering passionate advocate for aviation and aerospace in Oklahoma. I know I join his family and all that know him, in thanking him for his years of service and contributions to Oklahoma and our entire aviation community. Congratulations on your retirement.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for such time as I shall consume.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, in July, the Senate passed the fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, with 86 Senators from both sides of the aisle voting in support of it. I am glad that we had such a strong vote because I believe--and I have always believed--it is the most important vote, most important bill that we do all year. The NDAA, as we call it--that stands for National Defense Authorization Act--is how Congress provides the policy and resources for our national defense for the ensuing year, and it always passes by a bipartisan bill. And it has now for 60 years in a row. Well, not quite 60. It is 59 years. It will be 60 when this bill is concluded. There is not much we do around here anymore on a bipartisan basis for this long, but the NDAA is special. Here is why: Because each and every American benefits from the bill--each family, each community in each State. Oklahoma is no exception to this rule. What makes Oklahoma special is this. Just as much as this bill takes care of Oklahoma, Oklahoma takes care of the country by the very nature of those things, those functions that we perform each year, militarily. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have already been down here a lot talking about the NDAA and how this bill protects all Americans, how it cares for our military families, and how it gives our military the resources needed to defend this Nation. Confession is good for the soul. I have to admit, as chairman, I made certain that the NDAA did the maximum benefit possible for Oklahoma. I want to talk a little bit about what the NDAA does for Oklahoma and how what we do in Oklahoma makes the rest of the country more secure-- because it does. Oklahoma is home to some of the Department of Defense's most valuable installations and assets, and it has been this way for the better part of a century. It is also the epicenter of public-private collaboration, where industry partners and universities and others work in close coordination with our military. The defense programs based in Oklahoma protect our military advantage, making sure that we stay ahead--or, I should say, even better and more accurately now, get ahead of our competitors, especially China and Russia. I think we all understand now China and Russia are the greatest threat facing this Nation. We allowed them to-- I don't say this critically of the previous administration, but during the previous administration, a lot of our military actually suffered some 25 percent, in terms of appropriations, during the last 5 years. That would have been from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2015, and so we, in some areas, are not ahead of China and Russia. I have been around for a long time. I am a lot older than some of the other people in here, and I remember the administrations since World War II. I always prided ourselves in that we had the very best of everything. We learned the hard way in World War II that that would be necessary. Oklahomans know the importance of these programs that we have in Oklahoma, not just to our economy but to our national security. Not all Americans may know, so here are a few examples. When our planes fly long distances, sometimes they need to refuel, of course, and this can be in midair. Right now, the KC-135 has been the refueler of choice now for 60 years. It has done a great job. It is one that has lasted and has worked hard since 1956. I remember back during the last administration--the Obama administration--I am a conservative Republican, and I wasn't real fond of the previous administration, but there is one person I really liked, and that was Deborah Lee James. She was the Secretary of the Air Force in the previous administration. She and I worked hard with the idea that we were going to have to do something about the KC-135; it had been around 60 years. I remember, I said, when we were at Altus Air Force Base--that was where we were going to be delivering--that is the first KC-46 to replace the 135. And I remember saying that 60 years ago two wonderful things happened: No. 1, my wife Kay and I got married. And No. 2, the first KC-135 was delivered to Altus Air Force Base. Where is the KC-135 training and the maintenance base? It is in Oklahoma. It is time to update that aircraft. The KC-46 is the next-generation tanker, and Oklahoma is going to play a key role in this aircraft as well, thanks to the NDAA. All training for this new aircraft is conducted at Altus Air Force Base, in Altus, OK; and all depot maintenance will be performed at Tinker Air Force Base, in Oklahoma City; the same as the KC-135 maintenance has taken place for the last 60 years. We will also conduct depot maintenance on the B-21 bomber at Tinker. The B-21, which is still in the development phase, is going to be vital to our Air Force. It will be a critical part of our deterrence posture: a strong military that lets our enemies know that they can't escape us. This is cutting-edge technology, designed to replace a few types of bomber aircraft that have lived in Oklahoma for the last half century. What this year's NDAA means is the Air Force will be guaranteeing Tinker's workload for the next 50 years and beyond. You know, I have talked a lot on the floor about the NDAA and about a lot of issues, not always just military but primarily. But I have never really talked much about what we in Oklahoma do and the great contribution we make. That is kind of what I am doing right now. The third kind of aircraft we have in Oklahoma are the planes that help our Air Force pilots become the best in the world. We are talking about our training aircraft. Many of the pilots in our Air Force conduct their pilot training at Vance Air Force Base, using aircraft like the T-38. T-38--that plane has been around since 1962, and it is still being used right now as a trainer, but it has outlived its usefulness in terms of training for modern aircraft. We can have all the modern aircraft in the world, but if we are training with vehicles that are 50, 60 years old, it doesn't train them as well as they should be trained. We have had the T-38 around for that long period of time. The T-7 is going to be that newest aircraft. In this year's NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--we ensure that we continue to progress on developing this new aircraft. That is the T-7. It will be flying in the skies over Oklahoma for at least probably the next six decades. Right here, Oklahoma is home to aircraft that support three critical prongs of our national defense, making sure that we have the skills and the equipment and the reach needed to deter and defeat our adversaries for the foreseeable future. But the Air Force is not the only service with a large footprint in Oklahoma. The Army is also a rich part of our military heritage, and Oklahoma's military installations help support the Army's No. 1 modernization priority, which is long-range precision fires. That is the No. 1 priority of the U.S. Army right now. These are munitions that will be able to reach across hundreds, if not thousands, of miles and strike targets. They can be used on land; they can be used in the skies; and they can be used at sea and beyond. Unfortunately, this is an area where we have already fallen behind our competitors like China and Russia, but Oklahoma is going to help us catch up. The Paladin Integrated Management System--it is called PIM--is a critical piece of this Army modernization effort, and it is based at Fort Sill, at our very own Fires Center of Excellence. It is assembled in Elgin, OK. This is really important, especially when you know the history. We have been working to build a modern artillery system for decades. First, starting back in 1994, we were then working to build the Crusader. The Crusader was going to be our artillery system. That was going to be the best one around. We worked, and we invested money in it. The Crusader was going to be our new, modern system that would set us up above Russia and China. This was in 1994. We spent $2 billion on the Crusader. What happened to it? It was nixed, prematurely, in 2002 because it was over budget, and we thought the needs of warfare were changing. I never did believe that. I think that Crusader was a good vehicle and was what we needed for the next decades to come. But it was gone. And then some of the same mistakes were repeated in the Army's Future Combat Systems. The Future Combat Systems--called the FCS--was cut in 2009, but it wasn't $2 billion that we had spent on that before we cut it, it was $20 billion. We actually used $22 billion for an artillery system, and we still didn't have one. Billions and billions were wasted. That is how China and Russia got ahead of us--but not for long because we are catching up. There are more than just DOD programs based in Oklahoma. Our countless industry partners work there as well and help us make sure our forces are on the cutting edge of innovation. The XQ-58A Valkyrie is an unmanned aerial system that does not need a runway to take off. It will accompany the next-generation aircraft, like the world-class F- 35 on its missions. It will perform an escort function. It is one that takes off vertically, and it is one without a pilot. This is one of the Air Force's top priorities. It is what they call a Vanguard Program. It is what the future of air superiority looks like, and it is assembled in--you guessed it--Oklahoma. That is just one example of the amazing technologies we are building across the State, but it is not just our military installations and industries supporting America's national defense. In Oklahoma, we work well together across the State--military, industry, and even educational universities. In Lawton, just outside of Fort Sill, we have something called FISTA, where we try to get all of these stakeholders together in one building. It is a private sector. I have to say this about the private sector in Oklahoma. We have gone through five different efforts to change our military. And in each one of the five--these are called BRAC rounds. A BRAC round is the Base Realignment and Closure Commission--they meet and evaluate all of the military installations in the country, in America, and evaluate which ones should be expanded and which ones should be done away with and which ones should be reduced. I would say, in the State of Oklahoma, we have five major military installations, and we are the only State that has increased with each one of the five BRAC rounds since 1987. You might say that is political influence. It is not. It is community support. That is what we have always done. For example, even in our universities, the University of Oklahoma is working on research that will accelerate the work of the Long-Range Precision Fires Air Missile Defense Cross-Functional Team at Fort Sill--top modernization priorities for the Army. The FISTA is just one piece of this research and innovation done in Oklahoma. It is really happening all around the State. Oklahoma State University is also conducting critical research on drones, unmanned systems, where our military has growing needs. We are leaders in Oklahoma. This will support operations where traditional methods are not sufficient for takeoffs and landings and ensure our military can penetrate any environment. We have made sure that we have committed funding especially for this kind of research, and Oklahoma State University is the perfect candidate because of the successful work it has already done on these systems. We are ahead of others. Also, Tulsa University has been designated by the National Security Agency as a cyber center of academic excellence. This year, in the NDAA that we will be passing, which is probably going to be in the later part of November, it directs the Army Corps of Engineers to form a partnership with an academic institution like Tulsa University to conduct critical cyber research that will support our national security. TU has a track record of success. It is certainly a go-to for just this type of research, and I anticipate that this is exactly what is going to happen. Our universities really are second to none in terms of this research, and their hard work and ingenuity are going to help us catch up to China and Russia and ensure our military superiority will be there for years to come. With the massive amount of work lined up for the State of Oklahoma, I knew our bill had to help communities across the State provide the number of workers that will be needed. One provision we included to address this allows for the appointment of recently retired members of the armed services--armed services members who have retired--to assume DOD positions at certain pay grades without their having to wait the requisite lengths of time. This ensures more people will stay in Oklahoma. Skilled workers won't need to leave the State to find work. These are the people who know the programs best. It is what they have spent their careers doing, and they are going to be able to continue working on them even after they have transitioned out of Active Duty. This is all in this Defense authorization bill that we have under consideration today that we are going to pass. Our work ethic is just one of the trademarks of the Oklahomans I am lucky to represent. Another is what we call the Oklahoma standard. Oklahomans know how important it is to care for and support each other, especially our military families. Our military families don't have it easy. The nature of the job means frequent moves around the country and around the world. This means they make a lot of sacrifices. We can't ask military spouses to sacrifice as well. So what we have done is, actually, what we started in last year's Defense authorization bill. At that time, we put in a program to help spouses and families circumvent some of the time they waste but that they have to have when they move into new occupations. We have now done the same thing, but this was in last year's bill. One way we did it was by extending the DOD program to reimburse spouses for the costs of new professional licenses and credentials. This year, we have improved on that. We have made it easier to transfer those licenses across State lines, but you can't do that until after this bill has passed. We know that, when we improve family readiness, we improve overall military readiness. I have to say that there are a lot of people around here who don't think we need as strong a military as we need. They talk about it, and I have heard the statement. I have heard it a hundred times. They say we spend more on our military than China and Russia do put together. Well, there is a reason for that. In our military, we look after the troops, after the individuals. You know about the housing problems that we have had, and we have spent a lot of money to correct that problem. We are doing this at the current time. We also have schools for the kids of our troops and educational facilities. Now, in Russia and China--Communist countries--they give them guns and say: Go out and shoot people. That is it. The last thing I want to point out about this year's NDAA is also the readiness issue. This year, we made sure that we would not have a BRAC round. I mentioned a minute ago that a BRAC round is a Base Realignment and Closure Commission, and we are not going to have one. Now is not the time to reduce our military footprint any further, not when we face so many threats around the world and not when we have worked so hard with President Trump to rebuild and repair our readiness. It is easy to see how these provisions we fought so hard to include in this bill will help Oklahomans and, really, all Americans. That is why I think the NDAA is the most important bill of the year, not only for Oklahoma but for the rest of the Nation as well. Serving as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and representing Oklahomans are the two things I am most proud of. I am proud that we can do right by our Armed Forces and Oklahomans with this year's NDAA. The next step is to make this bill law, and the next step is going to take place when our colleagues from the House have a conference report. I think most people know that, with a bill like this, the Senate passes a bill, and the House passes a bill. Then there is a conference report, and they have to get together and have a conference. It is not going to be easy because there are a lot of differences to iron out. For those who want to know when it is going to happen, as for the conference report, the House is not going to appoint its conferees until November 16, so it is going to be a while. It doesn't matter. The deadline is actually December 31, and that will happen. It has happened for 60 years in a row, and it is going to happen this time. No matter what, we are going to get it done. We have for the last 59 years, and we are going to do it again. I was talking to people at Tinker Air Force Base today, and they were talking about the things that they are needing to do. Tinker Air Force Base has turned into probably--I believe it is--the largest military complex in the country. People are doing incredible work there. I was talking to the whole team, and those on the team were talking about what they are preparing for in the next year. I can assure you it is all going to be good and that Oklahoma is going to fare well. We are going to fare well in our equipment and in our training. I am proud of Oklahoma's contribution to the safety of America, and we are doing a good job in Oklahoma. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to start by doing something that has become a little controversial. It shouldn't be, and the fact that it is reflects a sad time in our Nation's history. Here it is: To our Nation's police, sheriffs, and all other law enforcement officers out there--State and Federal--thank you. I appreciate you and am grateful for your service. Why has that become controversial? Because all of a sudden, criticizing and demonizing our Nation's law enforcement has become the popular liberal thing to do. Over the last few days, you have probably seen the liberal mainstream media making wild claims and accusations that President Trump has deployed so-called secret police to Portland. These allegations got even more attention over the last few weeks because some of my Democratic colleagues came down to the floor and made the wildest accusations about how the Federal officers were the worst in the world. Some of the words they used were: ``bold,'' ``sadistic,'' ``Gestapos,'' ``storm troopers,'' ``paramilitary''--words designed to stir the emotions of everyone watching. They were talking about the law enforcement community. They were talking about sheriffs and police. Rather than letting these wild allegations go unchecked, let's remember how we got here. For over 60 days, violent demonstrators have laid siege on Portland. That is not an exaggeration. They have specifically and deliberately attacked a Federal courthouse, attempting to destroy it. Let's be clear: These are not peaceful protesters. Everyone agrees in the First Amendment and the support for peaceful demonstrations. We all agree on that. That is not what we are talking about here. That is not what happened when the anarchist groups co-opted the peaceful protests with the fires, the lasers, the bricks, the Molotov cocktails, the sledgehammers, and more. See the chart. This chart we have here, the one on the right says: Day 53. Federal facilities and law enforcement officials targeted and attacked overnight. One officer injured and 5 arrested. The one on the left says: Day 56. Last night six DHS law enforcement officers were injured in Portland. To be clear, criminals assaulted FEDERAL officers on FEDERAL property . . . and the city of Portland did nothing. The response from local leaders? They have caved to the mob and will not allow local law enforcement to protect Federal property. In fact, they have demanded Federal law enforcement leave and surrender to the mob. Can you imagine? This is in America that this happened. So that leaves us two options: One, completely give in to the mob and let them burn down the taxpayer-funded courthouse--and we all know that they will not stop there--or, two, send additional Federal resources to Portland. We are a nation of law and order. Additional Federal resources is the only correct answer here. The Department of Homeland Security doesn't have a choice. They are legally required to protect these facilities. Contrary to what has been reported in the media, these Federal officers are acting in accordance with the law. They have the legal authority and responsibility to protect Federal property, as well as detain, question, and arrest anyone in accordance with that. Specifically, that is found in 40 U.S. Code 1315. So they aren't some sort of secret police; they are legal law enforcement doing what local law enforcement wasn't being allowed to do locally there, so they took up their responsibilities and performed. Last week, Governor Brown finally conceded. I guess he just got to the point where he was willing to be fearful for the people and their injuries and the terrorist activity that was going on. But he conceded and allowed the Portland Police Bureau to clear out the downtown parks that were a base for the agitators and let the State police officers defend Federal properties. That is the responsible thing to do, and it shows the President's commitment to working with State and local law enforcement when additional resources are needed. It could be easy to think that this is an outlier, but, sadly, the national ``defund the police'' movement--it is a movement in this country now. Everyone is talking about it, defund law enforcement. The movement is having a real impact throughout America. The result? Shootings have increased in New York by 277 percent this year; in Chicago, by 50 percent this year, and in May, they saw the most violent weekend in modern history; and in Minneapolis, the murder rate is expected to surpass an alltime high. In fact, as President Trump mentioned recently, the 20-most dangerous cities in America are run by Democrats. I have to mention this because the Washington Post tried to fact check the President's statement. And do you know what? It is a good thing that they did. The result? The Post showed that, per capita, 19 of the 20 cities with the most violent crime per 10,000 residents were controlled by Democrats, and the one that wasn't controlled by Democrats was an Independent, but that Independent is a Democrat. I guess they hoped we would only read the headline and not see the data that shows the impact of the lack of leadership. In case you can't tell watching at home, the blue lines on the chart that will go up here--what we have here is the claim ``that the most dangerous cities in America all run by Democrats. They aren't.'' But then they found out that they are. Here they are. The blue lines are run by the Democrats; the red lines, Independents. So that is a problem. Honorable, good law enforcement officers are enduring severe budget cuts from spineless politicians who want to concede to the far left ``defund the police'' movement. They are being overstretched and overburdened That doesn't even get into the injuries law enforcement has endured during these violent protests recently. In Portland alone, three officers are facing possible permanent blindness after having high- intensity lasers shown in their eyes. Other officers have faced injuries from being hit with bricks and fireworks. They have endured verbal assaults, been spit on, and called the most offensive names. At least 30 officers have been victims of a doxing, where anarchists share where their families live online so they can have access to them. In fact, since July 4, over 245 Federal law enforcement officers have been injured in Portland. Fortunately, President Trump is taking action, standing up for our police and also for law enforcement in our communities. Last week, he launched Operation Legend, a Federal law enforcement initiative that will work with State and local officials to address the spike in violent crimes that we are seeing in too many cities. This is the right approach to restore law and order. The last thing I will leave you with on the floor is, 2 weeks ago, in the midst of sensationalizing statements, the junior Senator from Oregon challenged me, basically, implying that if what was happening in Portland was happening in Oklahoma, I would feel differently. Well, that isn't--the difference isn't how I would feel. The difference is between Oklahoma City and Oregon, I guess. In Oklahoma, we respect our police and the sheriffs and the State troopers. This is a good one here. This is in the Springlake Division. This is in Oklahoma. I walk past this every time we come and go from the station. What a wonderful community we see serving here in Oklahoma City. You can read statements of people saying how much they appreciate our law enforcement officers. This is the door that was there, and it is covered with hearts on the door. That tells the story. The sacrifice they make daily is real. They put their lives on the line to protect and serve our communities, but they also work long hours in difficult conditions. Here is a reminder of that sacrifice. I will put up two officers here. There are two officers whom I am going to show you. Last month, two Tulsa police officers were conducting a routine traffic stop, pulling over a car with expired tags. As any veteran officer will tell you, there is no such thing as a routine anything in law enforcement. This is no exception. Officer Zarkeshan, a rookie, and Sergeant Craig Johnson had no way of knowing that the man they had just pulled over was armed. The man on the left is Craig Johnson. Both officers were shot multiple times. Sergeant Johnson, who has two young sons, died. Officer Zarkeshan, after enduring multiple surgeries, is blessed. He is now stable and making good progress. ``Protect and serve'' isn't just a phrase for the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers around the country; it is a calling, a sacrifice for them. Too often, officers have to sacrifice their lives for their communities. That is why, when liberal politicians are tripping over themselves, trying as hard as they can to demonize all police officers, I want to make it clear that some of us are standing up against defunding police and in favor of defending police. I will always stand with President Trump in defense of our good, honorable law enforcement officers. They will sacrifice anything for those of us here, and to not stand up and defend them is to dishonor them. In Oregon, politicians are clamoring to defend the terrorists who are trying to destroy law and order. On the other side, our President is trying to defend it. God bless America's law enforcement officers and our President. The police and our law enforcement aren't the only things the new cancel culture has come for more recently. While not a literal mob trying to burn down buildings, the online liberal mob is still seeking to destroy our American icons by canceling them, subjecting them to public backlash fueled by the progressive ideology. Just before July Fourth--our national holiday--they came for the National Anthem. The Yahoo music editor-in-chief wrote that the ``'Star-Spangled Banner' seems to be striking a wrong note.'' The Los Angeles Times wrote an op-ed titled, ``It's time to cancel the `Star- Spangled Banner.''' This is America we are talking about. Why do they do that? Because in the fourth stanza of the song--and I didn't even know until a month ago that it had more than one stanza. They knew it was more than just one stanza. But in the fourth stanza, there is a couplet that reads: No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight in the gloom of the grave. Now, because of that, they want to cancel the Star-Spangled Banner. Marc Ferris, who literally wrote the book on the Star-Spangled Banner, stated that Key was likely using the term loosely, contrasting the free, patriot Americans against the British soldiers subjected to the yoke of the monarchy. But Yahoo's article even says if there is ``a tradition that hurts any part of society,'' it is time to just throw it away. That throwing it away has extended to statues of our Founders, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It also includes Mahatma Gandhi and Ulysses S. Grant. It even includes historical items from popular culture like ``Gone with the Wind''--yes, ``Gone with the Wind.'' They wanted to do away with ``Gone with the Wind.'' The organization that has a program where, online, they can dial up any movie that they want to do, one of them is ``Gone with the Wind,'' and they want to do it because of--they say-- the culture. That happens to be the one that Hattie McDaniel was the first Black American to win an Oscar for. This is, again, what is going on right now. Like so many American families, I watch with shock and dismay as to how many are setting aside critical thinking in favor of an emotional mob that moves closer and closer to a total Cultural Revolution takeover. Should we have expected anything less from the Democratic Party as they continue to run toward socialism and proudly embrace communist beliefs? Remember, we have seen this before. Chairman Mao knew that, to fully seize control and build a socialist country, he needed to destroy our ``four olds": old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits. The Communists in China needed the Orwellian control of ``History has stopped'' in 1966, and the Communists here in America need it today. How else can they erase our ideas, culture, and customs in order to impose their radical policies on all of us? How much longer do we need to wait for their cries of ``Abolish rent'' to become ``Jail the bourgeois landlord''? We already see professors accused of wrong thinking for having the audacity to teach or advocate for anything unapproved by the progressive mob. How long until they are denounced as class traitors? Does our Nation have flaws? Of course. But what is unique and is perhaps the most beautiful part of our Nation is that we have the ability to see those flaws, to change them, and to grow. And we do it under the promise of liberty and justice for all. We did that after the Civil War. We saw it again after World War II. We saw that growth in the civil rights movement. The reality of this leftwing ``cancel culture'' mob is that there is no goal of debate. The goal is to shame, humiliate, and ridicule into conformity through a vicious attack reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Party struggle session. Liberty is under siege. Just remember what happened in the opinion pages of the New York Times for merely publishing an opinion that was held by the majority of Americans but rejected by the progressive mob. Senator Cotton put forward a well-researched op-ed--requested by the Times--that advocated the President, only as a last resort, should use the Insurrection Act to put down the terrorist activity we saw in too many cities over the past few months. Again, a national poll held that 58 percent of registered voters agreed with Senator Cotton, but some reporters at the New York Times and the progressive mob didn't. They raised such a protest that the head of the editorial page issued an apology, claiming that it wasn't to the standards of the Times, that it was too extreme. And that wasn't enough for the mob. He was fired. Before the ``cancel culture'' mob goes further still to embrace their Presidential candidate--who has gone through enough twists and turns to make sure that he, too, conforms to the progressive demands--we should all remember our Nation was founded on liberty, and it will only endure with true liberty. That means being willing to live together in the midst of all kinds of diversity, especially diversity of thought. So, as we began, we can't forget what this is all about: The terrorists ran, unchecked, in Portland for 60 days. No one raced to stop them. Federal officials had to step in because the State and local governments wouldn't allow their law enforcement to police the riots. Scenes like we saw in Portland will not happen in Oklahoma, but they could happen in other cities where lawlessness is pervasive. Thankfully, we have a President who stands up for law and order and for our law enforcers. Where would we be without our brave police and sheriffs? I hope we never find that out. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Reed, as the chair and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, it is our honor to pay tribute to a great leader and senior executive of the Department of Defense, Mr. Robert R. Hood. Mr. Hood has served as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs from August 2017 to July 2020. As he prepares to leave this position to enter into the private sector, we commend him for his sound leadership, advice, and professional judgement on numerous critical issues of enduring importance to the Department of Defense, Congress, and this Nation. Mr. Hood has served our Nation for more than 18 years in various capacities within the Federal Government. His service to our Nation includes roles as a professional staff member for the House Committee on Science, as well as senior legislative assistant, senior policy advisor, and assistant to the Speaker of the House of Representatives for policy. Mr. Hood also served 5 years as the Director of Congressional Affairs for the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy. Mr. Hood previously served in the White House as special assistant to President George W. Bush in the Office of Legislative Affairs, overseeing coordination with the Senate, including the Armed Services, Homeland Security, Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. Before working on the White House staff, Mr. Hood served at the Pentagon as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs, where he was responsible for promoting the policies, strategies, and budget of the Department of Defense to the U.S. Congress. Mr. Hood also served as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, for Budget and Appropriations Affairs, working closely with the Appropriations Committees of the Congress. For the past 3 years as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs, Mr. Hood deftly managed and guided the Department's congressional relations, ensuring the preparation of key senior leaders for Senate confirmations, congressional hearings, and briefings, while simultaneously developing and leading a skilled and focused legislative affairs team. His leadership, knowledge, and personal efforts greatly contributed to one of the most successful legislative years in Department history, culminating with the establishment of the U.S. Space Force, which was signed into law on December 20, 2019 as part of the fiscal year 2020 NDAA. Mr. Hood provided significant contributions and leadership during the development and execution of the Secretary of Defense's Congressional Engagement Strategy, ensuring an integrated legislative program directly aligned with the National Defense Strategy. This comprehensive plan supported the Department's priorities, aligned legislative objectives to the congressional calendar, and guided the execution of over 4,000 congressional engagements within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and oversight and alignment of over 10,000 congressional engagements across the Department during his 3-year tenure. The strategic execution of these engagements directly led to the attainment of Department of Defense legislative priorities and resourcing at historic levels in the fiscal years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 National Defense Authorization Acts, NDAAs, appropriations bills. On behalf of the Senate, we thank Robert, his wife Jennifer, and his children: Evan, Caroline, Megan, and Emma, for their continued commitment, sacrifice and contribution to this great Nation. We join our colleagues in wishing him future success as he transitions into the private sector.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I honor a superb leader, liaison, and warrior. After 3 years of service as director of the Navy Senate Liaison Office, RDML Scott Sciretta recently promoted from captain to rear admiral, lower half. On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize Rear Admiral Sciretta's distinguished service and dedication to fostering the relationship between the U.S. Navy and this Chamber. Rear Admiral Sciretta is a 1992 graduate of the Pennsylvania State University. A surface warfare officer by designation, Rear Admiral Sciretta has led our Nation's young men and women on shore and at sea, most prominently in command of USS Jason Dunham, USS Cowpens, and USS Lake Erie. The Navy has consistently relied upon Rear Admiral Sciretta for his exceptional leadership and unparalleled work ethic. Rear Admiral Sciretta has excelled in numerous other leadership positions in the Navy, most recently as the director, Navy Senate Liaison. In the Russell Senate Office Building and around the globe, Rear Admiral Sciretta filled the role that was initially created and held by Senator John McCain after his return from Vietnam as a Navy captain. Decades later, Rear Admiral Sciretta had the job of coordinating a weeklong series of logistical movements around the country that enabled present and former Members of both Chambers to honor a late colleague and dear friend. Over the course of the last few years, Rear Admiral Sciretta led 45 congressional delegations to 35 different countries. He escorted over half of the Members of this Chamber on travel and became a trusted adviser and friend to many of us. I have had the pleasure of traveling with Rear Admiral Sciretta on a number of trips. He distinguished himself by going above and beyond the call pf duty to facilitate and successfully execute each and every trip, despite any number of weather, aircraft, and diplomatic complications. Recently, Rear Admiral Sciretta departed Washington for Key West, FL, to serve as the deputy director of Joint Interagency Task Force South and lead operations to combat illicit trafficking. This Chamber will feel Rear Admiral Sciretta's absence. I join many past and present Members of Congress in my gratitude and appreciation to Rear Admiral Sciretta for his outstanding leadership and unwavering support of the missions of the U.S. Navy. I especially recognize his patient and supportive family, Mrs. Sharon Diane Sciretta, Navy Lieutenant James Francis Sciretta and his wife, Ms. Delma Eylin Sciretta, and Navy Midshipman Adam Joseph Sciretta. I wish this Navy family ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc and the Senate vote on adoption of the amendments en bloc with no intervening action or debate. Before I read the names, which I will do, I make that request: I ask unanimous consent for the following amendments to be called up en bloc and the Senate vote on adoption of the amendments en bloc with no intervening action. I am going to list all of the amendments so there is no misunderstanding. The reason we are going to do this--we talked about this last night. These have been hotlined. There are a total of about 28 amendments. I will be naming in the Record those that I am asking the consent for: Sullivan, No. 2127; Toomey, No. 2180; Rubio, No. 2305; Cruz, No. 2308, as modified; Grassley, No. 2399; Fischer, No. 2431; Perdue, No. 2449; Perdue, No. 2459; Tillis, No. 2484, refile of No. 2421; Portman, No. 2486, which is a refile of No. 2330; Peters, No. 1752; Cardin, No. 1876; Heinrich, No. 2221; Klobuchar, No. 2295; Udall, No. 2407; Schumer, No. 2410; Booker, No. 2412; Duckworth, No. 2432; King, No. 2438; King, No. 2439; Grassley, No. 2436; Moran, No. 2446, as modified; Cassidy, No. 2453; Crapo, No. 2430; Reed, No. 2461, as modified; Klobuchar, No. 2437; Warner, No. 2471; and Bennet, No. 2429.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is an issue that we have talked about for some time, and we have spent a whole year on this bill. We have covered these issues before. I do object to that modification.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, I would agree it is hard to find anything with more merit than this. It is something I want to work very hard to accomplish. However, we do have an agreement that this would violate. For that reason, I object.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object. We have a President who has put this plan together. We spent a lot of time on this. The Senate has been heard. We actually discussed this as we put together our bill. For that reason, I do object to the modification.

Mr. INHOFE. We are at the point now where I would like to make a few comments, and I would like to ask our ranking member to make some comments. This has been a long time in the making. I have said several times on the floor that this, in my opinion, is the most important bill of the year. It is something we have done every year. This will be the 60th consecutive year that we have actually done this bill. It is never easy. One reason it is not easy is because everybody knows it is going to pass, so people want to be a part of it and put their many amendments that aren't even germane on this bill. We are now to the point where, in just a few minutes, we are going to be voting on the final passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. When Senator Reed and I introduced this bill, we thought we had a good bill. The bill was really led by the Members. This never happened before. We started off with over 700 requests and amendments so that the Members themselves have drawn this bill together. It is not as if it is put together by a committee; it was put together by all of us here in the Chamber. The committee approved it 25 to 2. That is overwhelming. I think everyone understands that. We filed it with the hopes of adding a few more amendments on the Senate floor. We did that. We added more than 140 amendments altogether. We even had some debates and rollcall votes on amendments, something we haven't done probably in the last 5 years or so. Now we are voting on a great bill, a bill that every Senator had the chance to make his or her remark on. Once the Senate passes this bill, we will still have more work to do. We still have to go over to the House and pass their bill. We have to go to conference with the House. We will do that. We have done that every year for many, many years. Our next step would be, of course, to do the conference. Then we will work to make sure, once again, this is a bipartisan conference report that both parties can support and the President can sign. It has been bipartisan. All these amendments--each group amendment that the ranking member, Senator Reed, yesterday talked about--were equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. I have not seen it this way in the past. We will make sure, once again, that we have the same bipartisan effort. I have said it many times over the past several days and several weeks that the NDAA is one of our most important responsibilities. There is a document I refer to now and then that nobody reads anymore called the Constitution. In that Constitution, it tells us what we are supposed to be doing here. What we are supposed to be doing here is exactly what we are doing today. The National Defense Authorization Act is how we fulfill that responsibility, and we have done this every year for 60 years in a row now. It is a sacred responsibility we all have to all Americans, especially our troops and their families--those in harm's way. Every day they wake up, lay their lives on the line to defend our Nation and our values and freedom, democracy, and peace. Right now, the main challenge to our security comes from authoritarian regimes that stand against all of our values. I am talking about China and Russia and others--primarily China and Russia. The way we win against our adversaries is by making sure our fights never start by sending a strong message that ``you can't win; don't even try.'' That is what we are doing with this bill. The National Defense Strategy Commission report is significant because this is the second time now we have done this. This is a book that was put together by six leading Democrats, six leading Republicans--all very knowledgeable on this issue. It is called the ``Common Defense.'' This is what we have used as our blueprint. We stayed pure with that all the way through. The NDAA makes sure that we have the personnel, the equipment, the training, and the organization needed to support the strategy that is found in this book. If we get it right, we will be set on a steady course toward a peaceful, free, and prosperous world--not just for us but for our children and our grandchildren as well. Kay and I have been married for 60 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. We know something about this and the significance of this. The backbone of all of this is our men and women in uniform, so this bill is for them. The bill provides for a 3-percent pay raise, the largest one in over a decade. It also takes care of the families and makes sure their spouses have employment opportunities, children have access to good schools and childcare, and they are all living with a quality roof over their heads. These are priorities that go beyond party. That is why this bill has passed for the last 59 years in a row with bipartisan support, and that is why we are going to do it again today. There is talk out there that people in Washington don't really work that hard. Let me assure you, they do in this case. We have been blessed with a couple of leaders, this great committee we have that put this together. Those leaders include John Bonsell. John Bonsell has been working in this effort with me for well over 20 years, and he was a great leader of this group. On the Democratic side, the minority side, Liz King has worked hand in hand with John Bonsell. The whole team has worked together. Developing a bill that comes out of committee with only two dissenting votes is not something that is done every day. I want to personally thank those individuals on our side, and we will ask Senator Reed to do the same on the minority side. We want to thank not just John Bonsell but John Wason, Tom Goffus, Stephanie Barna, Greg Lilly, Marta Hernandez, Rick Berger, Jennie Wright, Adam Barker, Augusta BinnsBerkey, Al Edwards, Sean O'Keefe, Brad Patout, Jason Potter, Katie Sutton, Eric Trager, Dustin Walker, T.C. Williams, Otis Winkler, Gwyneth Woolwine, Katie Magnus, Arthur Tellis, Leah Brewer, Debbie Chiarello, Gary Howard, Tyler Wilkinson, John Bryant, Griffin Cannon, Keri-Lyn Michalke, Soleil Sykes, Brittany Amador, Jillian Schofield. We will cover those from the minority side in just a moment. From my personal office: Luke Holland, Andrew Forbes, Leacy Burke, Don Archer, Travis Tarbox--who just got his promotion to major yesterday--Brian Brody, Dan Hillenbrand, Jake Hinch, Devin Barrett, Laurie Fitch, and Whitney Fulluo. Lastly, from the floor staff: Robert Duncan, Chris Tuck, Megan Mercer, Tony Hanagan, Katherine Foster, Brian Canfield, Abigail Baker, Anna Carmack, and Maddie Sanborn. It is because of the tireless work of all these fine people--we are talking about the members of the committee, the personal staff, and we are talking about the staff in the cloakrooms--I want to thank them all. This is our only opportunity to do that. We are going to hear now from the ranking member, Senator Reed, and then, after that, we will vote and look forward to this year's NDAA passing with a strong bipartisan majority. Senator Reed