Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know of no further debate.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, can I say Senator Reed has been incredibly great in this whole process. We have been working on this for a whole year now, and we are now to the point where tomorrow we should be able to pass it out of--it will not be passed at that time. We also have a conference we are going to have to be faced with and all that, but today and tomorrow morning are very important to us. The point that is made by Senator Reed--if you add up all the amendments, really, it is you guys in the Senate who have drafted this bill. Not only are there 141 amendments since we came out of the committee, but in the committee, we had over 800 amendments that were part of the bill to start with. One of the reasons--and I think I speak for Senator Reed and myself at the same time. We have had some experiences in the past where, since the Senate operates with unanimous consent, we were unable to have any amendments at all on the floor. So in order to do that, to make sure-- if that should happen again, we wanted to make sure we had all these amendments already in the bill. So that was our starting point. Now, here is where we are today. We had a great vote on the NDAA, receiving an 87-to-13 vote in favor of ending debate on the substitute. That was great. That was today. That means we are at kind of the end of this process now. We have continued to work on another managers' package. Last night we hotlined--a lot of the people who may be watching are not familiar with the terminology. We hotlined--we sent out to all the Democrats and all the Republicans for any objections they might have-- another group of amendments. It was a large group, an equal number of amendments for Democrats and Republicans. It came back, and there were a lot of objections to it, so we have now taken that and started on one last managers' package that we are going to be--a modified version that we are going to hotline tonight. It is very important that people are listening right now. A lot of times people aren't listening. Certainly, the staffs should let their Members know that they are going to get a hotline on actually 40 amendments--20 Democratic amendments, 20 Republican amendments-- tonight. That is going to be the hotline they are going to look at. Some of your staff and some of the Members may not have read these amendments yet. It is likely that is the case. If you have objections to amendments in this package--that is what we are hotlining--we encourage you to lodge those objections with the Cloakroom. That is when you get these things. That is going to be tonight. We will note those objections and see what remains. Tomorrow morning--let's say all the objections have come in. Tomorrow morning, at a time--we were hoping that time was going to be around 10:30 tomorrow, but we know a lot of people want to talk; a lot of people want to be heard. We can't control that, but we will ask for unanimous consent to pass the package with a balanced number of amendments from both Democrats and Republicans. This is tomorrow, hopefully at 10:30, but maybe that will not work. We will require Members who want to object to this final package to come down to the floor in person and object. If you already have an objection to a specific amendment in this package registered with the Cloakroom, the amendment should have been pulled from the package. It will not even appear at that time. Otherwise, you need to be here to object in person. We use the term ``balanced.'' This is how this works. We have 40 amendments that are going to be hotlined tonight. If the Republicans have eight of them that they object to and the Democrats have seven they object to, they have to find one more to object to so it ends up being eight and eight or so that the number will be equal. It sounds a little complicated and it sounds like something that might not work, but it will work. We have been doing this now for over a year. Actually, we started this process 2 years ago. So it is going to be the responsibility of the Democrats and the Republicans to make that even so that no one can say that it is biased to one side. So all of that is what is going to happen, and it is very important that staff and Members be aware of that because what we don't want to happen is to have someone come along and say they were not aware of this process that is in place. So that is the process we are going to use, and that is one that is fair. Again, I don't think--and this will be the 60th consecutive year. There has never been a year, in my memory, that has had more amendments considered than we have considered this year. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we have three groups of speakers having to do with the vote that will take place at 11:45 a.m., and during that time I will take the first 15 minutes, and then other Members will have amendments. The first two amendments will be the Schatz amendment and then my amendment. I did have the intention of having more time and was going to kind of rejoice a little bit because, right now, I understand we are about to get the information on suggestions that the Secretary of Defense has after working over a realignment of some of our resources, particularly in Europe. This is kind of interesting because this is something that 18 years ago this year I tried to do unsuccessfully when Jim Jones was the Supreme Allied Commander, and we were not able to get it done. After 18 years, we are going to try it again. I will be speaking about that issue at 4 p.m. today, and it is a significant one. Today we are considering amendments to our national defense authorization bill. We are still working on a managers' package, but as I previously noted, we have already agreed to more than 140 bipartisan amendments. Let me be more specific than that. This is the first time we have done this. We have had amendments to a lesser degree in the past. This is the first time that the entire bill has been put together by Members of the U.S. Senate. To demonstrate that, the total number of amendments to date, on July 21--including our request prior to coming to the floor--are 818 amendments, of which 440 are Republican and 428 are Democratic. Then there was the adoption of the substitute amendment. We all remember what happened then. We had 79 amendments. Those amendments were 34 Democrat and 34 Republican, and 11 were joint. Then the amendments we adopted with the managers' package included 34 amendments, 15 from Republicans and 18 from Democrats, as amendments on the second managers' package numbering 28 and the third package of 34. What I am saying is that we have had many amendments, and this is the first time there has been a bill that was entirely written by the Members. That is why we are at a point now where we can introduce our amendments. It was important to both Senator Reed and me to try to vote on at least a few individual amendments. This is something we haven't been able to do in the last several years. We made this arrangement 2 weeks ago when we set up some six amendments to be voted on. We will start in just a few minutes voting on the first two, which will be Senator Schatz's and mine. I am glad we are doing this within the hour. The first two amendments will be in relation to Senator Schatz regarding the 1033 Program. I am strongly opposed to the Schatz amendment to end the 1033 Program. I hear people talking about this, and I guess they don't realize what we have done in the State of Oklahoma. Our sheriffs and law enforcement officers were quite upset when they heard that it might be in jeopardy. The 1033 Program is an effective use of the taxpayers' money, taking equipment that is not being used by the military and allowing it to go into the law enforcement sector. All kinds of precautions have already been taken, but we are talking about adding a few more precautions. The 1033 Program is an effective use of taxpayers' money. In fact, since the program's creation in 1990, more than $7 billion worth of vehicles, desks, boots, computers, and more have been responsibly recycled into law enforcement. This is military equipment that the military no longer needs and that these agencies would be purchasing anyway. The equipment is always demilitarized so that it is appropriate for public safety use. For years, local law enforcement has been asked to do more with less. Now they face the liberal cause to defund the police. We need to continue this transparent, responsive program. There are a lot of us who have a hard time believing that this is going on today--that people are trying to play down law enforcement, trying to say that it is acceptable to break the law. This has never happened before in America, but that is what we are seeing right now. That makes this program one that is even more valuable. Senator Schatz's amendment would place such stringent limitations on the 1033 Program that it would make the program virtually impossible to use. It adds only burdensome certification and reporting requirements. Now, I don't say this critically of Senator Schatz, but he doesn't like the program, and he wants to kill the program. We are not going to allow this to happen. As an example, let's say that a sheriff's office in my State of Oklahoma or any other State decides that they want to receive sleeping bags that the Department of Defense no longer needs. Under the Schatz amendment, that sheriff's office would need to, No. 1, put the request for sleeping bags out for public comment 30 days prior; second, they would have to receive approval from local and State authorities; and third, they would have to file reports on how the sleeping bags would be used and the kind of training officers will have to receive in order for them to have these sleeping bags. Sheriff's offices are too busy working to keep our communities safe to file numerous reports on sleeping bags that they receive from DOD. To put it bluntly, I think this amendment would kill the 1033 Program. Again, this is allowing trained law enforcement officers to use surplus equipment that is not going to be used and has no value to the military. This is why both the National Sheriffs' Association and the National Fraternal Order of Police strongly oppose Senator Schatz's amendment. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the recommendations from the National Sheriffs' Association and the National Fraternal Order of Police

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2411 and ask that it be reported by number.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I support strong oversight of the 1033 Program, and I understand the intent behind my colleague's amendment. We want to make sure that the wrong kind of equipment doesn't get into the hands of people who cannot properly use it, so we have actually put those modifications into an amendment that will be voted on--the Inhofe amendment--right after the Schatz amendment, in another 30 minutes from now. We are offering an alternative to the Schatz amendment. It would place a more narrow limitation on the transfer of Department of Defense equipment, including weapons that cannot be used by State and local enforcement. We are talking about weapons such as weaponized tracking vehicles, drones, and lethal grenades. They are not being used anyway, so let's put them on a list so that they can't be used. That should satisfy a lot of people's concerns. It also makes sure that those who receive this equipment get necessary training on how to protect citizens' constitutional rights and enhanced training on deescalation techniques. Defunding and deequipping our law enforcement agencies simply will not fix anything. Making sure they have the right equipment and right training will. So I would request that my colleagues vote no on the Schatz amendment and recognize the value of this program, and vote yes on my amendment putting new safeguards into the 1033 Program. With that, Madam President, having used the first 10 minutes of my time, I yield the next 5 minutes to Senator Cramer.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 60- affirmative vote threshold with respect to the Shaheen amendment No. 1729 be vitiated.

Mr. INHOFE. For the information of all Senators, it is my understanding that we should be able to adopt the amendment by voice vote.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, right now, we are in the middle of what I have referred to several times as what I consider to be the most significant bill of the year, the National Defense Authorization Act-- one that you can almost be sure will pass. This will be the 60th consecutive year it has passed. That is a pretty good indication it is going to pass. That comes with problems, however. People know that a bill is going to pass, so you get a lot of pieces of legislation that had not been able to get passed, and it may be a whole year, and it becomes a part of this bill. It is more than just the Defense authorization bill, but it is the most significant one. Before we even came to the floor, we did something that we have been working on now--at least I know personally--for 4 years, and that is to put ourselves in a position where just in case we find ourselves where we can't get amendments--all it takes is one person to object, and there will be no amendments if this happens. We decided to go ahead and put this bill together and do it in such a way that the Members are actually drafting the bill. We have 700 Member items. You might remember that back in January, we started talking about this, saying: If you want to have an amendment in the Defense authorization bill, even though it is not going to become effective until a year from December, you better get down there and do it because now is the time you can get that done. Well, we ended up with 700 Member items, and that was before we even got to the floor, and then more were added. We added another 140 amendments after that. You can say that this bill was passed by you--I am talking about the Members, Democrats and Republicans--in the Chamber because these items all came out of it. We didn't do it the way it used to be done. We kind of eased into this, but it has worked very well. I commend Liz and John for the work they do in holding everyone together in making this a reality. Where we are right now is, we have had a lot of our Members coming to the floor. My staff and I are continuing to work on the inclusion of additional amendments. If you will recall, 2 weeks ago, when we took a break for the Fourth of July, we agreed upon some legislation, some amendments that would be a part of this. They are all structured right now. We have already passed two--actually, passed four today. We have another bunch of amendments, including a managers' package. It was hotlined today, just today. We don't have the results of that yet. People may have objected to it, and I am just not aware--apparently, there have been some objections. I don't know what the count is. We will keep trying to get as many amendments as possible. My experience is that this means we are nearing the end of the road. I would have to say this about my partner in this effort--he has been my partner for a number of years, Jack Reed, on the minority side. We have both worked hand in glove in trying to get as many amendments as possible, and we have set a record this year with either amendments or letters from Members. I am going do something that will make a bunch of people mad, but I don't really care. You hear so much negative stuff. I have said several times that when this President came in, up to the moment that we had the virus, we had the best economy we have had in my lifetime. All indications show that was true. He did this in a way that was thought out, and it wasn't all a Republican idea. Back when John Kennedy was President of the United States, that is when they were expanding the Great Society. This is a quote. He said: We are going to have to have a lot more revenue to take care of the Great Society programs. The best way to increase revenue is to decrease marginal rates--marginal tax rates. And it worked. Unfortunately, he died right after that and could not see the benefits of the efforts of this great idea. This was done again during the Bush administration. It was the first thing that was done by the Trump administration. But he did something different this time, and this is the reason that it produced much more revenue than the others had produced in years past. He said: We also need to reduce the regulations at the same time. I am very sensitive to this because I chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee during the time the Republicans were in the minority. During the Obama administration, we had so many regulations, and that had to be changed. Even the Chair is probably not aware that this is a regulation that was passed during the Obama administration, but it is one which said that if you are a domestic oil or gas company and you are in competition with China or somebody else, you have to give them your playbook--how you calculated your rates. That put them at a decided advantage. When I was fortunate enough to get to know this President, prior to the time he took office, I was suggesting and he was saying: What would be a good place to start in reducing regulations? I said: A good one would be to do away with that regulation that was passed. I think it was only a week after he took office that we passed the first regulation. That is just one example. But then regulation after regulation after regulation--those of us who have grown up in the business world know that is what costs money. And liberals have never figured that out. Anyway, this has happened. As a result of this, we have had really great benefits. I bring this up now because--put the Johnson family up. This is a family in Oklahoma. It is the Johnson family, Charlie Johnson. He has several brothers, and he has a son named Andrew. They are in the tree business. They find people who want to get rid of dead trees, unwanted trees, and they get rid of the trees. They are the best there are. They have been doing it now very competitively and doing it for years. When he came to take a tree out during the 2 weeks--I am talking about less than 2 weeks ago--he said: We can do this, but I want to tell you that we are really busy now. In fact, our business is better than it has ever been in the history of our country. It is all because of what has happened with the President. These are his words. He said: I know everybody hates the President. The media hates the President. But we love him, and let me tell you why. We are now doing better than we have ever done before. Our business is better than it ever has been. He has a brother who specialized--when you are in the tree business, you specialize. If you look, you can't see the bucket, but the son is in the bucket. Another one is the guy who has developed a way of grinding stumps. Almost anyone can take a tree out, but to grind a stump, you have to have very expensive equipment. A few days after I had seen these people, I got a visit by a guy named Brad Johnson. Brad is the one who specializes in stump grinding. He said: Our business is so good now--and they all credit the President with this--our business is so good that I decided I would go off on my own and buy a stump grinder. It is very, very expensive. No one ever thought it would be, but it is. Now I think he owns the only stump grinder in Delaware County in Oklahoma. He said: I want you to do something. I know you will be going back to Washington. I am going to give you this, and I want you to give this to the President of the United States. It says: ``Brad's stump grinding.'' I am going to give this to the President of the United States and take his picture. I only say all this to mention that good things are happening around here. Things had not been this good, except for the virus problem. No one had any control over that in terms of the President. When I stop and think about how good our economy was right before the virus hit, I think: If we had an average economy, where would we be today? Anyway, that was the good news, and I was excited to tell them I was going to share this with a few other people. Earlier today, I mentioned I would be coming down to the floor to talk about our troop basing in Germany. Those of us on the committee know we have been working on this for a long time. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper was putting something together where he was going around and reevaluating our troop and asset distribution around the world. I disagree with some of the things he came up with. Africa, for example, is an area where they are starting to have some very serious problems. If anything, it is going to end up taking more activity. Along with other Members, I will be receiving detailed briefings from the Department of Defense on plans to carry out the President's decision in the coming days and weeks. Based on my conversation with Secretary Esper and the briefings I have received so far, the goal is to optimize our force posture in Europe, in part by moving some of our forces along NATO's eastern flank. It has always been in Western Europe. Going forward, as I think about the plan to realign our posture in Europe, I am thinking about the three guiding principles that I call the ``3 Fs.'' First is the forward presence--maintaining a strong presence in Europe that gives our troops what they need to deter Russia and, if necessary, to fight and win and defeat Russia. I like the idea of rotational forces in southeast Europe. The second one is force protection. Really, force projection is more accurate. It is keeping strong, established bases for staging, air capacity, and more. For example, at Ramstein Air Force Base, we have invested quite a lot of money in that. It is going to work for any future use in readjustments that take place in Europe. What I am saying is a lot of things are going on in Europe that are going to be enhanced, as opposed to being transferred. The third is families. This is kind of interesting. Take our Air Force in Tinker Air Force Base. There is a young lady who is the wife of a worker at Tinker Air Force Base. Her name is Janna Driver. This was 2 years ago. She told me that we have a problem at Tinker. When we privatized our housing, it worked out fine for a long period of time, but then it seemed to be that people got greedy in the housing. They talked about deplorable conditions in housing. I thought: My gosh, this is my home State of Oklahoma. Thank goodness it is just one military establishment. Then I found out it was in all five of our military establishments. Then I found out it wasn't just in Oklahoma. It was around the world. This is something that is very significant because when you look at the problems that they have with so many people--and I will be addressing this in a little more detail in a minute because of the amendment that will be before us tomorrow--the problem is that we do something different than other countries do. I have heard this over and over, and I am sure the Presiding Officer has also heard. We talk about all the money we spend on defense in the United States, and yet we spend more money than Russia and China put together. They are our strategic oppositions out there. That is true because the most expensive part of the military is the people. People don't understand that. We want housing, and we want to make sure there are schools for the kids. We want to make sure all these things are going on. That is what costs the money. That is the reason. If you are in a communist country, they give you a gun and say: Go out and kill people--and the problem is solved. We are concerned about our families. They make a lot of sacrifices. Every few years, our families have to move, change locations, and the kids have to change schools. They move to another area. Then, if the spouse has a job, they have to try to get a job. By the way, in this bill we have some help. We get relief from some of the regulations that normally take a long period of time, so that spouses are able to get a job at a new location. That is something a lot of people are not aware of that is in this great bill. They have to change hometowns, change houses, change doctors, and the kids change schools. Of course, they live with the reality that their servicemember is putting their life on the line to defend our country. We have to be grateful and never take that sacrifice for granted. That is why we should be trying to ease the burden of our military families in everything we do. When it comes to this plan we are talking about, which is changing the forces around, primarily in Europe, that is what you hear more about. It is important that we do it right and we do it right away. It is going to take some time to do, but we need to get started. The reason I am really excited about this program is that this is not something new. If I have good memories, you might remember back when Gen. Jim Jones was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO at that time. I had gone to him and said: You know, one thing we really need to be doing is to start readjusting where we have our troops. At that time, we had a lot of troops, as we do today, in Germany and a lot of training was taking place there. But because of the environmental movement in Germany, they were giving us restrictions, saying you can only train with live ordnance maybe every 4 days a week and not past sunset and all of that. We were thinking that we were really doing a great thing for Germany by stationing all our people over there because of all the money they spend and all that. Yet they are not really trying to help us. We did some surveying. This is kind of funny because John Bonsell, the staff director of my committee on the Republican side, and I went over to the different countries--Bulgaria, Poland, and other different countries in that part of the world, in the eastern part of Europe. We said: Are you willing to help us out? They said: Not only can you use your ordnances as much as you want, but at the same time, we will help billet you and all that. The program was good and strongly supported by Gen. Jim Jones at that time. We did all we could to put that together, and we were visiting our allies about it. We already had Ukraine, Bulgaria and Romania lined up. They call that the lily pad approach to basic. It was something that would work. There is no reason not to do that. Unfortunately, President Bush decided he didn't want to do it. We were unsuccessful getting that done. I have been fighting about that with other Presidents since that time. I have not gotten any of them to look at that and the great values that would make for us. Anyway, that is something that is taking place right now. We don't know, but we are going to get a Member briefing tomorrow that is going to give us a lot of details on what is going to happen and what the President is proposing in that area of Europe. I want to speak about one of the amendments that is next up. Senator Sanders' amendment would cut defense spending by 10 percent. I happen to be very close with Senator Sanders, but we have areas where we disagree with each other. This is one of those areas. I looked at this, and I thought: He has an amendment that would cut defense spending by 10 percent. First of all, this amendment would break the bipartisan budget agreement of 2019 that we passed. Congress passed this agreement last December with a bipartisan support, and the President signed it into law. The fiscal year 2021 NDAA, or National Defense Authorization Act-- the bill that we are working on right now, as we speak--fulfills this agreement and provides a total of $740.5 billion for our national defense. I would have preferred to see a higher number at that time, but it is now the law of the land. Even though the amount is lower than ideal, having budgetary certainty is critical. It is what our military leaders ask for every time they come before the committee that I chair and before Senator Shelby's committee. They need on-time, predictable, and stable funding to do their job. And their jobs are only getting harder right now. Our adversaries are investing in their militaries and building new and advanced weapons systems and acting more aggressively than we have ever seen before in any of our adversaries. The national defense strategy describes this. This is a document, by the way, that we adhered to. This is put together by six Republicans and six Democrats. It is one of these things where it was bipartisan. Everyone agreed on it. People who put this together were experts, and we have followed it to the letter ever since that time. This is the National Defense Strategy Commission report, which is a bipartisan document written by six Democrats and six Republicans. They tell us that we need to increase our defense budget each year. We already know we need to be increasing our budget just to stay competitive. We have already agreed to this total. Now, one of the criticisms I hear of our defense budget is that we pay much more than other countries. As I have already explained, we are the ones who have to pay to take care of our people--our troops, their families, their kids. Here is the problem with that argument: Other countries don't have to do that. Beyond the troops, we also take care of the families and all that, while others don't do that. This is significant. China and Russia are rapidly modernizing their militaries. When I say this in public and I talk to groups, I don't have credibility. It doesn't sound like it is possible. I don't say this critically of the Obama administration. The Obama administration, by his own admission, had other priorities. One of them wasn't a strong military. During the last 5 years--and I am talking about 2010 to 2015, during those last 5 years of using the President's budget, he decreased the amount of money for our military by 25 percent. In 5 years, he decreased it by 25 percent. At the same time, Russia increased theirs by 34 percent, and China increased theirs by 83 percent. Stop and think about that. Our adversaries were out there building and getting ahead of us in different areas. It is important to note that the bill exempts military pay and the defense health program, which means this amendment is actually the equivalent to a 14-percent cut. I am talking about cuts in airplanes and equipment and assets that are military assets. This means the nuclear modernization and key research that help us stay competitive with Russia. This is something that arguably cannot be done. It means cuts to military construction, including schools for military kids, programs that support military families, and programs that support our troops' morale and welfare. It is just plain wrong. Our military combat commanders tell me and the committee that they need on-time, predictable, and stable funding to do their jobs. This amendment would actually cut that by 14 percent in the areas that concern people. In the strongest possible terms, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. All this is going to happen while we continue to face the burden that a pandemic has placed on our military. Our military is a key part of the whole-of-government response to the virus. Our competitors haven't given us a free pass while this is all happening. In fact, we have seen China and Russia take advantage of this situation, and they have been acting more aggressively. At the same time, the Department of Defense is working to protect our troops and the civilian workforce from the virus, and this needs to continue to be a top priority. Everyone understands that. In fact, rather than cutting the defense budget, we actually need to support the military COVID response with additional funding. Take this one example. The defense industrial companies have done a great job to ensure that their suppliers--primarily thousands of small businesses--stay open and keep employees paid. In the CARES Act, we gave the DOD the authority and the tools to reimburse these companies to keep the defense workforce strong, but the DOD needs money to use these tools. If we don't help these companies, defense weapons programs and maintenance will suffer more cost overruns, and the defense industrial base will lose experienced and trained workers, which means schedule delays will be more likely. These will be primarily the small companies. These will not be the giants that are out there. This would be a good investment for our national defense and a good investment for the American taxpayer. Now is simply not the time to be cutting our defense budget when we should be doing more. I know the author of the bill who would cut defense spending by 10 percent is very sincere and really believes in his bill, but it is not the time to do it. I hope people understand that we are now in a position wherein there are actually different resources that are in Russia and in China that are better than ours. Hypersonic weapons are a good example. Hypersonic weapons are kind of state-of-the-art in both offense and defense, and they are ahead of us. They are ahead of us right now. With this budget we are going to be passing, I think that we are going to be making broad steps to recapture those areas in which we had previously been the leaders but now are not the leaders any longer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. I call up amendment No. 1729 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. INHOFE. Well, first of all, I don't know how long I have sat and listened to this--a long time--probably not as long as it seems. ``Secret police, sadistic, cruel.'' I am beginning to come to the conclusion that they are not going to be supporting Donald Trump for reelection. I rise to object to my colleagues' request for unanimous consent. This body has worked together to carefully consider each and every one of the 739 amendments filed on the NDAA. It never happened before. We adopted those amendments that have broad-based, bipartisan support. The majority and minority have worked together to determine which amendments would be brought up for a vote. Senator Merkley's request for a UC circumvents that process. Further, this morning, the Senate adopted my commonsense amendment that will ensure that law enforcement has the right equipment and the right training. Senator Merkley's amendment flies in the face of that responsible approach. His amendment would hamstring Federal and civilian law enforcement and our military, even when operating in a title 32 status under the control of the State government. This would hinder their ability to keep our communities safe. For these reasons, I object.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of comments. It is going to be a very significant week. We know pretty much what we are going to be doing with the defense authorization bill, which I believe, and most people believe, is the most significant bill each year. We have things that need to be done. We came to a great agreement prior to the Fourth of July in terms of the numbers of amendments and the things we had to get accomplished, and I think there is total agreement with that. We had a tragedy that took place during the last 2 weeks while we were in recess. One affected a friend of mine, John Lewis. We had a real interesting--the 100th Congress, we went in, I think, in 1987, and the 100th Congress had a lot of really great people. John Lewis is one of them. John Lewis and I became friends. You couldn't get two guys further apart philosophically than John Lewis and me. Yet we were always close. I watched how peacefully he could get things done. He is someone I got to know quite well. We had a lot of others in that class. Jon Kyl has been very active in recent years. He came back from retirement temporarily. He was in that class. We had Ben Cardin. He and I became close friends. I think he was in the State legislature first. Lamar Smith was one who was very, very helpful to me all those years. Lamar Smith is from South Texas. Freddie Upton--we referred to him as ``Little Freddie Upton''--is probably the most recent one we had who is no longer in that same position. But John Lewis was, and I had the honor of coming to Congress and being in the same freshman class with him. Ultimately, he was a courageous fighter in every part of his life. He fought for the civil rights movement on the bridge to Selma, as a Freedom Rider, and through his work on the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. He consistently did a great and peaceful job. He fought for his constituents and the causes he believed in. He was a fighter. He would not take no for an answer. Up until the very end, he fought cancer. Like everything else, he fought it with courage and honor. The conscience of Congress may no longer be here, but his legacy for his selfless service has been imparted to every one of us who served with him and got to know him well. It seems like the ones who knew him the best were those of us who served over in the other body, in the House.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the leader, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and resume consideration of S. 4049.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader, the following amendments be made pending en bloc and the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, with a 60-affirmative vote threshold for adoption, and that there be 2 hours of debate on each amendment, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, prior to the vote in relation to each amendment. Those amendments are: Schatz No. 2252, Inhofe No. 2411, Sanders No. 1788, Cornyn No. 2244, Shaheen No. 1729, and Tester No. 1972, as modified.

Mr. INHOFE. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be adopted en bloc and that the Senate vote on adoption of the amendments en bloc with no intervening action or debate. Mr. President, I will read the entire list so that each Member knows the status of his or her amendment: Moran No. 1694, Hyde-Smith No. 1881, Romney No. 1883, Peters No. 1753, Warner No. 1803, Coons No. 1808, Portman No. 1891, Kennedy No. 1987, Warner No. 1907, Romney No. 2018, Sullivan No. 2391, Tester No. 1968, Bennet No. 1977, Johnson No. 2077, Smith No. 2058, Wicker No. 2178, Cortez Masto No. 2186, King No. 2215, Merkley No. 2251, Fischer No. 2231, Cantwell No. 2255, Risch No. 2238, Cantwell No. 2256, Gardner No. 2241, Hirono No. 2269, Portman No. 2243, Menendez No. 2270, Inhofe-Reed No. 2248, Peters No. 2275, Toomey No. 2277, Inhofe No. 2204, Cantwell-Manchin No. 2417, Jones No. 1797, Lankford No. 1825, Loeffler No. 1878, Tester No. 1966, Tester No. 1971, Kennedy No. 1991, Markey No. 2053, Cruz No. 2138, Durbin No. 2168, Feinstein No. 2217, Heinrich No. 2220, Rounds No. 2235, Brown No. 2257, Sasse No. 2287, Boozman No. 2298, Harris No. 2317, Klobuchar No. 2319, Inhofe No. 2326, Young No. 2327, Shelby No. 2331, Wyden No. 2341, Blackburn No. 2370, Blackburn No. 2378, Moran No. 1693, Inhofe No. 2418, Sanders No. 2419, Lee No. 2084, Van Hollen No. 1849, Hassan No. 2103, and Rubio No. 2422.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me just make a comment first. This is a first step. We have a lot of things happening after this. We are going to be on the Senate floor for hours and hours. You will have ample time to entertain your amendment, and I would be very happy to assist you in that. For that reason, I would not want to jeopardize those 60 names and amendments that I have already offered, to jeopardize their efforts by adding your language, and so I do object.