Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after my remarks, the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, be recognized, and after that, the Senator from Arizona be recognized.

Mr. President, we like to do this because on mornings like this, when we are supposed to be going back and forth between Democrats and Republicans, that is the proper way to do it, and this locks it in.

It is really interesting because I have been through every shutdown in the last 30 years. I was in the House for 8 years and in the Senate for 22 years. Every other time there has been some question--there could be a little bit of blame on the Democrats and a little bit of blame on the Republicans, and the finger pointing goes on. That has always happened, until this time. This is the first time there can be no question, if you want to say whose fault it is.

I suggest that the aids that were being used with the picture of the ``Trump Shutdown'' were printed up long before last night even took place. This is the first time there can be no question. If you want to play the blame game, it is the Democrats in this case. I think it was planned that way. I am not in their heads, but there has to be some reason that all this came along on the first anniversary of this Presidency.

I can't find anyone in the Nation right now who is saying that there is some question as to whose fault this is, even the New York Times. You have to keep in mind--just use logic--there was one vote that caused this, one vote. Ninety percent of the Democrats voted in that one vote last night to shut down the government. Ninety percent of the Republicans voted to keep the government open. It was done in a premeditated way, I have to say, because all of this was planned out. They thought that maybe this would have a good ring to people; they can say the ``Trump Shutdown.'' People have to remember, this happened because of one vote, and that one vote was almost unanimous-- Republicans versus Democrats.

That is not why I wanted to talk. In listening to all the things that just happened--I think we are sympathetic to all these things. I think most of the reasons stated for shutting down the government by the Schumer group last night had to do with DACA.

Let me tell you, I don't know of one Republican serving in the U.S. Senate who isn't very sympathetic to the kids, particularly those who had no voice in it. They were here not by their own choice. They didn't personally violate any laws. We want to take care of them, and we are going to take care of them, and our President wants to take care of them. But that seems to be an issue--if they can convince people that this is all put together by Trump to hurt little kids, then that is the only thing they have to hang their hats on.

I suggest my very good friend--I do have a very good friend from Rhode Island who already has his picture of Trump up, so we are going to hear more and more of that all day long, until we finally get the government opened up, probably on Monday. We are sorry it happened that way, but it was one vote that caused it. That is behind us now.

I agree with the things that were said by each of the Republican Members on the problems that come with this shutdown. Even if it gets opened early--and I think it will be over, maybe by Monday; I am not really sure. I suspect that. But I have had the privilege in the past of being the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, and that is the area that really concerns me the most.

I have been critical of the last administration, the Obama administration, and what has happened to the military. They had a policy, and it is a stated policy, and all the Democrats agreed with it. It said that you can't put any money into sequestration for the military unless you put an equal amount of money in for social programs or for nondefense programs. That is saying that defending America is not the No. 1 concern, not the No. 1 priority of what we are supposed to be doing here.

As bad as it has become over the last 8 years in terms of our ability--the fact that we are overworking our kids, the fact that our maintenance is down--all of those things are bad. But for this to happen right now, at this time, when we are in the middle of arguably two, maybe even three wars, and our defense has gone through a starvation diet--yesterday Secretary Mattis was very clear. At the time he said this, he was begging for it not to happen; he was hoping it wouldn't happen, but he said that a shutdown would have a ``terrible impact'' on the 2 million men and women and their families who serve in our military--a ``terrible impact.''

There are approximately 200,000 troops currently deployed who are now doing their jobs without pay as a result of this. Secretary Mattis said that all maintenance operations for the military will cease as long as there is a shutdown.

When you go through starvation, as we did over the 8 years of the previous administration, the first thing that is hit is always maintenance because that is not obvious. Maintenance and modernization are the two things you can starve without the public being aware of it, and that is what happened. Just look at our F-18s that the Marines are using; 62 percent of them can't be flown now because they have not been properly maintained. We are going through this problem already, and it is going to be exacerbated by the fact that we are closing things down, shutting things down.

I have gotten over the part in terms of whose fault it is. I know they are going to desperately try to sound as though the President doesn't like kids and all of that. But the bottom line is, there was a vote; it was a partisan shutdown.

Secretary Mattis talked about the maintenance operations for the military that were just starting back up and are going to have to cease for as long as the shutdown exists. That is all maintenance.

In Oklahoma, we especially know what is important to our civilian workforce. By the way, in a shutdown, the civilian workforce is going to be out of business. They are going to be gone for that period of time.

Tinker Air Force Base is the depot that performs maintenance and overhauls our planes. They are going to be shut down. We have another one in McAlester, OK. It is not known as much as some of the others, but it is the largest Army depot in the country. It has all civilian employees. We have one uniformed officer in the depot in McAlester, OK, and that is the commander. All the rest are civilian employees. They are gone. They are the ones who are off work. Half of the civilian workforce will be sent home, and those projects will be halted. The impact will ripple for weeks and potentially months beyond the shutdown. Once we open back up, there will be a high cost of catching back up and getting things back on schedule.

Secretary Mattis said that the shutdown will also shutter critical overseas intelligence activities until funding is restored. That is something I was not that familiar with until he came out with this statement.

Of course, we looked at the threats we are faced with in America. I don't think anyone can keep a straight face and not admit that we are in the most threatened position we have ever been as a nation. There is a country, North Korea, that is run by someone who is totally unpredictable. That is what all of our military people say. On November 28, he sent a missile that had the range of reaching Washington, DC, and anyplace in the continental United States. That is a different kind of threat.

If you think about the old Cold War, that was a threat. It is nothing like what we are facing today. We had two superpowers. We knew what they had; they knew what we had. It was all predictable because mutually assured destruction actually meant nothing at that time--means nothing today.

So this is what we are facing now. We have to recognize that we are in a threatened position. Many Democrats have long claimed support for the military, but when the rubber meets the road, they have the problem that was established when President Obama was

President; that is, we are not going to do anything to rebuild the military unless we put an equal amount of money into the nondefense programs. Every single Democrat went along with the President. That is how we got into this mess.

Now we are faced with the fact that we are not giving the right resources. Sometimes I tell people: Up until 1964, we were spending half of all the revenues that came into the Federal Government on defending America. That is what we were supposed to be doing. It was always over 50 percent of the revenues.

Do you know what it is now? It is 15 percent. We are devoting only 15 percent of our total revenues to defending America. We have gotten into this position over a period of time, and it is now at the point where we have really serious problems that need to be addressed. Our Army brigade teams right now are very lethal--still very effective--but only 30 percent of them are able to get out and do battle, as it is right now. In our Air Force squadron, we have a shortage of pilots. We are 1,500 pilots short; 1,300 of them are fighting pilots. While they are willing to do it--we will always have enough who will go on overtime, do whatever is necessary to get out there; nonetheless, the equipment is not properly maintained. The Navy is the most stressed it has been in the history of the Navy and the Marine Corps. That is where we are right now, and that is why, if there is one thing that shouldn't happen during this time in our history, it is a shutdown.

I think about my State of Oklahoma. We have 663 Oklahoma Army and National Guard soldiers who will be sent home from a planned training. I was there when they planned the training. I was there to send them off. And, of course, that will be put on hold.

It is not just Oklahoma. Over 100,000 National Guardsmen are being sent home around the country right now because of this shutdown. Our Reserve forces--National Guard, all of them--are going through this problem. As we face the threats from North Korea, Iran, Islamic extremists, and Russia aggression, not to mention our severe readiness crisis, we can't afford the negative effects of a shutdown.

I believe this is going to be over with. I am not sure how. I am not in the leadership. Others are going to make the decision. But I can say that the Senate Democrats know all of this is true, and they know now that America knows. If you look at the editorials around the country, they know that it is being used because--legitimately, it is called the Democratic shutdown.

We are going to try to get it corrected. I have talked with several of my Democratic friends, and hopefully that will happen in a very short period of time.

My concern, of course, is for the military. I think that we will be able to get this thing done. I want to say it one more time. On the DACA issue, I don't know of one Republican in the U.S. Senate who isn't just as sympathetic as any Democrat in the U.S. Senate in terms of these individuals. The kids had nothing to do with the problem they find themselves in right now.

In the meantime, let's get this over with, rebuild our military, and become what I see is happening now that wasn't happening before--that we will once again assert America as the leader of the free world.

With that, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

There is an old document nobody reads anymore, and it is called the Constitution. If you look at that, it talks about what we are supposed to be doing here. The priorities are defending America and then they called it--transportation infrastructure. I would say this: We are a great team when we do that. We couldn't have had the successes--I could not have had the successes as the chairman of that committee without you on my side, making sure we are doing what we are supposed to be doing here in taking care of our infrastructure. Right now, we are looking at an opportunity in this administration to do the same thing.

I will say right now--and predict--it is going to end up with you and a closely knit group of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans working together to make America great in terms of our infrastructure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the 1:45 p.m. vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, for about 20 years now, I have viewed the development and deployment of a layered ballistic missile defense shield as probably singularly the most vital thing we could be doing around here. People are aware of that now. Adversaries, like North Korea and others, have ballistic missiles, and they are increasing their range capability. Iran is getting almost everything. One of the problems you have is that you get countries like North Korea developing missile capabilities, and if they have it, then other adversaries have it. I am talking about Yemen and all the rest of them.

It is important for us to communicate to the American people that the

threat we face is probably the most imminent threat we have had in the history of this country. Today, it is the greatest threat we have had certainly in my lifetime.

I have come to the floor and spoken on this issue in 2001, 2009, 2012, and this will be the fourth time this year. Over the last 30 years, we have witnessed the missile defense programs go through dramatic investment periods, followed by extreme starvation and cancellations--I am talking about in the United States--depending on who happens to be President at the time.

Remember, of course, when Reagan came in and people made fun of him with ``Star Wars'' and tried to defame him in any way they could. Yet he was able to be persistent and start a program, and we should be very thankful we have it today. That was followed in 1989 by President Bush. He continued that program.

However, in 1993, when President Clinton was in office, the first thing he did was to cut $2.5 billion out of the Bush missile defense budget request for fiscal year 1994. He also terminated the Reagan-Bush Strategic Defense Initiative and downgraded the National Missile Defense Program to a research and development program. He cut 5-year missile defense funding by 54 percent, from $39 billion to $18 billion.

I say this because these times are changing. Continuing with his administration in 1996, he cut the funding and slowed down the development of THAAD and the Navy Theater Wide Systems. To remind ourselves of how important that was at that time and the cuts he made to that and how critical that was, THAAD right now is the only thing we have to join forces with South Korea to be able to knock down something coming from North Korea to South Korea. The Aegis system is a defensive system that we could share with Japan. Without these systems, they would be wide open. That was 1996.

In 1999, the last of the Clinton years, he delayed by at least 2 years the Space Based Infrared System, which is a very complicated system that knocks down incoming missiles. Then, in 2000, Bush came in. By the end of 2008, President Bush had succeeded in fielding a missile defense system capable of defending all 50 States. One of the things he did that was most significant--and this is in the final years of his administration--was to recognize the fact that we have had ground-based interceptors in our country for a number of years. In fact, there are 44 ground-based interceptor systems. Unfortunately, they are all on the west coast because that is where we thought the threat would be. We discovered at that time, during the Bush administration, that the threat was from both sides because we recognized that Iran was developing the capabilities, as well as North Korea and others. So in order to protect Eastern United States as well as Central Europe, we had the system that was set up. It was kind of funny because I remember being there with one of our strongest allies. The system they set up was one where they had a radar system in the Czech Republic, and they had a rocket system--a ground-based interceptor--in Poland, right next door. I remember when Vaclav Klaus was the President of the Czech Republic, one of our strongest supporters, and he said to me at that time: Now, if we go ahead and put our system in the Czech Republic and in Poland, can you assure me that if we incur the wrath of Russia, we are not going to end up being embarrassed and have the rug pulled out from under us?

I said: There is not a chance in the world that would happen.

Well, that did happen. In fact, it was a total of 44 ground-based interceptors that were fielded. That was in Alaska and California, on the west coast. We went through this where they pulled the rug out from under Poland, as well as the Czech Republic. Then, in April, came our first Obama defense cuts, which began disarming America and dismantling our layered missile defense system. This is critical because we put this in for the reason that we perceived the threat to be coming in from the east as opposed to the west coast, and the very system that would have protected us was taken down by President Obama.

I would say, due to his overall reduced budget requests in defense, there were not enough Aegis ships. I already mentioned how we are using those today in defense of many of our allies, including Japan. Since Kim Jong Un took power in 2009, he has already conducted more than 80 ballistic missile tests. That is far more than his father and his grandfather conducted.

North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests of increasingly powerful weapons. The latest test was in September of last year. The major test actually came after that, and that was on November 28. On November 28, he demonstrated that he had the range of the United States and the central part of our country. In other words, it was stated by others who observed that he now has the capability of reaching any target in mainland United States.

There were some scientists who did an analysis of what they did on November 28. They made it very clear. David Wright, an analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote that--this is something that happened on November 29--that yesterday's test indicates that North Korea can now hold the United States well within missile range. He said: ``Such a missile would have been more than enough range to reach Washington, DC, and in fact any other part of the continental United States.''

Here is the scary part of this. Those who are not wanting to believe that the threat is real and the threat is there are saying: Well, we don't know that the missile he demonstrated on November 28 could have reached that range if it had a full payload, a load of a nuclear warhead.

We don't know if they had one or not, but that doesn't give me much comfort. They also questioned whether or not it could sustain the reentry back into the atmosphere.

The point is that they now have that capability, and that is something we have to keep in mind as we are making decisions, because we have decisions to make, and that is what we are doing right now in trying to decide how we are going to keep the government from shutting down and develop some kind of a budget plan that is going to serve us well.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, let me make a comment to the Senator from West Virginia. One of the problems we have right now is that during the last administration, there was a war on fossil fuel--which includes coal and nuclear also--and some of the damage has already been done. Unfortunately, we can't come in with a ready fix now and assume-- because a lot of the generators out there had done field switching out of coal, so you can't switch it back. So I will say it was help coming not quite on time, but nonetheless it is here now.

Madam President, let me mention something that is very significant to me personally. I remember it was 2 years ago today that I picked up USA TODAY, and in a USA TODAY article, they singled out my State of Oklahoma and said that we are not treating our veterans right. We were in shock at that time. In fact, the article detailed some really appalling things that were going on and were not going on in my State of Oklahoma. There were things the inspector general reported during the Obama administration that we had no way of knowing about.

We seem to have more veterans per capita in Oklahoma. One of the reasons is we have five major military establishments, and Oklahoma is a great place to live, so a lot of them retire there. They were not getting the help they need, and they were not getting the treatment to the highest standards that were available.

This isn't how we take care of veterans in Oklahoma. Senator Lankford and I and two of the House Members worked on this and talked to regional Veterans' Administration leadership. We talked to the veterans. We talked to whistleblowers. And we identified three key problems that we needed to fix. This is interesting because these are three problems in my State of Oklahoma, but they would be the same thing in Nebraska or any other State because it is not just in our State of Oklahoma.

The first one was that the VA couldn't fire bad employees.

This is always a problem. You go into an organization and you find that things are not going very well because there are one or two bad employees. Yet it takes you a year before you are able to get rid of these people. Despite having been identified, it takes forever to terminate an employee.

Well, we fixed that this past summer when President Trump signed the VA Accountability Act that included our language to allow the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to immediately fire employees for misconduct or poor performance. That was successful. We did it. That is history.

I have to say that during President Trump's administration so far, he has used this firing authority on over 500 bad actors from the VA, and we are finally creating a culture of accountability in the VA, which is having positive results. That is the first reform.

The second one: Too many veterans were forced to receive care from VA facilities that were hours away or didn't provide specialized care.

This is a problem. A lot of these veterans don't have the capability to move around and get the care they need, and they didn't have the choices. So we actually had to make a change, and we did. We worked with the President and reauthorized the bipartisan VA Choice Program.

The VA Choice Program is great because it allowed our veterans to actually, in those hard-to-reach areas, get high-quality healthcare, regardless of where they had to travel to get it done. That was a success.

Finally, after the USA TODAY article, we requested an accredited third-party look at the problem at our VA facilities because previous reports from the Obama Veterans Affairs inspector general failed to identify and correct these problems. Well, my request was denied. It is just like any bureaucracy. They don't want someone looking over their shoulder, so they said: No, we are not going to allow you to have a third party accompany the VA to look into the problem that you have.

Some are not aware of this, but in the Senate, when someone is nominated, we can put a hold on them and not allow them to go through confirmation--at least for a long period of time. At that time, the President--our current President--had nominated a person to be the inspector general of the Veterans' Administration. We put a hold on him until they allowed someone to come in and monitor the evaluation that the VA was doing of their own bureaucracy in Oklahoma. That worked, except the problem with that is it was a one-time authorization. We needed to make that a permanent part of our structure. I am pleased to say we did that.

When we signed the Enhancing Veteran Care Act, it permanently granted the VISN directors--that is one of the director levels of the VA--and gave the medical center directors the authority to request, at their request, an outside oversight in order to evaluate what they had done. It has been very successful.

It is important for the regional directors to have the authority because

they have the best idea of the reality of care at their facilities.

I appreciate the work of my colleagues, Senator James Lankford, Congressman Markwayne Mullin, and Congressman Steve Russell. It turned out to be a real good team, and we are able to get these things done. We are already starting to see real progress in improving the veterans' care in Oklahoma and across the country because as we are improving the system we had in Oklahoma, that same system can be improved in Nebraska or any other State.

We need to get our VA facilities from their current ratings to the highest standard. The highest standard rating is five stars. We are now up to three stars in Oklahoma. We were at one star when we first discovered this problem on that fateful day 2 years ago today in an article in USA TODAY.

President Trump will continue to be an important partner for Oklahoma as we continue to improve our veterans' care.

Mr. President, President Trump's commitment to our veterans is only matched by his commitment to our servicemembers and our national security. You can't really segregate it out and say, well, we are going to take care of our veterans' activities and then still say we are not going to allow our country to have the national security they fought so hard for.

We saw that earlier this week when the President outlined his national security strategy, charting a new course for American foreign policy, leaving behind the failed policies of the Obama administration. With his national security strategy, President Trump has been clear that he is committed to protecting the homeland, promoting American prosperity, and advancing peace through strength. Have you ever heard that before, peace through strength? I am one of the few who is old enough around here who remember our great President we had who talked about peace through strength when he had to rebuild the military after the Carter administration. It was actually as bad--or as downgraded as our military has become from the last administration.

Now he is asserting America's leadership in the free world. We saw how under President Obama the military was forced to divert resources for priorities that weren't even about defending America. He used the military to advance his liberal agenda, which led to the wasteful spending on what they call the green Navy and the green bullets. The idea that climate change was the largest threat to our national security, all of that has changed and not a moment too soon.

President Trump is focused on what matters, rightfully taking out things like just worrying about climate change as opposed to rebuilding our military, and he is building it at a very rapid rate right now.

We passed the bill, the Defense authorization bill, and we have made a great start on this.

Now, when the President came into office, our military was facing a readiness crisis, and Americans didn't really understand this. They didn't know. They had not been told this. We had a biased media that didn't allow this information to get out. As an example, our Air Force today, right now, is short 1,500 pilots, and 1,300 of those are actually fighter pilots. Only 50 percent of the Air Force squadrons are trained and ready to conduct all of their assigned missions. I have to repeat that. Only 50 percent of our Air Force squadrons are trained and ready to defend America.

The Navy is the smallest and least ready it has been in years. It currently can only meet 40 percent of the demand for regional combat. The commanders in the field include only enough personnel to man six and a half of our nine carrier air wing.

A carrier air wing is something a lot of people are not familiar with. A carrier air wing has approximately 75 combat aircraft. Currently, we have manned only 6\1/2\ wings and are 8,000 sailors short.

This is an air wing. They have F-18s, they have EA-18s, they have F- 35s, they have C-2As. Again, just a little over half of ours are actually ready. Well, that is the problem we are faced with right now. More than half of the Navy's F-18s are grounded because they are awaiting maintenance or lack of necessary parts. If you look at our Marines, our Marines are using F-18s, and 62 percent of F-18s will not fly. People are just shocked when they find out about it. It is because we don't have the spare parts. Well, we are getting busy on that. We are going to make sure we correct those problems.

The Army has said that only about one-third of their brigade combat teams, one-fourth of their air aviation brigades, and one-half of their division headquarters are currently ready.

A brigade combat team consists of 7 battalions, approximately 4,500 students. I wish I had time to come up with a chart on this, but the carrier wing is one that is absolutely necessary to get folks straight, and we plan on doing that.

Faced with the most dangerous threats I have seen in my lifetime, these are critical gaps in our military we simply cannot accept.

I often say, when I look back at the good old days of the Cold War, where we had two superpowers--and the superpowers, we knew what they had, they knew what we had. It is totally different now.

You have a country like North Korea, which has demonstrated that they have the capacity now to reach an American city. We learned that on November 28, when they actually demonstrated a range that would reach one of our continental U.S. cities.

They tried to give us a little bit of comfort in saying, well, we don't know that they would be able to carry a warhead. We don't think they would have the capacity to do that. Well, we don't know that. That is not much comfort.

When they say: We don't have the capacity to be accurate on a reentry because of what a missile has to go through on a reentry, well, that is not very comforting that this would happen.

Anyway, the NDAA--the bill we passed, that the President signed into law--would be a good step in correcting the readiness shortfalls. I look forward to continuing to work with him on this critical process.

We have a committee that already is having hearings about the problems we are having. We had one, actually, in the subcommittee hearing I chaired just this week. We are busy correcting these problems.

Meanwhile, back to our VA problems in Oklahoma, we put two new great directors in the VA clinics. We have a level of veterans' care Oklahomans are proud of. Only yesterday, President Trump signed the Enhancing Veteran Care Act to ensure that we continue to give our veterans the best care. They deserve it, and they are going to get it.

At the same time, we are going to restore and rebuild the military as our Nation's No. 1 priority. Our troops deserve it, and they are going to get it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein, equally divided, until 3 p.m.

I also ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Virginia, I be recognized for such time as I may consume.

First of all, Mr. President, as to my very good friend from Virginia--and he is a very good friend--I think he needs to reread this bill.

Now, I am older than he is and most of the people around here, but I do remember the Reagan tax cuts. This is a Reagan tax cut.

I listened to the other side and a lot of the liberals on the other side, because there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans, and we understand that. But they come out and say: Oh, it is always class warfare. It is always that they are doing this for the rich. The rich are going to get richer. Well, that is not the way this worked out.

There is a group called the National Tax Foundation. The National Tax Foundation did an analysis of this, and they did it State by State. In my State of Oklahoma, the average family of four will get an increase in their take-home pay of $2,000. Now, where does it come from? There is the standard deduction, for example. The Senator talked about this being for the rich. This isn't for the rich. The standard deduction actually goes from $6,000 to $12,000. If you are married, it is from $12,000 to $24,000.

There is the child tax credit. We are all concerned about the child tax credit. Several Republicans wanted to do even more than that. Right now, as the law is, it is $1,000, but it is going to be increased after this is over, after we vote. After we have a major tax reduction, that child tax credit will go from $1,000 to $2,000 per child. That is a huge thing. That is not for the wealthy.

I listen sometimes when they talk about how this is going to increase the deficit. I have to tell you, though, that I remember very well. In fact, I remember so well. I have given speeches over time. Reagan reduced taxes twice. One was in 1981 and one in 1986. In 1986 and 1981, the total amount of revenue that came into the Federal Government was $469 billion. He had a huge reduction in rates. Yes, the top rate went down from 70 percent to 50 percent, then the others went down in accordance with a similar percentage.

Now, what happened to that was that, while the total amount that came in before the tax cuts was $469 billion, afterward, it was $750 billion. The same thing happened in 1986. In 1986, the total revenue that came into the Federal Government was $569 billion. At the end of that period of 10 years that they were measuring, it was $1 trillion.

Now, the problem is, the other side is always saying that our deficits increased during that time period. Yes, they did, but I have to say this: It was not because of Ronald Reagan, it was because the House and the Senate were run by liberal Democrats, and as fast as the increase in revenue came in, they were spending not just the increase but even more.

So that is one of the differences now. I anticipate that we are going to have a conservative House and Senate for the years to come, and we will just have to wait and see what is right.

I do agree with my friend from Virginia, though, in one respect; that is, he and I both had the hardest job in the world. You never know what a hard job is until you are mayor of a major city. There is no hiding place, and if they don't like the trash, it ends up in your front yard.

Mr. President, that is not what I am here to talk about today. I would like to speak about someone who--I will put it this way: Way back in the 1950s, back when Eisenhower was President, three giants came to Washington, DC. Two of the three giants people know about and they have heard of and they are well known. One was Billy Graham. Oh, we remember Billy Graham still, right now, and the things he has done. He has done more for Jesus and for God. Every time I get a chance to see something on TV that is from one of his past rallies, I do so.

Another one who came, of the three giants who came, was Bill Bright. Some may not remember who Bill Bright was. He was the founder of the Campus Crusade for Christ. He was the guy who actually started--people are not aware of this in the general public, but we actually have events two times a week; one is a Prayer Breakfast and one is a Bible study. Bill Bright was the one who started that. So everyone has heard of Bill Bright and the Campus Crusade for Christ.

The third giant who came in no one has heard of, and his name was Doug Coe. This is Doug Coe. Doug Coe came with the other two giants, and he really changed America. He died last February 21. I purposely, for an obvious reason my colleagues will find out in a minute, waited until now to talk very much about him.

You see, people think of Doug Coe as having been someone who was a great diplomat, he had political influence and all that. There is an article written not long ago, and I will read this to you because he did things like that. He did it second only to his real mission in life.

The article goes like this:

The extent of Coe's influence in American politics is

[real]. . . . important figures have acknowledged his role on

the national and international stage. For instance, speaking

at the 1990 National Prayer Breakfast, President George H.W.

Bush praised Coe for his quiet diplomacy.

I don't ever remember in the years I have known him that he ever raised his voice. He was always a quiet diplomat.

[Doug Coe] was a behind-the-scenes player at the Camp David

Accords in 1978, working with President Jimmy Carter to issue

a worldwide call to prayer with Israeli Prime Minister

Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. In 2000,

Coe met with the top economic officials of Pakistan as a

``special envoy.'' Coe met with President George H.W. Bush as

he hosted a luncheon with Iraq's ambassador to the United

States in the mid-1980s. In 2001, Coe helped arrange a

private meeting between two warring leaders.

By the way, I was there so I remember this firsthand. That was the President of Congo, Joe Kabila, and the President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame. I was there during the National Prayer Breakfast, and he had these two Presidents of warring countries in there to talk to them in the spirit of Jesus. That is when everything broke down, they became friends, and they signed a peace accord. That was Doug Coe.

Coe was a member of the large United States Congressional

and ministerial delegation which accompanied then First Lady

Hillary Clinton to the 1997 funeral of the founder of the

Sisters of Charity, Mother Teresa. He is mentioned by John

Ortberg in his book, ``If You Want to Walk on Water, You've

Got to Get Out of the Boat.''

He talked about how the book was partly about Doug Coe. He was the guy who had a great influence in bringing medicine and releasing political prisoners in Kenya. We all remember that episode.

So here we have a guy who was bringing warring powers together. He was solving serious problems with the country. Yet that wasn't even his mission.

I know I will lose credibility when I say this because people will think it is impossible. A few people here know it is not impossible because they heard it once before; that is, Doug Coe has actually taken his mission, which is the Jesus mission--by the way, Time magazine listed him among the 25 most influential evangelicals in America, but, anyway, I will lose credibility when I say that, in effect, Doug Coe has been to every country in the world. The reason I know this--I thought we had him one time because Zanzibar is actually--people think it is a separate country next to Tanzania. He never was in Zanzibar, and I was. Then we found out he was right, and I was wrong; that was not a separate country.

Anyway, he has had this Jesus mission since actually the late 1940s.

I want to just mention that I hope and pray my kids and grandkids, when it comes time for me to cash out, will be as respectful and as loving as his kids and grandkids were at his funeral. We called it a celebration, not a funeral. One of his grandkids, Sam Wagner, talked about a trip he and his

grandpa took to Nepal. Sam recalled how Doug not only met with dignitaries, but he also met with the young kids carrying machine guns who had shut the city down.

Justin is a grandson. He recited the story of Jesus feeding the 5,000 and said that Doug reminds him of the little boy in that story. Just as the boy brought his loaves and fish to Jesus, Doug brought all he had to Jesus.

Doug used to ask his grandson the question: If you give Jesus all of your love, what will happen? You will not run out of love for other people. Rather, Jesus will make your love enough for the whole world.

That is a grandson. Gosh, I would like to have my grandsons feel that way.

Melissa, a granddaughter, at the very last of the celebration I am referring to, stood up and said: I want you to leave this service talking about Jesus because Doug would certainly have been disappointed if you left talking about him.

So, anyway, we have people like that. We had famous people at that meeting, by the way. One was Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner. The first time she met Doug, he talked like he already knew her well and like she already knew Jesus well, even though she had only recently accepted Jesus into her life, but Barbara Skinner is a very liberal Democrat, a wonderful person, and she jokingly said that Doug didn't understand gender issues because most of his fellowship members were men, and he would say to her: We brothers have to stick together.

Doug made Barbara pray for Ronald Reagan at the National Prayer Breakfast when Ronald Reagan was President. Even after she told him she didn't know enough Scripture to pray for Republicans, Doug challenged her to confront her skepticism of people of different beliefs, and she did.

You know, he had a way of getting things done that other people didn't. One of the well-known people who was there at the celebration was Sam Nunn. We remember Sam Nunn. He was a very well-known U.S. Senator. He is one who really concentrated on rebuilding our national defense when it needed to be rebuilt. He would talk about Doug Coe. He said Doug formed small fellowships and prayer groups in the House, in the Senate, at the Pentagon, at the executive branch, the judicial branch, and he also formed groups globally all over the world. He started many diverse fellowship groups throughout Japan and injected them all with Jesus. Jesus was it with Doug.

Sam told a story about playing golf with Doug. Doug was a good golfer. He was talented. He made bets with the people he played golf with, and if they lost, they would have to--it wasn't a money deal-- they would have to memorize a Bible verse or go on mission trips. Doug always wins.

I always will remember what Sam said. Very quietly, in a quiet voice, he said: Doug Coe was a sermon we saw. If we looked closely, we also saw a glimpse of Jesus.

Another guy who is very well known to all of us here--known worldwide--is this guy named Ward Brehm. Ward Brehm enjoys talking about Doug Coe. He is the one who repeated something that George H.W. Bush said a long time ago. He said: Doug Coe has more friends who are heads of State than I do. This is the President of the United States talking.

President Bush also said--one of his favorite quotes: ``Doug Coe was the most famous person that nobody has ever heard of.''

Well, anyway, Ward Brehm was telling a story, and he said: In an early conversation about Africa, Doug once asked me: If you were God, how would you help all of those poor people in Africa?

My mind went totally blank, and I stammered: I don't know.

Doug said: We are not in a hurry. Just think about it for a while.

Ward Brehm said: So I did. I thought about it for a while, and my mind was still a blank. So, finally, in frustration, I said: I am not God so I don't know what I would do, but you seem to know so you tell me, if you were God, how would you help the poor people in Africa?

Doug Coe said very quietly: I would change the hearts of their leaders.

This is what Doug did. He didn't just change the hearts of leaders, he changed the hearts of leaders around the world--every country in the world. One man did that. I don't know how that is even possible.

Another person who was--had a different kind of expression is Lee Atwater. Not many people remember Lee Atwater. He was well known in Republican circles. He actually was the chairman of the Republican Party a number of years ago. He was a talented, charismatic guy. He played guitar. He sang. Everybody loved him. He was arguably one of the best political mechanics around at that time.

Something bad happened to him. He got leukemia. He knew he was going to die, but he wasn't sure--he said: I am going to die. I have to be rational about this thing. I don't know who God or Jesus is.

So, on Friday, March 16, after a White House breakfast, Lee struck up a conversation with the President's secretary. I remember her, Patty Presock. She suggested that he call Doug Coe. She was suggesting that Lee Atwater call Doug Coe. At that time, he was working with Members of Congress on the National Prayer Breakfast.

Eleven days later, Lee arrived at the Cedars in Virginia overlooking the Potomac, which served as the headquarters for Doug Coe's Fellowship Foundation. Now, using a cane, Lee Atwater, nearing his death, walked into the main house and sized up his 60-year-old host. He said: I have been in this city for many years now, and I never heard of you. Who are you, anyhow? He said that to Doug.

Doug said: Well, we have many mutual friends all over the city. I have heard about you for a long time.

Lee Atwater said: What have you heard?

Doug replied: I have heard that you are a real S-O-B.

He didn't say S-O-B, he said the real words, and their dialogue began at that time.

So from then until August, Lee was deteriorating, and one August day, Lee asked Coe to come to his hospital bed in an emergency. He was dying, and he wanted to find out, What is this deal about Jesus? What is this deal about God? He said that when he arrived, Lee looked at him with his best piercing glare, and he said: This Jesus business, is he God or isn't he God? Tell me. Some say he is God, some say he is man.

Doug replied: This is something you have to decide for yourself, but let me just tell you a little story.

Lee gave Coe his full command and focus.

Doug Coe said: You are big on the Golden Rule. Now, let's just say that you are the most powerful figure in the universe.

This is Doug Coe talking to Lee Atwater.

You are the most powerful person in the universe, and you could say, let there be a star or a planet and, boom, it exists; or you wanted to create elephants and, boom, there are elephants or cows or human beings. Anything you wanted, you had all the power, right? You understand that? So you are sitting up on a cloud somewhere, looking down on Earth, and you see these cows grazing in a field, and you decide that you want to be a real companion to those cows. Now, what would you do?

All of a sudden, that picture of God becoming man had a clarity of an index card summary. He said: I got it. I got it, he shouted. Don't tell me any more. Don't tell me any more. It is very clear. And he died.

Doug had a way of saying things that nobody else did.

The last one I will mention--this is significant to me because I happened to be with Doug at the time the statement was made.

President Museveni is the President of Uganda. Like many of the Presidents in Africa, he is one who came through the bush and fought his way up, and he has been, I think, an excellent President.

Doug has told him Jesus said: ``I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.''

This always bothered President Museveni.

The President said to Doug Coe: Look, we can go out into the bush. We have villages. They have never heard of God. They have never heard of Jesus. Are you saying that there is no way they are going to get to Heaven?

Doug told President Museveni a story--that he had actually experienced this revelation. When he was in

the Gobi Desert several years ago to visit Mongolian sheepherders, he told them that he had a friend who was a shepherd. In fact, he told them that his friend is the greatest shepherd who ever lived. His friend knows all of the flock, even the names of each sheep. If one of the sheep gets lost, the shepherd leaves the flock to search for the one lost sheep. The Mongolian sheepherders were amazed as Doug told him about this shepherd.

The next day the Mongolian sheepherders told Doug that during the night they had decided to follow this shepherd, but they wanted to know his name. Doug said that his name was Jesus. They told Doug that they had always known about him, but they never knew his name, and President Museveni understood what he was talking about.

Doug Coe had a way of explaining things that other people didn't. I was particularly blessed because for 20 years I met with Doug every Tuesday for an hour at 5 o'clock. I was a recipient of all the grace he had in the political philosophy of Jesus. I call it that; Doug didn't call it that. It is all scripturally based. Acts 9:15 says: What did Jesus say to Paul on the road to Damascus?

He said: Take my name. Take my name to the Kings.

Doug spent all those years in every country in the world, taking his name to the Kings. Acts 2:42--that is the genesis of the small meetings we have. Not many people are aware of them. We are here in the U.S. Senate every Wednesday morning, and we meet in the Spirit of Jesus. We have been doing it ever since Doug started this many years ago. It is all scripturally based. It is Acts 2:42. We get together, eat together, pray together, fellowship together, and talk about the precepts of Jesus together.

All of that was happening, and I would say that he died--but not until he quietly spoke of Jesus to every country around the world. I can say that Doug is going to have a very Merry Christmas.

Mr. President, there is one last thing I want to say that is on a little different subject. Today is a very special day. Today, a little girl named Kay and I got married a long time ago. These are our kids and grandkids. Today is December 19, which is our 58th wedding anniversary. I want to say to Kay: I love you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize Mr. Walter Strong on the occasion of his retirement. Walt has led the University of Oklahoma's Max Westheimer Airport, OUN, for 19 years and has a lifelong dedication to the aviation community. Under his leadership, the Max Westheimer Airport has demonstrated it is one of the best flight schools in the Nation, organizes successful pilot fly- ins, and maintains a youth outreach program to encourage the next generation to get involved in flying.

Mr. Strong began his career in aviation in the U.S. Air Force, working as an air traffic controller in both control tower and radar approach control facilities. Retiring after 20 years of service in the Air Force, Mr. Strong began working at the Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission, rising to the level of deputy director. He was one of Oklahoma's first airport inspectors. From 2004 to 2005, he served as the president of the Oklahoma Airport Operators Association. A pillar of the Oklahoma aviation community, Mr. Strong was awarded the ``Airport Manager of the Year'' in 2011, the same year that Max Westheimer Airport was recognized as ``Airport of the Year.'' In 2016, under his leadership, the Max Westheimer Airport received the Willie F. Card Contract Tower Service Award from the Federal Aviation Administration, which recognizes one tower each year for embodying Willie Card's vision of a tower that places profound emphasis on both safety and efficiency.

At the Federal level, Mr. Strong has been a passionate advocate for aviation, serving on the board of the American Association of Airport Executives and as the chair of the U.S. Contract Tower Association and ensuring that all Members of Congress are aware of the importance of general aviation to their constituents and to their communities.

I know that I join his family, the Max Westheimer Airport, and the University of Oklahoma community in thanking him for his years of service and contributions to the aviation community. Congratulations on your retirement.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from Vermont, I be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

I have a point of inquiry. Was the UC already granted-- the unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, let me pause in this class warfare for just a minute to make a couple of observations that I think are certainly important to me.

First of all, I agree that no one has said that the underlying bill is perfect.

Incidentally, I will not respond to the Senator's specific request until I have time to go back and get the proper response, and then I will be glad to do it. But I will say this. We are going to have a conference. There is going to be opportunity for us to go and get some of the things ironed out--some of the things we are both concerned about. There are a couple of things I want to serve notice right now that I am going to be concerned about. One is that the bill that we have punishes trust ownership. It doesn't treat the trust ownership the same way it does ordinary ownership. I think they both should be treated equally. I talked to a number of people who will be participating in this on the other side of the aisle, and I would like to kind of serve notice that we are going to be talking about this, because I think it is very, very significant.

The second thing is that we hear a lot of good ideas. Certainly, there is this idea that somehow there isn't a good idea unless it emanates from this body. I have to tell you this. It is interesting for me to be standing here because I am not on any of the committees that have anything to do with this bill. I am not on the Finance Committee, and I am not on the Budget Committee. If you want to talk about defending America and roads and highways, I will talk to you about that. That is my specialty. I am on those committees and have senior leadership in those committees. But as a Member not directly involved in this debate, I have looked at it and I have heard good ideas from the outside. I heard one a week ago that actually came from the Hugh Hewitt show. I heard an idea that I tried to pick apart, and I can't find any faults with it. So I have developed an amendment that we are going to have that will address this idea that I am talking about. That amendment would offer an alternative to those who have retirement programs, where the individual is not to pay for the income until the withdrawal date--say, age 59\1/2\.

The amendment would provide that there would be a one-time opportunity to withdraw up to 25 percent of the retirement account for a single flat fee of 10 percent in lieu of paying income tax at that time.

There are a lot of benefits that I think are pretty obvious. We are talking about retirement programs where the individual is not to pay for the income until the withdrawal dates--let's say, at age 59\1/2\. This would have the immediate revenue of 10 percent of all savings that are withdrawn, and this would actually amount to billions of dollars. We are talking about immediate dollars, not dollars that may be there in the future.

Now, you could argue that this might reduce some revenue at some future date because the individuals will have already pulled this out for a fee of 10 percent. So, perhaps, it would have some negative effects in the distant future. But when you stop to think about the benefits--I know a lot of people on the other side of the aisle don't realize this--we are going to have huge benefits.

If you just look at what has happened in this administration in the second and third quarter of this year, we have gone through years in the Obama administration with maybe a 1.5-percent

increase in GDP, and we have enjoyed 3 percent in the second quarter and 3.3 percent in the third quarter. That is a huge increase. For each 1 percent increase over a period of 10 years, we are talking about $3 trillion. So we are all considering this.

This amendment that we are talking about that merely allows people to take money out that is already their money is something that would have a great stimulation in the economy. I am one of the few ones who was around here--not in this body but in the other body--and I was aware of this back during the Reagan years of 1981 and 1986. In 1981, the amount of revenue that we had coming into the Federal coffers was $469 billion. Ten years later that was $750 billion. That was after the first great reduction. Let's remember that reduction took the top rates down from 70 percent to 50 percent. Again, in 1986, when the total revenue was $569 billion, there was a further reduction. The top rate went down from 50 percent to, I believe, 28 percent.

Now, with all of those reductions, that increased 10 years later from $569 billion to $1 trillion. Consequently, we know that if we can stimulate the economy, we are going to have more revenue coming in. That is a fact. I think this will be something that I think a lot of people can look at.

I talk about when you get into the conference. I will not be one of the conferees, and I am aware of that, but there are a lot of good ideas out there along with those on the floor today. They will be pursuing them at that time. That is assuming we pass this bill, and I think we will pass it.

Additionally, tax reform will ensure that American families and businesses see a meaningful reduction in their tax burden. The Senate bill provides a substantial tax deduction to small and family businesses that are structured as passthrough entities. These small and family businesses are household names such as Love's Travel Stop, the Country Stores, Hobby Lobby. We are all very familiar with Hobby Lobby.

By the way, I will say that in the event there is anyone here who has not been down to see the Museum of the Bible, that is Hobby Lobby who paid for that. Those are the types of people who would benefit. Unfortunately, the Senate does not allow tax deductions for these companies or passthrough entities if they have trusts. This is not right.

For these companies trusts were for long-term business purposes, not to evade their fair share of taxes. These companies use the income to invest capital in operations to grow their businesses, to hire people, and to contribute to the economic growth that we need in this country. We should not penalize passthrough companies for their businesses because they are trusts. My amendment would fix that.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, for 20 years now, I have viewed the development and deployment of a layered ballistic missile defense shield as vital to our national security. The experience that we witnessed yesterday is something we have been talking about for a long time that was going to happen. Sometimes our DIA, or Defense Intelligence Agency, has said it is going to happen 5 years from now and then 4 years from now. The question is this: When will North Korea have the capability of a weapon and delivery system that would reach Washington, DC, or any of the States of the United States? The adversaries like North Korea are developing ballistic missiles with increasing range and accuracy. It is important for us in the Senate to communicate to the American people the credible, grave, and immediate threat that we face.

Today the world is more dangerous than it has ever been before. I have said so many times in the past that I look wistfully back at the days of the Cold War when things were predictable. We had two superpowers. We knew what they had, and they knew what we had. It is not that way anymore. Every time we have someone coming in to our Defense Committee to testify, they talk about the fact that North Korea is not predictable. So we don't know what is going to happen and what they are capable of doing.

I have been here on the floor on this issue in 2001, 2009, 2012, and this will be the third time this year. Over the last 30 years, we have witnessed our missile defense programs go through dramatic investment changes from administration to administration, depending on who is President. Remember how everyone ridiculed President Reagan about ``Star Wars,'' hitting a bullet with a bullet. They felt that it was pretty funny at that time. Right now, everything he said that was going to happen is happening and happened yesterday.

In 1993, they cut out of the Reagan budget and from the Bush budget the missile defense budget request for fiscal year 1994. They terminated the Reagan-Bush Strategic Defense Initiative Program and downgraded the national missile defense--this is all during the Clinton administration--to a research and development program only and cut 5 years of missile defense funding by 54 percent, from $39 billion to $18 billion.

In 1996 they cut funding and slowed the development of the THAAD program--the THAAD program we are so dependent on right now to defend against an incoming missile in many parts of the world with our allies. They cut the Defense authorization bill, which required accelerated development.

In 1999 they delayed by at least 2 years our Space-Based Infrared System satellites, designed to detect and track missile launches, necessary to coordinate with any effective national missile defense system.

Then along came Bush. By the end of 2008, the Bush administration had succeeded in fielding a missile defense system that was capable of defending all 50 States. During that period of time, we had 44 ground- based defense systems in the United States. The Obama administration cut that back down, but the Bush administration wanted a system that would take care of all 50 States.

Here is the problem, though. All of our ground-based systems were on the west coast--in Alaska and California--so we didn't have anything else. At that time, they thought that was where the threat was going to be, but during the last years of the second Bush administration, we realized that we needed to do something about the rest of the country-- something about the east coast--and something about Western Europe.

We made a deal with the Czech Republic and Poland to have a ground- based system in the Czech Republic and Poland, along with the radar that was necessary to operate it. I remember that. I was there and had a conversation with Vaclav Klaus in the Czech Republic.

He said to me: If we go along with building this system, we are going to incur the wrath of Russia, and it is going to be very difficult for us. So can you assure us, if we agree to do this, that you will not pull the rug out from under us?

I said: Certainly, we will not do that. This is something that we are committed to doing.

The problem is that the first thing that happened when the Obama administration came in was he pulled the rug out from under them. So we found ourselves vulnerable to, maybe, having one shot at a defense system in the eastern part of the United States and in Western Europe.

Then, in April, there came the first of the Obama defense cuts, which began disarming America and dismantling our layered missile defense system. Additionally, due to President Obama's overall reduced budget request for defense, there were not enough Aegis ships or missiles to meet the demand that was there.

Since Kim Jong Un took power in 2009, he has already conducted more than 80 ballistic missile tests. That is far more than his father and grandfather conducted. North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests of increasingly powerful weapons. The latest test was in September of this year. That bomb had an explosive yield estimated to be 100 kilotons, which is almost 7 times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima and as much as 11 times more powerful than what North Korea tested in January of last year.

In April of this year, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Policy and Strategy in the Asia-Pacific, a panel of expert witnesses agreed with me that North Korea currently represents the most imminent threat to our national security. On July 4 of

this year, North Korea made a major breakthrough with its first successful ICBM launching. If it had been launched on a standard trajectory, the missile could likely have traveled up to 5,000 miles. That would have been enough to have reached Alaska. On July 28 of this year, North Korea tested another ICBM. This missile demonstrated the potential ability to reach mainland U.S. targets with a nuclear-armed