Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the discussion is on the serious problem this country is facing. While I take a position against the administration's program, I know they are behind closed doors with the leadership on both sides, both Houses, trying to come up with something that is workable. I suggest what we are going to vote on, scheduled for 11:30 a.m., which I think will be a little later than that, does not have a solution. One of the points I want to make sure everyone knows is that in this legislation is the extension of the moratorium on oil shale. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007 established a 1-year moratorium on the necessary funding to complete the final regulations for commercial leasing of oil shale on public lands. Without congressional action, the moratorium will expire. The stimulus bill that we will be voting on shortly after 11:30 will continue this moratorium for another year. This is serious. The Senate has debated energy legislation for weeks, and the extension of this moratorium does nothing to address increasing domestic energy supply. The potential energy development from the Rocky Mountain oil shale is truly massive. The Green River Formation located within Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah contains the equivalent of 6 trillion barrels of oil. Of this 6 trillion, the RAND Corporation estimates there are 1.1 trillion recoverable barrels. That equals more than 2,000 years' worth of imports from Saudi Arabia, or 145 years of domestic supply at current rates of oil consumption. These numbers would nearly double assuming the Department of Energy's estimate of nearly 2 trillion potentially recoverable barrels. What we are talking about is huge. The RAND Corporation projects that within the first 12 years of commercial production, these barrels would be recoverable at prices as low as $35 to $48 per barrel. There are problems out there. We have been arguing on the floor of the Senate, and the Democrats refuse to increase the supply or vote for any increase in oil or gas in America. We have the Outer Continental Shelf discussion that is going on. This bill doesn't affect that. However, since 1982, Democrats and the environmental left have blocked access to 85 percent of America's Outer Continental Shelf resources. With this year's record-high gas prices, Americans have demanded that the Democrats in Congress allow us to produce from our own resources. With just 6 weeks until election day, Democrats have finally relented. We held a news conference yesterday. We all celebrated the fact that we are going to allow these two moratoria to expire. This bill will stop the expiration of the moratorium on oil shale. The Interior Department estimates that the Outer Continental Shelf contains 19 billion barrels of undiscovered recoverable oil. That equals 35 years of imports from Saudi Arabia. We can see that while the Outer Continental Shelf is great, we want to remove that moratorium. It is even much more important we do it with oil shale because of the sheer size. As I say, the vote doesn't affect the Outer Continental Shelf, but it does affect oil shale. Americans spent more than $327 billion to import oil in 2007. These oil imports accounted for 46 percent of the Nation's $711 billion trade deficit last year. By opening the Outer Continental Shelf and the oil shale, America can cut that trade deficit in half. Assuming a $130 price per barrel of oil, America will trade more than $135 billion to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for oil imports this year. Outer Continental Shelf and oil shale production can stop this transfer of oil and keep hundreds of billions of dollars at home within our economy creating jobs at home, not overseas. America is not running out of oil and gas or running out of places to look for oil and gas. America is running out of places where the Democrats in Congress are allowing us to look for oil and gas. We had a great celebration on Wednesday that the moratoria would be lifted in both areas. This bill would extend the moratorium on shale, the largest opportunity we have and potential we have for reserves and for lowering the price of gas at the pump that we will be dealing with this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. First, before my friend from North Dakota leaves the floor, let me say there is a big problem out there, and I agree with a lot of the things he has said. I took a position. I waited 4 days to take a position against the particular approach that the Secretary of the Treasury is recommending, and I did so because I wanted to wait until I understood as much of it as I could. One of the biggest problems I saw is that, first, the magnitude of $700 billion is awfully hard to get your arms around; secondly, who would make the determination as to which institutions we would be approaching, and within those institutions which assets, and how do you qualify those assets. Then I found out it would be asset managers. Now, would that be 500 asset managers, 5,000? Maybe it will be some of these same people who created the problem in the first place. These are questions that I know people who have their hearts in the right place are trying to address. And I agree there is a problem looming out there and we need to correct it, but I am not in any hurry to correct it by doing the wrong thing. It is too big a problem.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, my staff is not the first to uncover this sham. A December 19, 2007, article in the Wall Street Journal highlighted the very same problem, stating: Because the IRS doesn't require 501(c) organizations to detail election spending or to list contributors, it is difficult to track their political activity. The Journal analyzed data on 30 separate 501(c) groups active in elections from 2000 to 2006, culled from a variety of sources. The data--this again is from the Wall Street Journal--showed that the 30 organizations spent at least $155 million on the 2006 elections, nearly twice what they spent in 2000. Environmental groups have become experts at duplicitous activity, skirting laws up to the edge of illegality and burying their political activities under the guise of nonprofit environmental improvement. This chart demonstrates this interconnected ``enviro-family affair'' of nonprofits and their benefactors. As you can see, the six organizations at the bottom of this chart are all either 527 groups or political 501(c)(4)s. Let's take a look at the League of Conservation Voters, which is a poster child for this deceit. The LCV is an IRS-registered 501(c)3. Contributions to the organization are tax deductible. However, contributors should understand that LCV is a political organization affiliated with a 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee, and a 527 organization. All three of these are political. LCV represents itself as ``turning environmental values into national priorities,'' and much of its funds, even from its 501(c)(3) organization, goes to fund voter mobilization and education drives. In each election cycle, LCV endorses political candidates. Since 1996, LCV has published a ``Dirty Dozen'' list and bragged about its effectiveness in ousting candidates on the list. Not surprisingly, the list singles out all Republican candidates, but they almost always throw in one Democratic candidate--just one--to make it appear as if it is technically bipartisan. To date, 83 names have been placed on the LCV's ``Dirty Dozen,'' 74 of which are Republicans. By their bipartisan claims, it would be expected that the LCV's support would be split evenly. The publishers of the ``Dirty Dozen'' list have yet to name even a dozen Democrats to their list in the last 12 years. In 2006, LCV had two 527 groups, the League of Conservation Voters SSF and the League of Conservation Voters, Inc., SSF-527 II. These 527 groups were fined by the Federal Election Commission for three violations of Federal election law. One of the violations was that LCV knowingly accepted individual donations in excess of $5,000. LCV collected over $6 million in donations during 2004 that violated the $5,000 individual maximum amount restriction, and the ultimate fine was a total of $180,000 by the FEC. According to an FEC press release, LCV received this fine for acting as a clear political committee and violating Federal election law. The Wall Street Journal highlighted these violations in an article published in December 2007. Following this incident, the LCV restructured its organization into a 501(c)(4), which allows the organization to run with fewer disclosure restrictions. LCV has a long history of direct involvement in political campaigns. In 1996, LCV spent nearly $1.5 million in ads focused on defeating its ``Dirty Dozen'' list targets of 11 Republicans and, oh yes, 1 Democrat. In 1988, the LCV spent $2.3 million targeting its ``Dirty Dozen'' list of 12 Republicans and, oh yes, 1 Democratic candidate. In 2000, the LCV spent nearly $4 million, again targeting 11 Republicans and 1 Democrat on its ``Dirty Dozen'' list. And I can't forget that in 2000, the LCV also endorsed Al Gore for President--clearly a political endorsement. In 2002, LCV once again targeted 11 Republican congressional candidates and 1 Democrat. Clearly there is a partisan pattern here. LCV spends hundreds of thousands of dollars in congressional contests against Republican candidates. That same year, the group undertook its strongest single effort to date, focused on my friend, Senator Allard, who will be speaking right after me. The LCV claims to have budgeted $700,000 for that race--I am talking about incumbent Senator Allard from Colorado--and hired a campaign staff of 12 to coordinate phone banks and precinct walks. In addition, LCV ran television and radio advertisements against Senator Allard. Of course, as we all know, Senator Allard won in spite of that. Altogether, the LCV reportedly spent $1.4 million in independent expenditures during the 2002 election cycle. Of that total amount, LCV spent $1.3 million benefitting Democratic candidates while only spending $136,000 for Republican candidates. That again is the ratio we see consistently, 10 to 1, to make it look as though it is not an arm of the Democratic Party. Two years later, in 2004, the ``Dirty Dozen'' list contained twelve Republicans and one Democrat. LCV and its affiliates spent a new record total of $16 million during that year's elections targeting the 13 candidates. As in previous years, the 1 Democrat on the list retained his seat while 4 of the 12 Republicans were defeated. For the first time, in 2004, the LCV included a Presidential candidate on their list. The LCV endorsed Senator John Kerry for President--again all political. In 2006, the LCV chose 15 candidates for their ``Dirty Dozen'' list. The list was comprised of 13 Republicans and 2 Democrats. While the two Democrats on the ``Dirty Dozen'' list retained their seats, nine Republicans lost their seats. The LCV and its affiliates used its extensive budget of $27 million on campaign activities. The 2006 elections also highlighted the intertwined political activities of LCV and other groups. A coalition of environmental organizations, that included LCV and the Sierra Club, worked together in 2006 to defeat their top target Richard Pombo, then chairman of the House Resources Committee. This coalition invested more than $1.7 million in the race to defeat him. If that figure alone is not startling enough, then look at this chart that shows part of a Sierra Club press release that gloats about their activity in this House race. We see that the Sierra Club invested $545,000 in this race and had 643,000 contacts with voters, and sent 397,000 pieces of mail in this race alone--Richard Pombo, in California. At the time of this report, the LCV had yet to release a completed version of the 2008 ``Dirty Dozen'' list. However, it has released the names of nine individuals who will fill up the ranks of the completed list. Of those nine, there is one Democrat joining the ``Dirty Dozen.'' I would be remiss not to mention that it looks like I will be on their list this year. It should come as no surprise that for the 2008 Presidential election, the LCV has endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President. As one individual who will be running, I am sure there will be a lot of money that will be in my race. I think it is kind of interesting that in this day, when we are all concerned with what might be happening on Wall Street and some of the people who have made huge salaries and then turn around and have a defunct company, we see the Environmental Defense Fund's Fred Krupp receiving a salary of $357,000; Sierra Club, Carl Pope, $207,000. I am hoping these contributors know that not only are their contributions going to organizations that are not doing anything about the environment, but they are paying very large salaries to large staffs. While there is no means of calculating or anticipating what LCV will spend this year, as their budget has grown every election cycle, they will most likely have at least the $27 million that they did in 2006. LCV is certainly not the only organization doing this. The Sierra Club, which describes itself as ``America's oldest, largest, and most influential grassroots environmental organization,'' has a similar record of trickery. The Sierra Club Foundation is a 501(c)(3) tax- exempt organization with an affiliated 501(c)(4) group, Sierra Club. There is also a 527 organization called the Sierra Club Voter Education Fund, which claims to be a ``separate segregated fund of the Sierra Club.'' The Sierra Club Foundation does not claim affiliation with this 527 organization, however the Sierra Club Voters Education Fund does not have its own board of directors, officers or trustees. In 2006, the Sierra Club 501(c) organizations brought in more than $110 million and spent nearly $104 million; the Sierra Club 527, the Sierra Club Voter Education Fund, only brought in $60,000, but managed to spend nearly $1 million. That is pretty tricky. Similar to LCV, the Sierra Club has a history of endorsing candidates for political office. Most recently, the Sierra Club announced its support of Senator Obama's Presidential bid. While there is no reported activity yet from the organization, the Sierra Club has been known to run television and radio advertisements both supporting their candidate and criticizing the opposition. At the time of this report, Sierra Club had announced its support of 13 candidates for seats in the United States Senate. Of those 13 candidates, none are Republicans. The organization has also announced its endorsement of 156 candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives. Of the candidates, four are Republicans. Essentially, 98 percent of Sierra Club's endorsements favor Democrat candidates. Another example is the Natural Resources Defense Council. The Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. is registered as a 501(c)(3) organization. It is also affiliated with a 501(c)(4) organization, the NRDC Action Fund, and a 527 organization, the Environmental Accountability Fund. By having at least one of each category of tax-exempt organizations, these groups can transfer wealth throughout their family of organizations and remain virtually undetected. In its 2006 tax filing, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. transferred $98,801 to NRDC Action Fund, and NRDC Action Fund transferred $124,500 to undisclosed ``other organizations'' that same year. Founded in 1970, NRDC purports to be the ``nation's most effective environmental action group'' whose mission is to ``[t]o safeguard the Earth: its people, its plants and animals and the natural systems on which all life depends.'' The NRDC claims to use grassroots efforts and the power of legal and scientific expertise to achieve its goals, which they describe frequently as ``independent.'' From 2001 through 2005, the NRDC reported on the Bush administration by creating the Bush Record. The Record categorized President Bush's time in office as an administration that ``will cater to industries that put America's health and natural heritage at risk.'' The NRDC predicted that Bush would continue ``to undermine environmental enforcement and weaken key programs.'' The organization gave up the effort and stopped tracking the administration's moves after President Bush defeated Senator Kerry in the 2004 election. It is interesting, I remember the ``Clear Skies'' legislation that was the largest reduction of pollutants of any President in the history of America and it was defeated by the Democrats in the Environment and Public Works Committee. My staff examined two other organizations, Greenpeace and Environmental Defense Fund, and found similar patterns of partisan fund-raising and spending. Greenpeace, like other environmental activist organizations, has strong ties to other politically oriented groups. The chairman of the board of directors, Donald Ross, is involved in multiple organizations, including the LCV, where he is a board member. Ross is also the founder of M+R, a campaign strategy firm whose clients include, among others: Environmental Defense Fund; LCV; and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Greenpeace is also a client of Earthjustice, the legal entity that represents the Sierra Club, NRDC, and Environmental Defense Fund. Additionally, Greenpeace remains officially affiliated with the Partnership Project, whose members also include Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC and LCV. While Greenpeace may not make a Dirty Dozen list, or endorse hundreds of Democratic candidates, it is affiliated with and supports the organizations that do. Furthermore, it represents those affiliations to the rest of the world. Environmental Defense Fund, EDF, describes itself as an organization that ``is dedicated to protecting the environmental rights of all people'' by using a scientific approach that is ``nonpartisan, cost- effective, and fair.'' Environmental Defense Fund is represented by its family of organizations, Environmental Defense, Inc., a 501(c)(3) organization, and Environmental Defense Action Fund, Inc., a 501(c)(4) organization. EDF is also intimately connected with other environmental and political organizations. Trustee Frank Loy currently serves as one of Senator Obama's ``top environmental advisers'' for the 2008 Presidential campaign. This past year, trustee Douglas Shorenstein donated $272,100 to Democratic political objectives, including the Hillary Clinton and Al Franken campaigns. Trustee Joanne Woodward, wife of noted Hollywood star Paul Newman, donated significantly to both the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Until 2006, Teresa Heinz, wife of Senator John Kerry served on the board of trustees for EDF. Heinz is also the current chairman of Heinz Endowments, a part of the Heinz Family Foundation, one of the Nation's 25 largest charitable foundations. Current EDF trustee George Woodwell also serves on the board of the NRDC. EDF reported raising $71.8 million for the 2006 calendar year, and reported receiving contributions totaling more than $94 million during the 2006 IRS filing period. Of that amount, the organization spent $18.9 million to promote their stance on climate change issues, and $19.5 million collectively on land and ocean environmental issues. In addition to the publicly professed alliances among these groups, they are all connected by the foundations that provide them with a significant amount of funding. The Heinz foundations are some of the largest contributors to these nonprofit environmental organizations, and, of course, Ms. Teresa Heinz Kerry is either chairperson of the board of trustees or member of the board of trustees on each foundation. In fact, Ms. Heinz Kerry oversees more than $1.5 billion of Heinz foundation resources. Last year alone, Heinz gave $160,000 to NRDC directly. Since 2002, Heinz has given a total of $740,000 to EDF, LCV, and NRDC specifically. Over the past 5 years, Heinz has also given $3.8 million to Tides. Tides has donated significantly to all five of the mentioned environmental organizations, and receives a large portion of their funding from foundations such as Heinz. Another major supporter of environmental groups is the Turner Foundation, founded in 1990 by Ted Turner. The Turner Foundation sponsors special projects including the Partnership Project comprised of 20 national environmental groups. Since 2002, the Turner Foundation has contributed more than $2.9 million to the Partnership Project. Additionally, the Turner Foundation has given more than $1 million to the NRDC, $778,875 to EDF, and $6.7 million to the LCV Education Fund. The Pew Charitable Trust, which claims it is ``an independent non- profit serving to inform the public on key issues,'' also gives substantially to environmental groups. Two of Pew's environmental priorities include global warming and wilderness protection. Since 2002, Pew has given a substantial amount of money to environmental activist groups directly and through other private funds that finance these groups. Pew contributed $431,000 to EDF, $900,000 to NRDC, and $700,000 to the Partnership Project, a joint venture of the Nation's leading environmental groups. Additionally, Pew gave more than $7 million to the Tides Foundation. During that time, the Tides Foundation contributed a collective $1.8 million to the following organizations: EDF, LCV, Greenpeace, NRDC, and Sierra Club. This tangled web of political financing and private dollars should be disconcerting and even scary to American's concerned about transparency and honesty in our Government. Clearly, where these environmental groups are concerned, there is no line between issue advocacy and political activity. And most disturbing is the fact that one cannot tell if these so-called environmental groups that claim to protect and conserve our environment, really spend any money on actually improving our environment. Why is this important? Well, it is important because our environment is important to all of us. Despite what you may hear from these groups in their attack advertisements against President Bush and Republican candidates across the Nation, our air is cleaner, water more drinkable, and our forests are becoming healthier. For instance, over the last 30 years, we have cut air pollution in half. This is also important because these wolves disguised in sheep's clothing are deceiving the America people. When an individual gives their hard-earned money to one of these organizations, most expect it to be used for the environmental cause they support, not political campaigning. It seems that it is more important to these groups to turn their once laudable movement into a political machine misleading the American public regarding their purely politically partisan agenda under the guise of environmental protection. Again, a wolf in sheep's clothing. Our nation's first Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, said, ``Conservation means the wise use of the earth and its resources for the lasting good of men.'' He also said that ``conservation is the application of common sense to the common problems for the common good.'' Those words ring true today. Unfortunately, it is clear to me that the environmentalist movement is deaf to them. What we find now is the fleecing of the American public's pocketbooks by the environmental movement for their political gain. We also find exhausting litigation, instigation of false claims, misleading science, and scare tactics to fool Americans into believing disastrous environmental scenarios that are untrue. Mr. President, especially in this election year, the American voter should see these groups and their many affiliate organizations as they are: the newest insidious conspiracy of political action committees and perhaps the newest multi-million dollar manipulation of Federal election laws. As an American citizen concerned about our environment and our country, I am dismayed and saddened by this deception. If these groups actually used the hundreds of millions of dollars they raise for actual environmental improvement, just think how many whales and forests we could save. These wolves should be seen for what they really are: massive democratic political machines, disguised as environmental causes. You know, I think a lot of people on this floor understand, both Democratic and Republican, and the American people, there has been a wake-up call. When you look at what happened in the bill back in 2005 that came forward on trying to put caps on the greenhouse gases and cap and trade, a very expensive system that would cost the American people over $300 billion a year. At that time, there were only three Senators who came down to oppose that bill. Yet this was overwhelmingly defeated. Then fast forward 3 years to 2008. We had a similar bill on the floor of the Senate a few weeks ago. This time, 24 Senators, or 23, came down and joined me to tell the truth as to the economic destruction that would come should we pass this legislation. So I think that wake-up call is there. In spite of the millions of dollars that are channeled through 501(c)(3)s to defeat Republican candidates, I think reason is winning. Exhibit 1

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me first say that this has been a very difficult subject, and I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Georgia. As he said, I am looking forward to waiting and seeing a final product. I look at what is there right now, and I do have concerns. I have concerns as to who the asset managers will be, what institutions will be involved, and what types of assets. It would seem to me, as I read it, that as the $700 billion is paid down, other assets could be purchased, and I just wonder where it would end. I believe some new heads will come in and kind of look at these proposals and perhaps come up with something that will resolve a looming problem we all are concerned about. Today, my concern is on a different subject and one that is very important to me as an American citizen and as the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. The situation I am about to discuss reminds me of an old saying: Beware of wolves dressed in sheep's clothing. Today's so-called environmental movement can be described in much the same way. Campaigns to ``save a cuddly animal'' or ``protect the ancient forests'' are really disguised efforts to raise money for Democratic political campaigns. Take this ad, for example, displayed on the League of Conservation Voters'--or the LCV's--Web site. This is LCV's standard text used to raise money for a nonprofit organization. In turn, the LCV takes these donations, given to ``save the environment,'' and then uses them to fund ads for Democratic candidates, such as Ben Lujan from New Mexico. LCV, similar to other groups I will highlight later, disguises itself as an environmental group dedicated to saving the environment. Yet, as shown by this political ad, it is simply an extension of the Democratic political party. In the fall of 2004, I came to the Senate floor to discuss this very topic. This report and my remarks today are an update of the 2004 report. Over the last several months, my staff has put considerable time and effort into examining this deception. This examination has uncovered the tangled web of charitable and environmental organizations, political campaigns, and large foundations. Environmental groups are tax-exempt, IRS-registered, 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, meaning that contributions to these groups are tax deductible. I think it is very important that people understand, because there is always confusion here, that a 501(c)(3) is not supposed to be a political organization. It is a charitable organization. And there are many legitimate ones out there that deserve the tax-exempt status they have. These groups profess to be stewards of the environment and solicit contributions from a variety of sources using these claims, but they demonstrate more interest in hyping the extreme environmental scenarios to raise money for raw political purposes than working toward actual real-world environmental change for the benefit of all Americans. Not surprisingly, given these deceptions, these nonprofit groups are tightly affiliated with and fund the 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations and 527 organizations. And we all know that 501(c)(4) organizations and 527 organizations are lobbying organizations that get involved in political campaigns. With these intertwined organizations, it is extremely difficult to differentiate the source of funds and track their use. This problem is highlighted in a report prepared by my staff which provides preliminary examples based on the five most politically active environmental groups. The report describes their activities, the foundations that provide their financial support, and the interconnected web among these organizations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks the staff report to which I just referred.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on June 26, 2008, in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the United States Supreme Court decisively confirmed what Oklahomans have known for a long time: we as Americans have an individual right to legally possess and use a firearm. Prior to the Heller decision, DC, had the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. The District effectively banned handguns in homes and required all licensed firearms to be unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Not only did the Supreme Court deem the DC gun ban unconstitutional, it also positively affirmed that ``(t)he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.'' I was very satisfied with the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Before the Supreme Court heard this case, the entire Oklahoma delegation signed onto an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, urging the Court to affirm that the second amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms. With the signatures of Vice President Cheney, 55 Senators, and 250 Members of the House of Representatives, this amicus brief had the support of more Members of Congress than any other amicus brief in known history. Unfortunately, it did not come as a great surprise that soon after the Supreme Court decided the Heller case, the DC City Council began exploring new ways to restrict firearm possession in the District. In response, on September 17, the House of Representatives passed the National Capital Security and Safety Act, H.R. 6842, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 266-152. This bill prohibits the DC government from passing any law to restrict firearms in a person's home, business, or land. Additionally, the legislation rolls back the restrictions that the DC government has implemented that prohibit the registration of certain types of firearms. The bill also allows residents of the District of Columbia to purchase firearms from licensed dealers in the neighboring states of Virginia and Maryland. After the House of Representatives passed this important bill, I joined 47 of my colleagues in the Senate in sending a letter to Majority Leader Reid asking him to bring up H.R. 6842 for consideration in the Senate. I sincerely hope that the Senate has the opportunity to debate and vote on this bill and send it to President Bush this year. I have tenaciously fought to preserve the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms since my first days in Congress. I will continue in this next stage of the battle over the interpretation of the second amendment.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to three of Oklahoma's finest heroes. SGT Daniel Eshbaugh, of Norman, OK. CWO Brady Rudolf, of Oklahoma City, OK. And CPL Michael Thompson, of Harrah, OK. They were among the soldiers who were killed on September 17, 2008 in Tallil, Iraq, when their CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed while en route from Kuwait to Balad Air Base north of Baghdad. SGT Eshbaugh, CWO Rudolf and CPL Thompson were members of Detachment 1, Company B, 2nd Battalion, 149th Aviation, from Lexington, OK. The unit, which is made up of approximately 200 Texas and Oklahoma Guard members, was mobilized in June and left for duty in Iraq in late August. All three were on their second tour in Iraq.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, allow me to echo strong agreement with my colleague from Alabama. We both serve on the Armed Services Committee. It is our hope and belief that we will be able to get a bill tonight. There are a lot of amendments that we would have liked to have had time to add. Senator Sessions talked about the successes we have had in the Czech Republic and in Poland. It is absolutely necessary. This is a life-threatening situation. I believe we are in pretty good shape there. I had several programs that are going to be included in this bill expanding the training and equipment. Sections 1206, 1207, and 1208 are significant. Those are things we can do in the field in these countries where we are in a position to train and equip these people, which is certainly to our advantage. Expanding what used to be called the CERP, the Commanders Emergency Response Program--they changed the name. I can never keep up with these things. But instead of having it only apply to Iraq and Afghanistan, it now applies to other areas also. It gives the commanders in the field a chance to respond immediately rather than go through all the bureaucratic redtape of correcting problems back in Washington. With the IMET program, which is a program whereby we bring in officers and train them in our facilities in the United States, it used to be that until they signed an article, we would not allow them to be trained in the United States. The assumption was that somehow we were doing them a favor by training them. The reverse is true. They want to come to the United States to train because they know we have the best training. If we refuse to do it, countries such as China will welcome them with open arms. One of the interesting things is, once officers are trained in this country, they develop an allegiance that stays. A lot of these things are in the bill that are good. I am delighted, because I understand we will be voting on it very soon.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for whatever time I may consume.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, the main reason I wanted to come to the floor today is another resolution we hope we will be able to get passed before we leave having to do with Darfur. I have had the habit of bringing attention to situations and conflicts in places around the world that get little attention. However, in the case of Darfur, it has had all the attention. When people ask, what are the problems with Africa, they always talk about Darfur. So while they have received all of the attention, there hasn't been any kind of action that has followed. It is distressing that the situation in Darfur has received so much press and generated so much attention, with documentaries and advocacy campaigns and waves of public support, but it has not spurred the international community to more action. We have been saddened and horrified at the pictures we have seen and the stories we have heard about the genocide in Darfur that has unfolded since 2003. At least 300,000 people have died, and 2\1/2\ million have been forced from their homes at the hands of violent militias called the jingaweit who have been encouraged and supported by the Khartoum Government, President Bashir. One of the things that is interesting about this is, we recall the tragic genocide that took place in the middle 1990s in Rwanda. People are now aware of that and wondering why we couldn't have done something about it earlier to prevent it. They have now killed about a third the number of people of the genocide that took place in Rwanda, and President Kagame is doing such a great job there. But where were we when we could have helped President Kagame and prevented the genocide from taking place? It is now up to a third that many in Darfur. So we can do something and do something now to avoid it. Last week we received news that Sudan's central government is launching land and air attacks in Darfur, with many dead and injured. Last month, in August, the Sudanese military and police opened fire on Darfur refugee camps, killing 31 people and injuring a lot of others. The United Nations/African Union hybrid peacekeeping force assessed the incident and concluded that Sudan used an excessive, disproportionate use of lethal force. For the United Nations to come up with that, it has to be bad. They also concluded that the refugees were only carrying sticks and knives and spears while the Sudanese forces were armed with guns. Khartoum insisted that they were searching the camp for drugs and weapons. In July, The Hague, the International Criminal Court, began the process of indicting President Bashir on 10 charges, including three counts of genocide, five crimes against humanity, two of murder, and masterminding the campaign to annihilate the tribes in Darfur. A senior U.S. official said recently that he expects the ICC, the International Criminal Court, to issue an arrest warrant in the next month--long overdue, I might add. Bashir, who no doubt is beginning to feel the political ground shifting beneath him, continues to resort to more intimidation and violence. One major factor in the ongoing violence in Darfur can be traced to the continued violations of the U.N. arms embargo on Sudan. China is Khartoum's major source of weapons used in Darfur. China has embarked on a new form of colonialism in Africa, grabbing as many natural resources as it possibly can while disregarding the effect on the people. I wish more Members were familiar with Africa and the history of Africa. There are so many books written about that, one of them addressing the Belgium situation there in the early years. They came in, raped the country, took all the natural resources, and left the people there to die. We should be aware that that is exactly what China is doing right now. Beijing has declared 2006 the year of Africa. It shows no signs of slowing down in spreading its influence to claim resources. Currently, China's national petroleum company is pumping roughly 500,000 barrels a day from wells in southern Sudan. Keep in mind, China is our biggest competitor for oil and gas around the world. Obviously, we are dependent upon foreign countries, many of them not too friendly to us, for our ability to even fight a war. That is another issue and one we will address. But China is right in the middle of this one, making it more difficult for us. In order to assure continued access to the oil, China has provided weapons to Khartoum and taken a very passive stance toward the government's brutal treatment of the people of Darfur. Last year Amnesty International reported that both China and Russia had broken the arms embargo by supplying Sudan with attack helicopters, bombers, and weapons. On July 12, the British Broadcasting Corporation reported they had evidence that the Chinese Government provided training and equipment to Bashir's government. In February, the report said that China was training pilots to fly Chinese Fantan aircraft jets on missions from the airfield in southern Darfur. This is a direct violation of the U.N. arms embargo which covers training, not just the supply of weapons, equipment, and military vehicles. The BBC also investigated weapons that China sold to Sudan in 2005 and found postembargoed trucks that carried antiaircraft guns. This news, although not a surprise, comes at a time when Khartoum is using force against refugees with the very planes and weapons that China is supplying. China is not the only problem there. Russia is actually a problem also. Russia is to blame for violating the arms embargo. During the last couple of weeks of attacks, Darfur rebels stated that the government used four helicopter gunships and two Russian-made Antonov airplanes. Russia's continued disregard for crimes perpetrated by the Khartoum Government in Darfur and the selling of arms to carry out such violence against the people of Darfur is inexcusable and needs to be stopped immediately. I hasten to say there are many other problems I have come to the floor and talked about over the last 12 years in Africa. Darfur is one that has captivated everyone's attention. But I assure my colleagues, there are problems in other areas. Right now, as we all know, China is currently Zimbabwe's largest investor and President Mugabe has destroyed the economy in Zimbabwe. We can all remember when they were considered to be the breadbasket of all of Africa. It is amazing that Zimbabwe is able to buy military articles such as their recent purchase from China that included $240 million in fighter jets, in light of their dying economy. When I say ``dying economy,'' they don't even talk anymore about the value of their currency because their currency has no value. So the only ones eating in Zimbabwe, the area that used to be the breadbasket of all of Africa, are the ones who are subsistence farmers, able to grow what they and their families can eat. In 2005, I gave a series of speeches detailing why I believe China to be a threat to our national security. From what we have talked about today, we know China is also a threat to other countries' national security. I challenge my African friends to be wary of current and future Chinese involvement in their countries. It seems that much of the power-sharing agreement in Zimbabwe has been reached with Mugabe remaining as President and opposition leader Tsvangirai taking over the day-to-day running of the Government as Prime Minister. I hope it works out, but I am not optimistic that it will. We have a problem there. We have a country that had been the breadbasket of sub-Saharan Africa and is now unable to provide anything. As to other threats in Africa, I have been quite distressed for some time that as we get the squeeze in the Middle East and al-Qaida and the various terrorist elements down through the Horn of Africa, but we have finally made a good decision in this country to assist Africa in building five African brigades, located north, south, east, west, and central. This is going to be necessary for them to take care of the problems. As to other problems in Africa, it has been 30 years now since western Sahara was kicked out of their homeland, and they have been out in the desolate areas now for more than 30 years. It is shocking to me that we don't do anything to help them get repatriated and sent back to their proper areas. In northern Uganda, on several of my trips there, I have become familiar with what President Museveni has been trying to do for a long period. Frankly, President Museveni has been doing a great job. He was a warrior before he became President of Uganda. But the problem in Uganda is every bit as bad as it is in Darfur, and it is a problem everybody knows about, though it is totally different. We have a guy up there named Joseph Kony, who heads the Lord's Resistance Army. You have heard about the Children's Army and how he goes and trains these little kids, these little boys who are 12 to 13 and 14 years old, how to use automatic weapons. They have to go back to their villages and murder both their parents and all of their family. If they do not do it, they mutilate them. They cut their ears off. I have been up in the northen part of Uganda and have been able to see it. What have we been able to do about that? Very little. He is still loose. Just recently they put him on the list of global terrorists for the United States, but that did not really resolve anything major. So we have that problem. And we have Joseph Kony, who is still to this day killing and mutilating little kids. I guess I am a little sensitive to that. We had a great experience in my family. We found a little girl in Ethiopia when she was 3 days old, and her health was not very good. As we might expect in Addis Ababa, in Ethiopia, there is a great need for nurseries and health care for kids, but the health care just isn't there. I remember looking at this little girl. As the weeks went by and she started developing--escaping death time and time again--she finally grew up and she became a very attractive little girl. I have said on this Senate floor several times that my wife and I have been married 49 years, and we have 20 kids and grandkids. Well, this little girl shown in this picture is one of them now because my daughter Molly, who had nothing but boys, wanted to have a girl, so she adopted this little girl, Zegita Marie, and she has turned out to be an outstanding little girl. So there are these problems. One of the problems with adopting in Africa is that culturally some countries do not approve of adopting. They think the village should be able to take care of the children who become orphans. The problem with that is, with such things that are taking place right now in Darfur, with such things that have taken place in Rwanda, the villages cannot absorb the killing and mutilating of a million people in a short period of time. That is what has happened in Rwanda. So I am glad several Members of this body, including Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, have been interested in helping with the adoption of some of these kids so that other children like my little granddaughter are not left there to die in a country in sub-Sahara Africa but can find a loving family. Anyway, right now, the subject is Darfur. The subject is Darfur because what is going on there right now is kind of in the early stages of what we witnessed taking place in Rwanda. That genocide can be stopped, and it can only be stopped by us along with anyone else in the international community who cares enough to save lives in sub-Sahara Africa. Certainly, the southern part of Darfur is a crisis right now that needs to be dealt with. So I would ask my colleagues to join Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and me in asking for the adoption of a resolution that should take place today. It is one that is going to establish a specific position for the United States of America. The resolution is S. Res. 660, which we have submitted this week. It condemns the ongoing sales of arms to belligerents in Sudan and calls for both an end to such sales and an expansion of the U.N. embargo on arms sales to Sudan. As Russia and China provide Khartoum with more weapons and materials, they continue to fuel the conflict and violence and drive a peaceful solution further away from reality. Countries that want to do business in Africa, or anywhere for that matter, must be held accountable for their behavior. One of the things I have observed in Africa, no matter what country you go into--if it is an oil-rich country--anything that is new and shiny, whether it is a bridge, whether it is a colosseum, a sports arena, it is always built by China. So they have the inside track, and it is going to be up to us to join together to stop that type of mutilation of the population in countries such as northern Uganda and the Sudan. So I urge the adoption of this resolution today and hope it will become a reality so we have a new position for the United States of America to save little girls like this one in countries that are involved in genocide. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise to honor two great Oklahomans, Rick and Kathy Clarke, who are in Washington, DC, for the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute's annual Angels in Adoption Gala. I was pleased to select Rick and Kathy as 2008 Angels in Adoption because of their great commitment to adoption at both a personal and professional level. When Rick Clarke served for 5 years as a judge in juvenile court, working with abused and neglected children every day, both he and his wife, Kathy, formed a desire to help children who are most in need-- those without families. Today, Rick dedicates part of law practice to adoption cases. He serves as a volunteer attorney through Tulsa Lawyers for Children, as a guardian ad litem through court appointments, and is on the board of Heritage Family Services, a Tulsa-based adoption agency. Kathy has served as a Court Appointed Special Advocate for children. She also currently works on special education issues and is a member of the PTA. However, it is this family's personal story that sets it apart. The Clarkes have personally participated in the adoption process for 13 years and have adopted nine children. Throughout these years, the Clarke family has faced tragedies, hardships, and obstacles. Yet they continue to grow as a family, both in number and in character. The Clarke's first adopted child was a 3-year-old boy from Oklahoma. The next two young children joined the family from Russia after being diagnosed with medical complications. The Clarkes later adopted three unrelated girls--aged 15, 13, and 8--through Oklahoma Department of Human Services. Lastly, they provided homes to two sisters from Liberia and an older boy from Ethiopia. The faith and perseverance of Rick and Kathy Clarke enables them to overcome the challenges of providing a permanent and loving home to so many children. Remaining steadfast in their dedication and belief that God has a special plan for every child, Rick and Kathy have raised each of their nine children to be productive, healthy, and strong leaders in their schools and communities. The Clarkes truly represent the blessings and the power of adoption. I am pleased to congratulate Rick and Kathy Clarke, Oklahoma's 2008 Angels in Adoption, and to welcome them to our Nation's Capital for this special honor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have had two ceremonies today: one at the Pentagon and one on the west steps remembering what happened 7 years ago. I think everyone remembers what they were doing at that time 7 years ago. It happens that was the time I had the State chamber of commerce from my State of Oklahoma in. I was speaking with them. I remember so well being on the ninth floor of the Hart Building where we had a panoramic view. They were looking at me, and I saw all this smoke going up, not having any idea what it was. I actually witnessed what happened at the Pentagon. Today as we think back, most of us know someone or have a friend who was killed on that fateful day in the greatest, most significant raid on our land in our country's history. Seven years later, we continue to fight for the oppressed and, more importantly, help the oppressed to fight for themselves. With our coalition of partners and allies, we continue to take the fight to the enemy of our place of choosing, keeping them there instead of here. I had the privilege--and it really has been a privilege--to be in the area where the terrorists were, I think, more than any other Member. I have made some 18 trips, maybe more than that, to Africa, the Horn of Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, and that area. We have taken away al-Qaida's base of operations, freedom of movement, forcing them into the no-man's land between Pakistan and Afghanistan. We have trained the Afghan National Army as they have grown to 65,000 troops. I am proud of this accomplishment. It was Oklahoma's 45th in charge of training the Afghan Army. I was over there, and I saw the pride in the faces of the Afghans as they were learning to defend themselves, learning to fight, learning to fight with dignity. We have trained the Afghan National Army as they have grown to 65,000 troops, and they are on track to meet their mandated strength of 82,000 by 2009. We have defeated the Taliban in every encounter and have killed or captured over 60 of their senior leaders. We helped Afghanistan rebuild its infrastructure with over 1,000 bridges and 10,000 kilometers of roads. There are now more Afghan children in school than at any other time in history. That is something we seem to forget, turning to Iraq, what is happening right now and the impact this is having in the Middle East where for the first time in the history of that country there are women going to school. They have been liberated from a tyrannical leader. I was honored back in 1991 to be on what was called the first freedom flight. It was Democrats and Republicans. Tony Coelho was there and several others. But also the Ambassador from Kuwait to the United States was there. This was in 1991 at the end of the first gulf war. It was so close to the end of it that Iraq did not know it was over yet. They were still burning the fields off. The Ambassador and his daughter--he had a 7- or 8-year-old daughter-- wanted to see what their mansion on the Persian Gulf looked like because they had not seen it during the war. When we got there, we found it was used by Saddam Hussein for one of his headquarters. The little girl wanted to go to her bedroom and see her little animals. Saddam Hussein had used that bedroom for a torture chamber. There were body parts there. During that period after 1991, many of us had the opportunity to look into the open graves, to see what a tyrannical person this was, hear the stories from firsthand observers who said people were begging to be dropped into the vats of acid head first or into the grinders. Weapons of mass destruction were used on the Kurds up north, and hundreds of thousands of people were killed. The way he killed them with the type of gas, it was like burning yourself up from the inside. People described what the people went through. Some on this floor and a lot of people on the campaign trail say no terrorists were in Iraq prior to the liberation. Evidence has shown the contrary. I say this because, first of all, if there had never been even a discussion of weapons of mass destruction, just the things that this guy had done to the hundreds of thousands of people was enough justification for going in. We, as a free nation, cannot allow that type of thing to happen. Now we find, yes, there were terrorist training camps there. Sargat was an international training camp in northeastern Iraq near the Iranian border. It was run by Ansar al-Islam, a known terrorist organization. Based on information from the U.S. Army Special Forces, operators who led the attack on Sargat said it is more than plausible that al-Qaida members trained in that particular area. The Green Berets discovered among the dead in Sargat foreign ID cards, airline ticket receipts, visas, and passports from Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Morocco, and many other places. Salman Pak was the name of another city there. That is where we found the fuselage of a 707. That is where they were training people--all the evidence was there--to hijack airlines. That was a terrorist training camp. That is in Iraq. I don't think we will ever know whether the perpetrators of the tragedy 7 years ago today were trained in Salman Pak. I don't think there is any way of ever knowing that. Certainly, that is what they were doing at that time. So in the aftermath of September 11 we have worked together to do things to preclude this kind of attack from happening--the PATRIOT Act, we created the Department of Homeland Security, the position of Director of National Intelligence to try to coordinate. One of the things I remember when I came to the Senate from the House in 1994 is my predecessor was David Boren who happened to have been the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said: I am hoping you may be able to do something I have never been able to do, and that is to get all these competing intelligence agencies--such as DIA and others--to work together. That wasn't happening until 9/11. That shock treatment is what it took to get people to work together. In doing so, we know many potential attacks on our country have been prevented. When we look at what we are commemorating today and the people we know, the loved ones we lost, we recognize we have done some things we should have done before probably. Those of us who have traveled to Israel know they live from day to day not knowing if, when they are sitting in a coffee shop, it is going to blow up or when getting on a bus there are going to be bombs going off. They have learned to live with it. We now have learned the lesson of 7 years ago. We have taken precautions. We have prevented attacks from happening. We have evidence of all kinds of things--water systems that were going to be contaminated--and we think of the tragedy of 7 years ago today. If we look at the potential tragedy of an incoming missile hitting a major city in America, we would be looking at maybe 300,000 people. That is what it is all about now: making sure nothing of this dimension or anything else will happen again. This is a very special day, and it is one that is very meaningful to most of us--I think to all Americans. One thing we can do is remember, remember that terrorists are still out there. I was asked on a radio show this morning: There are so many people out there saying, why don't you just forget this thing? That was 7 years ago. Why keep bringing it up? Why keep stirring it up? Why can't we get beyond that? My response was we cannot do that because of what happened to so many people. But more importantly than that is this is a constant reminder. Every year we need to be reminded that there are terrorists still out there. They hate everybody who is in this building, and they hate this building. You think about what could have happened 7 years ago if those very brave people in Pennsylvania hadn't stopped what was happening. This dome, most likely, would not be here. It was an easy target. That is the reminder. The terrorists are still out there. They still want to kill us. They are still cowards. They still have no country and they have no cause, except to destroy us. So this reminder is here today, and I just, at this time, want to pay homage once again to the families of all those who lost their loved ones in the tragedy that took place. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. That is correct. I say to the Senator from Virginia, we have been working on this, you and I together, along with several other Senators on both sides of the aisle, for 8 years now that I know of. This should be the day that we come to the happy conclusion and make sure it does happen. I wonder why things that are so right are so long in coming. He and I both know, after the years we have served, it is not all that easy sometimes. I thank the Senator for all of his support for the survivor benefits and all the things we have done since--actually prior to 2001.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, let me thank the distinguished ranking member for the fine work he is doing on the Defense authorization bill. We have to get this done at a later time because there will not be time. Right now I would like to address some of the comments that were made in the last few minutes about what some people misinterpret as not a successful operation in Iraq. I think it is amazing that you can be successful, all of our troops over there bathe in the success we have had in Iraq and still refer to it as an invasion instead of a liberation. Later on I will address those remarks. Right now it is my understanding--I would ask if it is accurate--that the chairman and myself, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, will be involved in about either 1 hour or 90 minutes equally divided, I would ask the Chair. This is on the highway trust fund fix.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. INHOFE. Let me first compliment Senator Nelson for bringing this up. This has been something we have been wrestling with now for more than 8 years and we are finally going to have an opportunity to make it happen. It is a long overdue fix in the Survivor Benefit Plan and I am honored to be a cosponsor of this amendment. It clearly states that a surviving spouse and dependents of our veterans should receive the full value of the SBP and the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation--DIC-- without an offset. Here is what the problem has been in the past. They would receive one or the other, but the other would be offset against it so our surviving spouses would not have the full benefit. Let's look at what it is. They have distinct purposes. The DIC, the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, is tax free and it compensates for a service-connected death and the resulting economic loss. That is what that stands for. The SBP, the Survivor Benefit Plan, is more like a life insurance policy. Survivors are qualified for SBP only because their spouses bought it with monthly premiums. It is time we gave back these benefits to families of those who have served bravely in the defense of our Nation. I think it is an insult to their honor and their memory to do anything else. Many of us have fought for years to ensure the SBP pays survivors as it was intended. I, along with 38 colleagues, sponsored the SBP Benefits Improvement Act of 2001. We are talking about quite a number of years ago. It amended the Federal provisions concerning the Military Survivor Benefit Plan to adjust the basic annuity amount for surviving spouses of former military personnel and adjust similarly the authorized percentage amounts of SBP supplemental annuity authorized for such spouses. Again, I cosponsored, with 45 colleagues, the Military Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2003 to accomplish the same thing. We have worked diligently to change the laws covering the concurrent receipt and have been successful. This legislation is the logical expansion of the same principle, acknowledging that the surviving spouses and dependents should not be left behind. Every year for the last 3 years we voted to include this legislation in our version of the National Defense Authorization Act. We have the authorization bill--I should say the reauthorization bill--every year. We put it in. Then, somehow, in conference it comes out. As the Chair knows, we cannot discuss what happens in conference other than we know the results. The results were this was something we wanted to do, we had it in, it came out. In 2006, 2007, and 2008, we agreed to repeal this SBP/DIC offset and every year it has been dropped by the conference committee. Again, that is something nobody knows why. I, frankly, do not know why and I am on the conference. With this amendment we rectify a longstanding injustice to widows and dependents whose spouses or parent died, of a military service-related cause, who are sacrificing a dollar of the DOD Survivor Benefit Plan for every dollar of the VA Dependency and Indemnity Compensation they receive. Finally, after all these years it is going to become a reality. I applaud the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, for bringing it up. I encourage everyone to agree to this amendment. I think it will be agreed to because it has had favorable treatment from our defense committee, our Armed Services Committee, for a number of years now. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, right now the pending business, as I understand it, is the Bill Nelson amendment, is that correct?

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I regret that we had hearings all morning in the Environment and Public Works Committee on another crisis; that is, we are going to have to do something about the trust fund to get it jarred loose before we can get out of here. There is going to be a serious problem in the Nation's infrastructure, and it was necessary that I be there. However, I regret that I missed the discussion of the Vitter amendment. Many members of the Armed Services Committee are very concerned about the ability of the missile defense system. Some of us have been around long enough to remember back in the Reagan administration when this whole thing started. At that time, there was an attempt to denigrate the threat that was out there, calling it Star Wars and other things. But, in fact, the problem was very real. It took a lot of vision. That administration set about to give us the capability that we would need, when the need was there. We were pretty much on course. Missiles have become a key component to the militaries of many countries now that were not a problem back at that time. Our enemies are advancing their ability to reach out and hit us, our allies, and our forward-deployed forces in a devastating way. We have a different threat now than we had at one time. People are now aware of it. I can recall that I disagreed with President Clinton when he took a lot of the money out of the national missile defense system. I think it was the 1996 Defense authorization bill he vetoed. The veto message said that we are spending too much money on a threat that is not out there for the foreseeable period. Now I think we realize this problem is there. This is a complicated subject. One of the problems we have--and I have this with a lot of my conservative friends-- is that people will look at it and say: We don't need to have all this redundancy in a missile defense system. Right now, we are talking about the boost phase, the midcourse phase, and the terminal defense segment. In these areas, we need to have at least two capabilities such as the airborne laser and the kinetic energy booster in the boost defense segment. So people who say that perhaps we don't have that need and that it is redundant don't think of the consequences. As tragic as 9/11 was, I am sure all of us have thought about what could have happened or what could have been or might have been prevented as a result of the increase in some of our collection systems to prevent a missile from coming in. We know countries have missiles. They have weapons of mass destruction, and they have delivery systems. The combination is varied. We are talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of people or millions of people who could be killed. There are a lot of areas where the midcourse defense segment was the only one that would be effective in knocking down an incoming missile. We are working hard now on the terminal defense segment. I applaud the Missile Defense Agency and the work they have been doing because they have been able to analyze this and see where the threat is, why it should be dealt with. When they developed a budget, they put the amount of money in there they thought was necessary to keep on course to get us to the point where we would be able to adequately defend America against an incoming missile. I think they have done that. We took some 400, I believe, out of that amount, and the Vitter amendment is trying to reinstate that. In 1993, the Clinton administration cut $2.5 billion from the Bush missile defense budget request for fiscal year 1994; terminated the Reagan-Bush Strategic Defense Initiative program; downgraded national missile defense to a research and development program only; cut 5-year missile defense funding by 54 percent from $39 billion to $18 billion; and reaffirmed a commitment to the ABM Treaty, saying any defense must be ``treaty- compliant.'' A lot of people honestly in their hearts--and I respect them for having a different opinion than mine--think that the answer is not in missile defense system but in arms control. This is what we went through during the middle 1990s. But we have reached a level of sophistication now where we have watched our tests become successful. People used to ridicule those of us who were for this program a long time ago: You will never be able to hit a bullet with a bullet. But we have done it now. So the technology has come along. To not stay on track is something that would be devastating. Right now, we are looking at countries such as North Korea and Iran developing ballistic missile capabilities and delivery systems. There should not be any doubt that these countries would actually use them. The only way to deter that is to have a defense system. I think it is wise for us--and I think all of America agrees that the threats are out there; we need to have the capability of deterring when it comes in--that we do what is necessary to meet that test. We have relied upon the experts in the Missile Defense Agency and those of us who have studied this to determine what it should cost. Making a mistake here is not like making a mistake in some other area. If we make a mistake here and are incapable of knocking down something that is coming into a populated area, that is a disaster that is beyond description. As tragic as 9/11 was, multiply that by 100 or whatever it might be in the case that we don't stay on course. So what I would encourage us to do is to go ahead and adopt the Vitter amendment. What he has done is said: Take it from other areas. It will be covered. But this shows that there should be that priority. I believe that priority is certainly justified. As we follow through what has happened over the past few years, what happened in 1998 when they opposed and helped kill the legislation that called for the deployment as soon as technologically possible--we remember that well. Those of us on the Armed Services Committee have watched that moving target as time has gone by. But that is really the key, to be sure we have a national missile defense system deployed as soon as technologically possible because we know what other countries are doing. We know people are trading technology. We know that China is trading technology, that North Korea is trading technology, and countries such as Iran are rapidly gaining this capability. Our enemies out there don't like America. This is the most defensive program we should have in defending my 20 kids and grandkids and all of America. I strongly encourage in this process that we reinstate the amount of money that the experts say is necessary to stay on course to defend America. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I don't object, Mr. President, but I would also like to be included in that particular order just given.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we do not have a UC on the majority side, but we do on the minority side. So our next speakers will be in the order of 10 minutes for Senator Gregg, 10 minutes for Senator Coburn, and then I will wind up the final 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, seeing no one on the other side of the aisle, I yield to the junior Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, for 10 minutes.