Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 20 minutes as in morning business.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask for the regular order. Are we in morning business?

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, on February 6 of 2007, the administration announced their intention to create a new unified command, the United States African Command, or AFRICOM. The U.S.-Africa command is a partnership between military and civilian communities that will focus on existing programs such as the training of peacekeeping forces that enable African nations and regional organizations to improve security on the continent. The National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, said: AFRICOM is a command that would be established for Africa . . . It would be a partnership, really, between military and civilians, and its principal focus would be to continue some of the activities that we are already doing to try and train peacekeeping forces so that countries in Africa and regional organizations in Africa can take more of a role in dealing with the conflicts and the problems on the continent. It is ironic that we have these COMs, these commands all over the world. Yet Africa is divided into three commands: the Pacific Command, the European Command, and the Central Command. Africa has now become, in my opinion, the most significant continent that we need to pay more attention to. I think I am uniquely qualified to talk about this. Two days ago, I made my 97th African country visit. The last country we were in this last week--there were some five countries--was Ethiopia, a very significant part of it. I also started my efforts in Africa long before we had a lot of military interest in Africa. Mine was more of a mission type of thing. I became very familiar with all of Africa. I now have had an opportunity to sit down and visit personally and develop intimate relations with the Presidents of some 28 African nations, their Parliaments and many of the leaders there. As a matter of fact, I was in Ethiopia 7 years ago, when we came upon a little girl. She had nothing. The little girl was an orphan. She was 3 days old. She wasn't healthy--didn't look like she would live at all. They put her into an orphanage, where they did the very best with what they had. Like so many orphanages, she was actually put in a bucket. They had this cute little girl in there, feeding her intravenously through her scalp at the time. Anyway, there is a long story that goes with that, but the short version is my wife and I have been married 48 years and have 20 kids and grandkids and one of our daughters, Molly Rapert, had only boys. She wanted a little girl so she adopted this girl. This is my adopted African granddaughter. It is kind of funny. She was found abandoned as an orphan in Addis Abba, in Ethiopia. Yet this little girl has turned into quite a genius. In fact, 3 weeks ago at the National Prayer Breakfast I was in charge of the African dinner. I say to the Presiding Officer, this little granddaughter of mine was the speaker that night--7 years old. I have more than a passing interest in Africa. It is a family interest too. During my time on the continent, I have seen the significant and strategic place in the world that Africa holds because of the sheer size of Africa. People don't realize, if we go from Mauritania to Ethiopia, east to west, it takes 7 hours flying. If you go from north to south, from Cape Town up to Algeria, it is 9 hours. It is a huge continent. The rest of the world is now realizing its importance. I think our timing is very good. It is only a year ago that we embarked upon this idea that we were going to be holding up Africa and supporting it. A lot of people don't realize the significance of Africa, that Africa is the area where, as the squeeze takes place in the Middle East on terrorism, a lot of it goes down through the Horn of Africa, through Djibouti and that area, and spreads out throughout Africa. Other countries are realizing how important it is. They are doing something about it. The new French President, Sarkozy, said during a recent trip to South Africa that Africa should have at least one permanent seat in the U.N. Security Council and that France would no longer accept major world affairs being discussed without a leading African country being involved. There are many countries, such as China, expanding influence in Africa. I can tell you that, as you go through Africa, anything that is new and shiny--a bridge, a colosseum, anything such as that that is given to them by China. China is trying to get a foothold there. China has the same problem in its dependency on outside sources for oil as we do. They are beating us to some of these areas in Africa. Huge reserves are being developed in Africa. All that is very significant. Currently, over 700 Chinese state companies conduct business in Africa, making China the continent's third largest trading partner. The United States and France are first and second. I have also seen, in my many travels to Africa, the great strength and perseverance in the African people, in their fight to overcome great obstacles such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, poverty, wars. In order to achieve security and stability, we have to work to eliminate the root causes of poverty and poor governance. Fighting terrorism in the region has become critical. Examples of terrorism we remember--it was not too long ago the bombings of our embassies in Tanzania and in Kenya and more recently the bombings in Morocco and Algeria. African countries have become more vulnerable as al-Qaida has infiltrated into the Horn of Africa. As the surge is working--yesterday after leaving Africa, I went to the European command and looked at the progress we are making. We were, yesterday afternoon, in Iraq. Good things are happening there. The surge is clearly working. As the surge works, what happens is, as I described, a lot of the terrorist activities go down into the most convenient place and the most vulnerable and that is the continent of Africa. It has been reported terrorist networks in Somalia and Eritrea work together, increasing their capability. If you go into northern Uganda-- this is something very few people know about. Everyone knows about the problems in the Sudan and many of the other areas of Africa. But how many people know the children's Army being developed by a man named Joseph Kony. The LRA, the Lord's Resistance Army, for 30 years now they have been taking kids out of villages, little 11-, 12-, 13-, 14-year- old kids, teaching them to be soldiers. Once they learn to be soldiers, they have them take an automatic weapon and go back to their villages and murder their family. If they don't do this, they maim them, they cut their ears and lips off. This has been going on for a long time. These horrible things are going on, and a lot of that is because we, the free world, have not given our attention to Africa that we should have a long time ago. We see the conflicts in Kenya taking place right now, the young democracy that has unfortunately exploded into tribal conflict. More than 1,000 people after the December election were killed. Last month, there were 500 European Union troops who were sent to protect Chad's capital from being taken over by the rebels; 3,700 EU troops are presently protecting thousands of refugees along Chad's border with Sudan as well as the neighboring Central African Republic. In February, the United Nations ordered its regional force to withdraw to Ethiopia after the Eritrean Government cut their field supplies. Let's keep in mind it was Eritrea, when we had the problem in Somalia, that went down and sided with the terrorists. It was, of course, Ethiopia that joined us, as well as other countries such as Uganda and Burundi. The United States has a long history offering support, helping establish security on the African Continent. Thomas Jefferson was the first President to send American troops to the coast of Africa to ward off the Barbary pirates plaguing the Mediterranean and threatening the security of Europe and the new colonies. This is kind of funny. That was Thomas Jefferson. Today the same thing is happening in the Sea of Guinea. They have new discoveries of oil so there is pirating going on, and we are over there trying to help the surrounding countries defend themselves. This command is going to go a long ways toward doing that. We continue to support African nations in the area for security and stability and health and education initiatives. In 2003, the United States helped to bring stability to Liberia. In Djibouti, the Combined Joint Task Force for the Horn of Africa has been involved in developmental activities, including building schools and digging wells. I have had occasion to be in Eritrea several times. It is probably the least known country in Africa. It is becoming better known because of all the atrocities that are taking place there. The administration recently pledged $15 billion through the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief and significantly is contributing to the fight on AIDS. People complain: Why are we spending money to help Africans on HIV/ AIDS? That is their problem. They are dealing with their problems themselves. I had occasion last week to be with the First Lady of Zambia. The First Ladies all throughout Africa are the ones who are doing the most to combat HIV/AIDS. The First Lady of Zambia has put together a group of First Ladies who are significantly having an impact. President Gbagbo's wife Simone in Cote d'Ivoire is very actively attacking the problem there. Janet Museveni in Uganda has been honored in the United States for her work on HIV/AIDS. Most recently, the one I think is really doing the best job is the wife of the Prime Minister of Ethiopia. Prime Minister Zenawi's wife Azeb is heading up a group that is having great positive impact on HIV/AIDS. So they are helping themselves. The United States is partnering with African countries in effective programs such as IMET. I am on the Armed Services Committee, and it is one of the strongest programs we have to develop close relations with other countries. It is a military program where we invite the officers to come over and get trained with our officers. Once they are trained with our officers, that develops a bond that stays there from then on. If we don't do it, other countries such as China are willing to. We have dramatically improved our train-and-equip sections so that we can help commanders in the field train and equip other countries. Primarily, my concern is in Africa, and that is happening. Those programs are proving to be vital resources by aiding developing countries in the professionalism of their militaries. Africa is an avenue that the United States can use to aid Africa as it continues to grow into a secure democratic continent with a growing economy. Africa's challenges, its growing strategic significance, and the potential impact of failing states and ungoverned areas on U.S. security will require increased emphasis on interagency cooperation. Currently, the African Continent is divided between three commands. You have the Pacific Command, the Central Command, and the European Command. The division of responsibilities has caused problems in coordinating activities and creating seams between commands, especially in key areas of instability or of conflict. One seam creating difficulty lies between Sudan--under the CENTCOM, or the Central Command--and Chad, immediately adjoining it, and the Central African Republic. The last one is under the European Command. They are right next to each other but under two different commands. Bureaucratically, it is a nightmare; you can't coordinate activities. The recent conflict in Chad and the continuing conflict in Sudan emphasize the need for the United States to respond to these conflicts and to be unified. As AFRICOM becomes operational, these divided responsibilities will no longer exist. It is set up to be operational by October of this year. We have a great guy who is going to be commanding general. He has already been confirmed, GEN William ``Kip'' Ward. Kip Ward's military service includes tours all over the world but with a real emphasis and interest in Africa. He was confirmed by the Senate in September. General Ward has expressed a vision of hope for Africa and for the role the United States plays in that vision. General Ward believes in the need to address crisis situations before they arise and to address them at the microlevel, at the perspective of the individual victim, which is critical in bringing about solutions. AFRICOM's aim will be a preventative approach on the local level, giving hope in times of adversity and a way forward for the future in both security and development. General Ward is the right guy for the job. He has stressed that the purpose of the command is to enable African solutions to African challenges, to support African leadership rather than usurping or suppressing African leadership and sovereignty. This is very important. It was the right military decision for us in the United States to become interested in helping Africans develop five African commands. These would be north, south, east, west, and central. Only two of the locations have been determined right now. But we make it very clear to Africa, we are not doing this. We are not the ones who are putting the brigades in there. We are helping them to put their own brigades there so they can take care of their own problems. In Somalia, African countries such as Ethiopia, Burundi, and Uganda have sent in troops to help stabilize the government there. We couldn't have done that without the support of Africans. The African Union troops have recently arrived in the Comoros Islands near Madagascar to help its military regain control of an island where a renegade leader has declared himself President. The development of the African standby brigades is a good example of how we are helping them to help themselves. So AFRICOM is expected to become fully operational the first of October 2008. It is going to be at least temporarily located in Stuttgart, Germany. My personal preference would be to have it someplace in Africa. Right now, there is some resistance to that, so we will keep it in Stuttgart for the time being. In fiscal year 2008, Congress appropriated $75 million to the command, and in fiscal year 2009, the President has requested $389 million. I know this sounds like a lot of money, but I can't think of anyplace where we can actually save money more than by helping the Africans build up themselves and bring their allegiance in to us. We have to support AFRICOM with adequate funding to enable the command to be fully equipped to face the challenges they have only in Africa. I already introduced a resolution that is S. Res. 480. I am joined by about 12 or 14 Members. I invite my friends from both sides of the aisle who have a heart for Africa and believe in what we are doing to join in this resolution. The resolution encourages the Department of Defense and the State Department and USAID to work cooperatively with our African friends to bring hope to the continent. So often, when you try to put together a program such as train and equip, the State Department seems to think that the Department of Defense is taking away some of its power. It becomes a turf battle. We don't want that to happen. It looks as if it will not happen in this case. The resolution emphasizes that AFRICOM is expected to support, not shape, U.S. foreign policy in Africa so that we would be working together. Finally, I encourage my friends in Africa to work together with AFRICOM to find solutions to issues facing Africans today. Under General Ward's leadership, I believe AFRICOM can provide that hope to the people, and I believe that is going to happen. I was in a Stuttgart meeting, the first official meeting of a Member of Congress with the new African Command or the new AFRICOM. I became convinced, looking around the table at all the people, this is the first time you see many of the bureaucracies sitting around the same table. This didn't happen before because it was not a unified command. This unified command will allow that to happen. There is no place in the world that needs more attention by us right now. When you talk about the war on terror, the next area we will have to concentrate on is Africa. By taking these steps now, Africans will be prepared to handle their own problems and not have us do it for them. I am very pleased with the successes we have had. We have been talking about a new African Command now for about 10 years. Finally, it will become a reality this year. We need to encourage a lot of people to start participating, maybe to the same level I am participating with the country of Africa. It is a beautiful thing that is happening right now. I believe we are going to make great progress as a result of the African Command. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4239 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my intention to withdraw this amendment, but I wish to use this moment to serve notice that this is something that not just myself but several of us are concerned about, particularly those of us on the Senate Armed Services Committee. We have gone through a period of time, up until the early nineties, when our defense spending was somewhere around--in fact, for the entire 100 years in the 20th century, it averaged 5.7 percent of GDP. At the end of the nineties, it got down to just under 3 percent. If we are to anticipate the needs we will have in the future, it is going to be necessary to have some kind of a floor. What this amendment says is we will have to start the process by putting 4 percent of the GDP into the defense system. It is one that would accomplish three things. First, it would allow us to build the next generation of weapons and equipment. As we know, we are doing one weapon right now that will take the next 30 years. Second, it will add predictability to the industrial base. And third, it sends a clear message to our military, allies, and enemies that we are committed to the security of our Nation. It shocks a lot of people when they find out we have platform weapons systems that are not as good as our potential adversaries. This would correct that problem. Amendment No. 4239 Withdrawn Mr. President, I ask that this amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing great concern for families struggling during these tough economic times. Costs are going up. Prices for everyday goods are increasing. Food costs are skyrocketing. Heating and electricity prices are on the rise. The price of gas is breaking all-time records. The family budget is being strapped. We all agree this is a time of great economic uncertainty. But we disagree about how Congress should respond to this situation. What is the Federal Government's role? I will tell you precisely how we should not respond--when the costs of food and fuel for families are going through the roof. We should not add to that burden by increasing the cost of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, that is precisely what my friends on the Democrat side plan to do with their budget. With the family budget under serious threat, the other side of the aisle plans to expand the federal budget--at the expense of the family budget. I say to my friends: if there was ever a time not to raise taxes, if there was ever a time not to increase the costs people pay for the federal government, that time is now. Yet this budget contains the largest tax increase in America's history. We all hear about rising energy costs. However, families are also taking another big hit in the pocketbook with food prices that are increasing at their fastest rates since 1990. Prices for many groceries are rising at double-digit rates. Milk prices increased 26 percent last year. The price for eggs is up 40 percent. Cheese prices have doubled from a year ago. Beef prices are up 50 percent. Flour is up about 20 percent since last year. Taken as a whole, food and beverage prices are rising at 4 percent a year, which is the fastest rate of increase in 20 years. All indicators point to this trend continuing, if not worsening. Food, which accounts for about 13 percent of the family budget, is not the only expense that has seen dramatic increases. Energy costs now consume about 4 percent of a family's budget. On Monday, gas prices set a record high of $3.227 per gallon--while oil prices broke the all- time, inflation-adjusted record and rose to $108 per barrel. The cost of heating and powering a home is rising. The Energy Department is forecasting sustained increases in the demand and prices of electricity and residential energy usage. It is important to remember that even modest increases in home energy prices have a significant impact on the budgets of middle-income Americans. Undoubtedly, the costs of many items in the family budget are increasing. In this context, Democrats are rolling out their budget plan, and what do we see? Unbelievably, we see plans to radically increase the cost that families will pay for the Federal Government. With the cost of so many household essentials skyrocketing, why are we raising the cost of the Federal Government? This is the last thing the economy needs. And it is the last thing families need. This year, the Federal Government will tax $21,604 per household, spend $25,117 per household, and run a deficit of $3,513 per household. But it is not enough. It never is. The budget we are considering contains a $1.2 trillion tax hike. On top of the thousands of dollars families are already paying for the Federal Government, on top of food costs and energy costs reaching stratospheric levels, the majority party is rolling out a budget plan with record tax increases. This budget plan increases taxes by more than $2,300 each year for 43 million families with children. $2,300 in addition to what these families are already paying. I watch my colleagues on the other side come down to the floor one after another and complain that the Federal Government does not have enough money. Might I remind my friends that this budget is a $3 trillion budget. This government spends more money than the entire economies of most countries. In 2006, only two countries had entire economies--every good and service produced within their borders--bigger than $3 trillion. One was the United States. The other was Japan at $4 trillion. Germany ranked third in world GDP. Amazingly, my colleagues have proposed a budget that is bigger than Germany's entire economy in 2006. Under the Democrat's budget, 43 million families face tax increases of $2,300. What could $2,300 buy for an American family? I started by talking about food costs, which are rising at the fastest rate in two decades. $2,300 could buy 8 month's worth of groceries for a family. Then I talked about record-setting energy costs; $2,300 could buy a family's electricity and home heating oil for an entire year. Now more than ever, we need to protect the family budget from the Federal budget. The Democrat budget does exactly the opposite, containing massive tax increases. It deserves to be defeated. While the family budget is under threat by Democrat's nondefense spending, our Nation is under threat by global terrorist forces. We must support our courageous men and women in uniform by adequately funding defense spending. The greatest trust placed upon Congress by the American people is to provide for their security by maintaining a strong national defense. It is a trust we cannot betray. However, we are rapidly reaching a crossroads--a nexus that will determine America's security for the next several decades. To better understand where we are today, it is important to understand how we arrived at this point. This Nation's historical pattern has been one of a small professional military in peacetime, rapidly supplemented by a mobilization of civilians during war, followed by a rapid demobilization at the war's end. This demobilization or downsizing occurs within a context of balancing risks and threats. The trick is to retain and fund a force of sufficient size and capability to deter or dissuade, and, if necessary, to fight and win. In the late 1970s, the military of the United States was a hollow force--low morale, low pay, outdated equipment, and unable to maintain the equipment it possessed. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan expanded the military budget, increased troops size, reenergized weapons procurement, and revived our intelligence capabilities . . . returning this country back to its superpower status. The Cold War officially ended in 1990. Much of this Nation's firepower is a legacy of the Reagan years. With the demise of the Soviet Union, our military was downsized to counter a ``perceived'' diminished world threat. Unfortunately, the global strategic environment has since then become increasingly complex, dynamic, lethal, and uncertain. During the Clinton administration, I was on the floor every 2 weeks warning that we would live to regret the massive cuts and procurement holiday of the 1990's. I believe one of the great tragedies of our national security history is the military spending during this time passed. Between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 2001, the DOD budget experienced a downward trend, $313.3 billion less than if it stayed true to the rate of inflation. Clinton's proposed budget was $99 billion less than what Congress believed defense required. The Clinton/ Gore administration cut the defense budget by 40 percent, reducing it to its lowest percentage of the gross national product since before World War II. As a result of these budgetary cuts, today's force is half the size of the military in the 1990s. The Army was reduced from 18 divisions to 10, the Air Force from 37 tactical air wings to 20, and the Navy from 568 ships in the late 1980s to only 276 today. As our forces decreased in size, the number and lengths of deployments increased and international terrorism took the forefront. Afghanistan was used as a training ground for terrorists and the Taliban regime allowed al-Qaida unfettered mobility. On February 26, 1993, a car bomb was planted in the underground parking garage below the World Trade Center, foreshadowing the 9/11 attacks. On June 25, 1996, the Khobar towers were bombed by Hezbollah, with intelligence pointing to support by al-Qaida. On August 7, 1998, there were simultaneous bombings at the U.S. embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. On October 12, 2000 suicide bombers used a boat to attack the USS Cole while it was moored in Yemen. America's response was comparatively restrained and, at best, inconsistent. Operation Infinite Reach included cruise missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan, but there was no real change. This inadequate response has been cited as a factor emboldening al-Qaida to undertake further plans. WMD proliferation throughout the world reached an unprecedented level. The Chinese government learned that it could rely on our acquiescence. They transferred prohibited weapons technology to North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and other countries, threatened to absorb Taiwan, and intimidated our regional treaty allies, South Korea, and Japan. During this period, our country concluded, as Secretary Gates put it, ``that the nature of man and the world had changed for the better, and turned inward, unilaterally disarming and dismantling institutions important to our national security--in the process, giving ourselves a so-called ``peace'' dividend . . .'' We were wrong. The reason I talk about this is because it highlights what can happen when we don't adequately fund our military and provide it with stability and predictability about its future. The United States must build and sustain military capabilities required to respond to possible future threats across the spectrum of conflict. The next war will not be like the past one--history has taught us this. We cannot assume freedom of the seas, freedom of air and space, and freedom of maneuver on the ground. In order to provide stability, America must be able to deter or defeat any threat, be it an insurgency or a challenge from a near-peer competitor. In order to provide this stability, Congress needs to guarantee a baseline in funding. Guaranteeing a baseline budget, one that is indexed to our GDP, is the best way to accomplish this. Historically, defense spending was 4.6 percent in 1991 during the gulf war; 8.9 percent in 1968 during Vietnam; and 11.7 percent in 1953 during the Korean war. Across the last century, it has averaged about 5.7 percent. The fiscal year 2009 defense budget is $541.1 billion--approximately 3.3 percent of GDP. We can no longer afford to kid ourselves that we are still sending our sons and daughters out with the best equipment available. In some cases, we simply can't match the quality of our competitors. In other cases, while we may have developed a superior system, we have restricted the quantity to a point where many of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are forced into battle with the older, inferior equipment. Many other countries are able to buy avionics, airframes, and weapons--often mixed and matched together--to create aircraft that rival our current F-15, F-16, or Navy and Marine F-18, such as Russian Su-30s and 35s, or upgraded MiG-21s and MiG-29s. We can solve this problem if we decide to make the investment in our F-22 and F-35 programs, and buy the number needed to ensure American air superiority in the future. Despite the Air Force's requirement for 381 F-22 Raptors, it is now slated to only obtain 183. Some systems in the Army are overmatched by systems sold by other countries. Four other countries have better artillery systems than the U.S. The British AS90, the Russian 2S19, the South African G6, and the German PzH 2000 are all superior in rate of fire and range to our Paladin. Though we are currently investing in Future Combat Systems, the Army has been forced to extend the production time by 4 years. Our Navy and Marine Corps are being challenged by a variety of threats ranging from near-peer competitors, to non-state and transnational actors, to rogue nations and pirates. While trying to sustain and recapitalize their ships, submarines, aircraft, and ground equipment, they are being challenged across the globe. Russian and Chinese submarines continue to threaten our forces with China operating over 60 submarines. China, Japan, Australia, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Singapore, Bangladesh, and South and North Korea either now have or are planning to acquire submarines. While most do not pose much of a threat to our more advanced fleet, that dynamic is changing. It is simply unacceptable that we have been forced into this predicament. One can never predict future threats accurately. Our level of defense spending must consider the resources needed to meet current and future threats. A Pentagon official claimed 15 years ago that in 10 years we would no longer need a standing army. This is not the only example of flawed strategic thinking. We weren't able to predict the fall of the Soviet Union, or the rise in asymmetric warfare that we are currently engaged in. We built a force for 50 years that was predicated upon the idea that we would be fighting a conventional war against the Soviets in the heart of Europe. It doesn't matter how great our military leaders or intelligence is, our strategic thinking will always be imperfect. There will always be unknowns. Tying defense spending to GDP accomplishes three things. First, it will allow our military to develop and build the next generation of weapons and equipment: Weapons and equipment that will be needed to maintain national security for the next 30 years; that will provide increased capability across the spectrum of warfare; and that have lower lifetime costs and increased readiness rates. Second, it provides predictability for our military and industrial base. It allows the Department of Defense and the Services to plan and fund their acquisition programs based on a minimum known budget. We are no longer able to complete purchases of large acquisition programs in 3 to 5 years. To recapitalize the entire Air Force tanker fleet will take over 30 years. Programming from a known minimum budget for the out years will translate to less reprogramming and more stability for thousands of businesses throughout the United States at decreased costs. Finally, a commitment to a minimum defense budget sends a clear signal to our military, allies, and enemies alike that we are committed to the security of our nation and the preservation of freedom and democracy around the world. Congress must provide the Department of Defense with the certainty and stability that comes with a long-term defense-spending plan.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. I inquire of the Chair, is there a time certain for a vote?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are scheduled for a vote at 11 o'clock; is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE

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

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have gone through a lot of activity and a lot of anguish on the floor concerning the immigration bills. There was a comprehensive immigration bill that did not work. It was something some people thought would be a good idea and, frankly, I opposed it. But there is something that is happening right now that is a very good idea. There are 15 of us in the Senate who have taken different elements of concern having to do with illegal immigration, areas of specialty, if you will. It happens that 15 of us had a news conference yesterday, wherein we talked about approaching this differently--each one having his or her own legislation, and then you can support other legislation as you see fit. It happens that there will be 15 bills that will be introduced. I will have one of those, and I will be supporting 14 of the other 15, or 13 of the other 14. So I think the way we are approaching this is good. My area of specialty, that comes as no surprise, is in making English the national language. We have been talking about this for a long time. The approach we are talking about is a very simple approach. It is something that is popular. I have had this on the floor of the Senate twice. In 2006, it was amendment No. 4064. It passed the Senate by a vote of 62 to 35. Again, in 2007, the support was even greater. That was amendment No. 1151. It passed--that was last year--by a vote of 64 to 33. So it is something that clearly is popular. Let me explain the problem we have. One of the last things that was done in the Clinton administration was Executive Order 13166. This was an effort to make anyone who is receiving any kind of Government services to have the documentation in any language of his or her choice. It could be Swahili, it could be French, it could be any other language. Now, the effort to make English the national language is not purely symbolic, as some of my colleagues might believe; rather, it will have a tangible impact. After Executive Order No. 13166, there has been a high burden on Government agencies to provide translations for documents for services in virtually every language. The cost is tremendous. It is quite a range. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget estimated the cost of providing these services to be between $1 and $2 billion each year. The cost is not the only drawback of the entitlements of Executive Order No. 13166. It ultimately enables immigrants to avoid learning English which, regretfully, hurts their chances of effective assimilation into American culture. Historically, one of America's greatest attributes is the unity provided by having a language that is commonly used throughout the country. It is important for new legal immigrants to learn this language so they might communicate and achieve success. As President Bush said in one of his messages, learning English ``allows newcomers to go from picking crops to opening a grocery [store] . . . from cleaning offices to running offices . . . from a life of low-paying jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own.'' I can't think of any issue we have had before the Senate during the time I have been here that is more popular than this. A 2006 Zogby poll found that 84 percent of Americans, including 71 percent of Hispanics, believe English should be the national language of government operations. According to a 2002 Kaiser Foundation survey, 91 percent of foreign-born Latino immigrants agreed that learning English is essential to success. We have polling data going all the way back to 1996. In each case, 84 to 90 percent of the American people want this to take place. I ask unanimous consent that these polls be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, about an hour ago, I was presenting a bill that we had introduced as part of 15 bills to resolve the illegal immigration problem. It is one that I have done many times before, which is making English the official language, or national language, for the United States. I think it is one that has enjoyed a great deal of popularity. It has passed this body before by almost a 2-to-1 margin, in 2006 and in 2007. At the conclusion of my presentation on this legislation, I neglected to ask that a copy of the bill, S. 2715, be printed in the Record following my remarks. I will soon ask that it be printed in the Record. Madam President, I am joined by several colleagues, including Senators Cochran, Wicker, Domenici, Shelby, and others, in introducing the Preserving Access to Hospice Act, a bill to ensure that America's terminally ill seniors have access to hospice care by providing immediate relief for hospices that are impacted by the Medicare hospice cap, through the establishment of a moratorium on the calculation and collection of the hospice cap for fiscal 2006, 2007, and 2008, and the authorization of a MedPAC study on the cap issue. My fellow Oklahoman in the House of Representatives, John Sullivan, today introduced the same companion bill on the House side. Because of a flawed law, the Federal Government is requiring hospices to repay the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, for serving eligible patients in prior years. Many small family and community-owned hospices will be forced to close, patients will lose access to hospice care, and local jobs will be lost. In Oklahoma especially, hospice care companies of all sizes service a large number of Oklahomans. In 1982, Congress initiated hospice as a Medicare benefit for terminally ill patients. In the 1980s and 1990s, Congress worked to broaden hospice coverage to ensure each eligible beneficiary has access to unlimited days of hospice care, regardless of their diagnosis. Medicare pays hospice a flat fee per patient per day regardless of the actual cost. The hospice is then responsible for all costs related to the care of its patient until their death, regardless of how long they remain under their care. However, under the hospice Medicare benefit, Medicare caps the number of days they will pay per patient. Hospices cannot manage this cap without rationing access of care to these terminally ill patients who elect the hospice benefit for however long they remain eligible. I have to say at this time that some of the best spent money in this type of care is the hospices. At the end of the care, CMS has been recalculating how much they have paid the hospice per patient and what the eligible cap days were for each patient. This is something done after the patient has already received care. If they paid the hospice more than was allowed under the cap, the hospice is required to repay Medicare. Therefore, hospices are being contacted by CMS and asked to repay millions of dollars used to care for these dying patients. In 1999, very few hospices were hitting the cap because Medicare had strict restrictions on who was eligible for the benefits. As the eligibility and longevity has increased, hospices started to go over the cap. In 2005, 41 percent of the hospices providing care in my State of Oklahoma received letters from CMS demanding repayment. Obviously, the recalculation is unfair and will result in patients being denied hospice care, and many Oklahoma hospices are going bankrupt. As Congress and CMS examine this issue, temporary relief is needed so that the patients can continue to have access to hospice care and hospice providers do not face bankruptcy. My legislation provides immediate relief for impacted hospices by establishing a moratorium on the calculation and collection of the hospice cap for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008, and authorizing a MedPAC study to determine the best way to address this hospice cap issue. I have been working since early 2007 to help small community hospices in Oklahoma as they face repayment letters from CMS for millions of dollars. Without a moratorium, these Oklahoma hospices, as well as hospices in numerous other States, will be unable to meet demands for repayment. As a result, hospices will be forced to close and discharge significant numbers of terminally ill patients, possibly into more expensive care. So I ask you to join me in supporting this legislation that will protect our terminally ill seniors' access to hospice care. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE. People need to understand the significance. When I brought this up before, there were three objections. They were really absurd. It is almost laughable. One was, we will have to change all the State flags because some of them have other languages. This has nothing to do with that. This merely says it is not an entitlement. It has nothing to do with State flags. Another Member said: Inhofe, you will not be able to speak Spanish on the Senate floor. I have given several speeches in Spanish on the Senate floor. I will not go into why that is good. It has been very helpful. This has nothing to do with that. Another said: You will have the blood of Hispanics on your hands. I said: How is that going to happen? They said: There are some strong currents down there in the Potomac, and we would not have ``no swimming'' signs in Spanish, so they wouldn't be able to read those. So they will go in there and drown. If we look back historically, we see that many Presidents had things to say about this matter, dating all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt, and as recently as a statement by Hillary Clinton in her campaign in Iowa in 2007, less than a year ago, where she said: ``You're going to have to learn English.'' This one goes back to 1916: Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope [they] will learn English, but that [they have] to learn English. Theodore Roosevelt was clear on this. Bill Clinton said in 1999 in his State of the Union message: We have a responsibility to make [our new immigrants] welcome here, and they have the responsibility to enter the mainstream of American life. That means learning English and learning about our democratic system of government. So everyone is in agreement. I don't know of anyone, nor any past President, who doesn't believe we are doing a great disservice by not helping our immigrants learn the English language. We will continue to promote this bill until it passes into law. It should be one of the easiest of the 15 bills that are going to approach the problem of illegal immigrants. It is my intention to continue. One of the interesting things about this is, there are 52 countries throughout the world who have English as their national language, including Ghana in West Africa. All of these countries have it except us. The bill is very simple. I can tell in one sentence what it does: Unless specifically provided by statute, no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services, or provide materials in any language other than English. This is the law of some 52 countries around the world, almost everywhere except in the United States. It would save ultimately somewhere between $1 and $2 billion. And there are the other logical reasons for doing this. We will be pursuing this as 1 of the 15 efforts to have not a comprehensive bill, but to address the problem of illegal immigration. I look around and I see others who have good programs too. The Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, has one that would utilize electronic evidence for employers so employers don't find themselves breaking the law as would have been the case on the previous bill. There are others wanting to finish the bridge. We will have 15 bills that we will be introducing or we have already introduced. If we can get all 15, that would pretty much resolve the problem. But it does afford the opportunity for any Member of this body to object to any area of interest in terms of these 15 bills. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. I will postpone my remarks until after the vote.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, in response to the widely publicized product recalls of last year, the Congress appropriated $80 million for fiscal year 2008 to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which was an increase of 28 percent. The CPSC was instructed to use the additional money to increase staff, workspace, and information technology resources. In December, the House of Representatives passed the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act, H.R. 4040, by an overwhelming vote of 407 to 0. It seems like that would have been a reasonable place to start. In fact, during this debate, a number of us voted in favor of Senator DeMint's amendment to completely substitute the bill we are now considering with the House-passed bill. H.R. 4040 incrementally increases CPSC's budget to $100 million for fiscal year 2011, requires third-party and pre-market testing of many children's product for lead and other hazards, and creates new lead standards for products. However, instead of focusing on product safety, we are now focusing on legislation seeming to simply benefit lawyers. Lawyers who, under this legislation, would have higher civil penalties and new punitive damages to pursue in whistleblower claims. The bill also allows State attorneys general to file lawsuits and enforce rules against manufacturers, conceivably creating 50 different standards of product safety laws; in other words, lawsuits as far as the eye can see. In fact, this week, a Wall Street Journal editorial referred to the Senate bill as ``Lawyers 'R' Us.'' We have tried to amend this bill and improve the problematic aspects of it, and have achieved very few positive changes. I will miss the vote on final passage. However, since I would be opposing it anyway, it would make no difference in the outcome. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing now will award a Congressional Commemorative Medal to Code Talkers of the Choctaw, Comanche, and other tribes in recognition of their service during World Wars I and II. For five years I have worked to honor these heroes since first introducing the ``Code Talkers Recognition Act'' in March of 2003. Last year's measure gained passage in the Senate with 79 cosponsors and I look forward to the bill's success this session of Congress as well. Native American Code Talkers deserve nothing less. Code Talkers from the Choctaw, Comanche and other tribes are true American heroes whose accomplishments have too long been forgotten. This legislation finally recognizes and honors a group of people who made a real difference in the fight for freedom during World Wars I and II. Their service on the front lines helped propel the allied forces to victory and saved countless lives in the process. I look forward to working in coordination with Congressman Dan Boren in the House of Representatives and all of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to ensure passage of this legislation and finally pass long- overdue recognition of Native American Code Talkers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing now will award a Congressional Commemorative Medal to Code Talkers of the Choctaw, Comanche, and other tribes in recognition of their service during World Wars I and II. For five years I have worked to honor these heroes since first introducing the ``Code Talkers Recognition Act'' in March of 2003. Last year's measure gained passage in the Senate with 79 cosponsors and I look forward to the bill's success this session of Congress as well. Native American Code Talkers deserve nothing less. Code Talkers from the Choctaw, Comanche and other tribes are true American heroes whose accomplishments have too long been forgotten. This legislation finally recognizes and honors a group of people who made a real difference in the fight for freedom during World Wars I and II. Their service on the front lines helped propel the allied forces to victory and saved countless lives in the process. I look forward to working in coordination with Congressman Dan Boren in the House of Representatives and all of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to ensure passage of this legislation and finally pass long- overdue recognition of Native American Code Talkers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I would.

Mr. INHOFE. I understand I have 15 minutes. I might wish to take a little bit longer than that. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for as long as 30 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator yield? I would like to know what the regular order is here.