Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. The Senator is correct. We asked Senators to agree to a procedure that limits amendments and have requested that they file them in advance. Because these amendments have been filed prior to floor consideration, I would agree that it may be necessary to modify them once we are given floor time.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me tell you something about what is about to happen if the unanimous consent request goes through. It is a significant bill. We have been working on it now during the last three authorizations, since the year 2000. Now, for 3 years, we have been working on this bill. We have had incredible cooperation, as everybody in the Chamber knows. It is always difficult to get something like this through, but it is necessary to keep this country moving. I will single out the members of the committee. I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee: Senators Thune, DeMint, Vitter, Warner, Isakson, Chafee, Murkowski. And Senator Voinovich of Ohio has been particularly helpful on this. He has a lot of interest in this bill. Of course, more than anybody else on the Republican side, Senator Bond, who is chairman of the subcommittee, has been very helpful. The big four in this case, of course, would be Senators Bond, Baucus, Jeffords, and myself. We have worked closely together to overcome some of the obstacles. Early on, there were several holds on this bill because it is complicated. It is one that almost is of the magnitude of the Transportation reauthorization bill. But we had several people who had concerns and we worked with them, including Senator Snowe, who was nice enough to help us with some of the facets she had objections to; Senator Sessions; Senator McCain; and, of course, the Democratic members of the committee who worked so well, including Senator Carper and Senator Lieberman, and Senators Clinton, Lautenberg, and Obama. Everybody was there working together. It was quite an undertaking to get us to the point where we are today. I will single out several others. Senator Gregg had some concerns also. Probably one of the persons I was really gratified to work with is Senator Feingold, the Senator from Wisconsin. I thank him for his cooperation. He had a number of amendments that I thought would be more than we could really handle. We had to get the number down to a certain number that is workable so we could have a time agreement to get this bill passed. I thank Senator Feingold for his cooperation and for agreeing to offer limited amendments under short time agreements. If he wanted to be hard to get along with, he could have had long agreements and this would have gone into many nights. He didn't do that. He agreed to short time agreements, which will make this possible to pass. His willingness to work with us is very much appreciated by me. Over the past few months, he consistently has been helpful and responsive in working on the WRDA bill. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his cooperation. This is going to be the first time that we have a lot that we need to authorize the Corps of Engineers to do in navigation flight control and environmental restoration. This bill will allow us to do that. I thank everybody for his or her cooperation. Let's go forward.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I introduce to you a bill to prevent the imposition of global taxes on the United States. The current efforts of the United Nations and other international organizations to develop, advocate, endorse, promote, and publicize proposals to raise revenue by instituting international taxes are unacceptable. The United Nations is not a sovereign nation and, therefore, does not have the legal capacity to levy taxes. Furthermore, paying taxes to an international organization like the UN would impair global commerce, hinder the defense capabilities of the United States, and continue to line the pockets of an organization that has historically been replete with mismanagement and corruption, especially in recent years. In order to avoid these consequences, the bill I bring before you will withhold 20 percent of dues from the United Nations and other international organizations if they continue to promote global taxes. Its passage will help preserve the sovereignty of our Nation and save American taxpayers from potentially paying billions of dollars every year to international organizations. The United Nations' record of developing and advocating global taxation goes back for more than a decade. Usually the organization's efforts have been done quietly so as not to elicit the ire of the United States. However, in 1996 Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali delivered a speech at Oxford University in which he openly embraced the concept of global taxes and authoritarian world government. Specifically, the Secretary General expressed a desire for the United Nations to ``not be under the daily financial will of the member states.'' Though the U.N. had tried to circumvent the Security Council and avoid member state scrutiny for many years by borrowing from international financial institutions, assuming control of bonds issued by Member States, and imposing fees on an extensive range of transactions, goods and services, this was the first time the concept of global taxation was so explicitly advocated. In response to the United Nations' actions, Senator Bob Dole and Representative Gerald Solomon introduced bills in both Houses of Congress in January of 1996 to put a stop to the United Nations' antics. These bills prohibited any voluntary or assessed contributions from the United States to the United Nations if the United Nations continued to develop and promote proposals for international taxes and fees. That legislation passed through the 104th and the 105th Congresses to become public law. Still, the United Nations continued to pursue global taxation. Later in 1996, the United Nations Economic and Social Council fully debated international taxation. After that, a United Nations Development Programme research project resulted in the publishing of a text entitled ``The Tobin Tax,'' which proposed a currency transaction tax. Global taxation was discussed in ``The Human Development Report'' in 1999 as well as at the United Nations Preparatory Committee for the International Conference on Financing for Development in 2001. Also in 2001, Ernesto Zedillo published a report which concluded ``there is a genuine need to establish, by international consensus, stable and contractual new sources of multilateral finance.'' Dialog arose at the Conference on Sharing Global Prosperity in Helsinki in 2003. In 2004, the United Nations University-World Institute for Development Economics Research issued a study on global taxation. Recently, the 2005 ``Human Development Report'' discussed proposals to levy international taxes in order to fund the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals. Some of the taxes the United Nations proposed in this report were taxes on aviation fuel, an airline passenger tax, and a currency transaction tax like the Tobin tax. At other points in time the U.N. has considered a global environmental levy, an ocean freight tax on international trade, and a military expenditures and arms tax. Innovative development financing mechanisms were the primary topics of discussion at a conference held in Paris on February 28 and March 1 of 2006. As a result of this conference and other discussions, various nations, most notably France, are already implementing an international tax on airline travel, with the approval of Kofi Annan. Plans for global taxes on currency transactions, energy use, and United States companies are also being considered. An official U.N.-sponsored book, ``New Sources of Development Finance,'' says that a proposed tax on oil, gas, coal and other carbon-based fuels could produce $750 billion a year in revenue for the U.N. and other global purposes. We have frequently reminded the United Nations of our sentiments regarding global taxation after legislation formally passed through Congress in 1996 and 1998. Recently, on August 30, 2005, the U.S. representative to the United Nations, John R. Bolton, clearly stated ``the United States does not accept global aid targets or global taxes.'' Shortly after, on September 13, 2005, 16 Senators joined with me in sending a letter to Kofi Annan which reiterated Mr. Bolton's message. Still, the United Nations has continued to research and promote different forms of international taxation. Since the United Nations is not listening to the United States, now it is time for Congress to back up our words. The bill I am introducing along with 31 colleagues states that if the United Nations or other international organizations continue to pursue global taxation, the United States will withhold 20 percent of assessed contributions to the regular budget of these organizations. This measure would last until certification is given by the President to Congress that neither the United Nations nor any other international organization has legal taxation authority in the United States, that no taxes or fees have been imposed on the United States, and that no taxes have been proposed by any of these organizations. The fascination of the United Nations and other international organizations with international taxation has gone on too long. Please join me in taking a stand for the sovereignty of our Nation by supporting this bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I introduce to you a bill to prevent the imposition of global taxes on the United States. The current efforts of the United Nations and other international organizations to develop, advocate, endorse, promote, and publicize proposals to raise revenue by instituting international taxes are unacceptable. The United Nations is not a sovereign nation and, therefore, does not have the legal capacity to levy taxes. Furthermore, paying taxes to an international organization like the UN would impair global commerce, hinder the defense capabilities of the United States, and continue to line the pockets of an organization that has historically been replete with mismanagement and corruption, especially in recent years. In order to avoid these consequences, the bill I bring before you will withhold 20 percent of dues from the United Nations and other international organizations if they continue to promote global taxes. Its passage will help preserve the sovereignty of our Nation and save American taxpayers from potentially paying billions of dollars every year to international organizations. The United Nations' record of developing and advocating global taxation goes back for more than a decade. Usually the organization's efforts have been done quietly so as not to elicit the ire of the United States. However, in 1996 Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali delivered a speech at Oxford University in which he openly embraced the concept of global taxes and authoritarian world government. Specifically, the Secretary General expressed a desire for the United Nations to ``not be under the daily financial will of the member states.'' Though the U.N. had tried to circumvent the Security Council and avoid member state scrutiny for many years by borrowing from international financial institutions, assuming control of bonds issued by Member States, and imposing fees on an extensive range of transactions, goods and services, this was the first time the concept of global taxation was so explicitly advocated. In response to the United Nations' actions, Senator Bob Dole and Representative Gerald Solomon introduced bills in both Houses of Congress in January of 1996 to put a stop to the United Nations' antics. These bills prohibited any voluntary or assessed contributions from the United States to the United Nations if the United Nations continued to develop and promote proposals for international taxes and fees. That legislation passed through the 104th and the 105th Congresses to become public law. Still, the United Nations continued to pursue global taxation. Later in 1996, the United Nations Economic and Social Council fully debated international taxation. After that, a United Nations Development Programme research project resulted in the publishing of a text entitled ``The Tobin Tax,'' which proposed a currency transaction tax. Global taxation was discussed in ``The Human Development Report'' in 1999 as well as at the United Nations Preparatory Committee for the International Conference on Financing for Development in 2001. Also in 2001, Ernesto Zedillo published a report which concluded ``there is a genuine need to establish, by international consensus, stable and contractual new sources of multilateral finance.'' Dialog arose at the Conference on Sharing Global Prosperity in Helsinki in 2003. In 2004, the United Nations University-World Institute for Development Economics Research issued a study on global taxation. Recently, the 2005 ``Human Development Report'' discussed proposals to levy international taxes in order to fund the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals. Some of the taxes the United Nations proposed in this report were taxes on aviation fuel, an airline passenger tax, and a currency transaction tax like the Tobin tax. At other points in time the U.N. has considered a global environmental levy, an ocean freight tax on international trade, and a military expenditures and arms tax. Innovative development financing mechanisms were the primary topics of discussion at a conference held in Paris on February 28 and March 1 of 2006. As a result of this conference and other discussions, various nations, most notably France, are already implementing an international tax on airline travel, with the approval of Kofi Annan. Plans for global taxes on currency transactions, energy use, and United States companies are also being considered. An official U.N.-sponsored book, ``New Sources of Development Finance,'' says that a proposed tax on oil, gas, coal and other carbon-based fuels could produce $750 billion a year in revenue for the U.N. and other global purposes. We have frequently reminded the United Nations of our sentiments regarding global taxation after legislation formally passed through Congress in 1996 and 1998. Recently, on August 30, 2005, the U.S. representative to the United Nations, John R. Bolton, clearly stated ``the United States does not accept global aid targets or global taxes.'' Shortly after, on September 13, 2005, 16 Senators joined with me in sending a letter to Kofi Annan which reiterated Mr. Bolton's message. Still, the United Nations has continued to research and promote different forms of international taxation. Since the United Nations is not listening to the United States, now it is time for Congress to back up our words. The bill I am introducing along with 31 colleagues states that if the United Nations or other international organizations continue to pursue global taxation, the United States will withhold 20 percent of assessed contributions to the regular budget of these organizations. This measure would last until certification is given by the President to Congress that neither the United Nations nor any other international organization has legal taxation authority in the United States, that no taxes or fees have been imposed on the United States, and that no taxes have been proposed by any of these organizations. The fascination of the United Nations and other international organizations with international taxation has gone on too long. Please join me in taking a stand for the sovereignty of our Nation by supporting this bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today this Chamber considers whether to send a constitutional amendment to the States and people of the United States, a United States that is represented by that glorious flag that stands to your right, Mr. President. This is not the first time the people's elected representatives have acted to protect the flag, but as a result of a willful judicial resolve, we are forced to take this decisive action as the people's duly elected policymakers. I find it highly doubtful that the Framers intended the first amendment to cover flag desecration as protected speech. I find it even more unlikely that they intended the courts to be able to tell Congress that it cannot protect our flag. Quoting Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist No. 78, it is Congress who ``prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated,'' not the courts. This is a principle I have consistently stood for and will stand for again when I vote in favor of S.J. Res. 12. When I see images on the news of different groups around the world burning American flags, it sickens my stomach. That is not speech: that is chaos. That is the mob mentality that is rebelliousness. That is conduct that appeals to the deepest and darkest parts of human nature. That is not the kind of riotous conduct that should be protected in this Nation; this amendment will allow us to make that clear once and for all. I have heard some say--Justice Brennan in Eichmann--that allowing protesters to burn the flag is the greatest tribute to that flag, that what the flag stands for allows those who hate it to abuse it. Though I understand the merits of this argument, I disagree that it gives any kind of real reason to allow this behavior. This pseudo reverent justification could also defend spitting on our soldiers returning from duty or the hateful, vile-spewing protesters who want to defile the funerals of our Nation's heroes. After all, it is our soldiers who give these protesters a free country in which to protest. Opponents say that one has a right to burn the flag. I say that we have a right not to have our flag burned. Countless soldiers and citizens have given their lives defending what this flag stands for. It is time that we, as the Congress of the United States, stand up and defend our flag, that we recognize that our national symbol that represents our system of laws is worthy of the protection of our laws.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four letters written in support of the nomination of Jerome Holmes to the Tenth Circuit be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the attached letter printed in the Record in support of my amendment No. 4064, to S. 261l.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Georgia. I think this is a very serious thing we are getting into. I have five very important points I plan to make to respond to statements that have been made in the Chamber here. One is I think the Chairman is right when he talks about the information wasn't there, wasn't adequately discussed during the markup. One of the reasons for that is the IDA study didn't even come out until May 15, and because of that, that was not a part of the conversation. Let me say one thing about the GAO study. I agree with the Senator from South Dakota. I am always leery of a new study that comes out the same day that an amendment is discussed and brought up in the Chamber, and that happened to be 3 days ago. I think it is quite a coincidence it came out at the same time. Having looked at the IDA study, we are on solid ground for pursuing this multiyear effort. Let me respond to our good friend, the Senator from Arizona, on the cost overruns and the delays. I cannot remember--I have been on this Armed Services Committee for 12 years and in the House for 8 years--one system that did not go through this same thing. In the Navy alone, they had many cost overruns. The joint strike fighter, now recognized as something we desperately need and are using, probably had more cost overruns. We had the Black Hawk upgrades, the same thing there. But the thing I remember the most is the C-17s because I was in the House at that time. It was delay after delay after delay, and stop and think, if we had at that point junked that, where would we be? Where would we have gone in Bosnia, Kosovo? Things were anticipated where we would desperately need it. Right now we need to increase the number of planes. That I think we all know. And then we know what is happening to the C-130-R program. This is something that has been happening for a long period of time. The third thing I want to mention is the savings. I know one of the six criteria is called substantial savings. I don't know if there is anyone who is going to be looking at this budget and accepting the fact that a quarter of a billion dollars is not substantial. But there seems to be some doubt by Senators as to whether or not these savings would actually be achieved. And if you really ask questions about it, if we really had to do this, I say to my friend from Georgia, we could write that in and say at any point when it looks like we cannot anticipate these savings, we would go back to the other type of procurement. That could be done. Quite frankly, I think the Air Force would be willing to do that. And the figure of $225 million they and others believe and I believe is a conservative figure. So I think that would be one way to offset it. When you look at title 10 criteria, substantial savings, we have talked about that; stability, we have talked about that, stability of funding, stability of design, we all know these things and where we are with the program. And so I have come to the conclusion after looking at this that it does qualify for all of these criteria, but there is one thing that has not been said, quite frankly, in the right wing over here, and that is, during the 1990s I can remember standing on this floor and saying we are going to have to do something about what is happening to the modernization program because it is not just the aircraft and artillery pieces, the most modern thing we have for the artillery is the Palladin, which is World War II technology, where you have to get out and swab the breach after each shot. There are five countries, including South Africa, making a better artillery piece than we are sending out with our kids. Then we look at the F-15 and F-16, great vehicles. We understand that. But one of the proudest moments I have had was in 1998 when we were cutting a lot of the Defense budget at that time. We had two-star general John Jumper, who stood up and said publicly: Now we are sending our kids out with equipment that is not as good as the Russians are making. At that time, they had the Su-27; the Su-30 was not actually deployed yet, now the Su-35. And we know in one purchase--I say to my friend from South Dakota because he mentioned other countries that are buying these things--in one purchase, the Chinese purchased 230 of these vehicles. We think they are Su-30s, but we don't know. Consequently, if you assess the judgment as someone I think we will have to accept, and that is General John Jumpers, their Su series in many ways is better than our best strike vehicles, the F-15 and F- 16. That has to concern Americans. So I think if that were the only reason to keep this on schedule, and go to a multiyear program where we enjoy the savings, that would be reason enough. As long as I am here, I am going to try to put America in a position where we have the very best of equipment with which we send our kids to battle. That is not the case today. So I strongly support the amendment and believe we should get on with it. Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I did want to get in there when the Senator from New Jersey was speaking. They keep talking about 8 generals out there--8 generals out of 4,000 generals who are retired right now. Three of the eight generals who had their own political plans were using that. I have listened to that over and over again. I have just returned from my 11th trip, I say that to my friend from Delaware, to the Iraqi AOR. The reason I have done this is so I can watch the progress that is being made--and I see the progress. When the Senator from New Jersey stood up saying nothing has happened, consider the fact that we now have three successful elections behind us. Before each election, the Democrats on this floor said it is not going to work, they will not have a free election, it isn't going to be successful. We now have had three. I was over there. I went over the day the Ministers were ratified, and they are in there. There are 164,000 trained and equipped troops. I think it is really bad, particularly when it is in error, for us to stand here on the floor of this Senate and say that those troops are really not trained and equipped, that they are really not serviceable for war. I have heard all kinds of things which are a great disservice to these people. I was up there in Fallujah during the last election when these Iraqi security forces were risking their lives going into town to vote. Anyway, I went over there the other day, the day Zarqawi was killed, and I thank God that happened. It happened to be the same day that the 4 Ministers out of some 30 Ministers were confirmed. I can remember talking to them on a one-to-one basis. Dr. al-Rubaie, the National Security Adviser for the Iraqis, is really a quality guy. I spent several hours talking to him. He projects that the number of troops in Iraq will drop below 100,000 by the end of this year. This is kind of interesting. Here we are trying to dictate terms as to when we are going to pull out when they already know when they are going to request and make a recommendation to us to pull out. The other side has it completely backward. He is saying that right now; he projects, the way we are going, that they are going to make a request by the end of this year to drop the U.S. forces and the coalition down to 100,000. That would be a reduction of 30,000. Then he says that by the end of the following year, they should be all the way out. Dr. al-Rubaie has made it clear that a timetable has to be on Iraq's terms and that there is already a roadmap. For people who say we don't know, there is no roadmap, there is no criteria out there, there is. Let me tell you. This is a quote from Dr. al-Rubaie. This isn't me talking, this is a quote from him. He said that Iraqi governorates must meet ``stringent minimum requirements as a condition of being granted control. Threat assessment of terrorist activities must be low or on a downward trend. Local police and the Iraqi army must be deemed capable of dealing with criminal gangs, armed groups and militia, and border control. There must be a clear and functioning command-and-control center overseen by the governor.'' He said, and this is his quote, that ``13 of the 18 provinces''--18 in Iraq, and 13--``have met'' or are close to meeting this criteria already. One thing which has bothered me most recently is the inconsistency I have observed over time in the Democrats' position. They claim to disagree with the war in Iraq for the very same reasons that they used for supporting going into Bosnia and Kosovo. I remember them standing on this Senate floor saying that we have no reason to be going to Bosnia and Kosovo because we don't have any security interests at stake. In 1995, President Clinton urged Congress to support involvement in Bosnia, and they agreed with his philosophy to ``stand up for peace and freedom because it's in our interest to do so.'' That sounded real good at the time. Now, when President Bush is doing exactly the same thing, they are saying: No. We have changed our position. We don't want to do that anymore. Opponents of the war in Iraq contradict themselves. Senator Kerry stated, on April 6 of this year, that ``the [Iraq] insurgency grew day by day to be an insurgency that is now a low-grade civil war . . . and our troops can't resolve a civil war.'' The Senator from Delaware characterized this as a civil war. This isn't a civil war. This is a war where others are going after the Iraqis. The insurgents aren't Iraqis. I don't know why people can't understand that. Zarqawi was Jordanian, and Osama bin Laden is Saudi. There are outsiders who caused them to coalesce into getting along better with each other. There were factions in Iraqi that you do not see today. But Kerry endorsed involvement of U.S. troops in Bosnia and Kosovo, both of which were civil wars. Those were civil wars. This is not a civil war. In 1995, President Clinton said that ``we must not turn our backs on Bosnia,'' which was echoed by Senator Kerry when he stated that, ``History has taught us that we can't sit idly by while people commit these incredible evil acts against humanity.'' He was talking about Bosnia and Kosovo. I would like to ask him: What evil acts are you talking about when compared to Saddam Hussein, who murdered and tortured to death hundreds of thousands of his own people; where they dropped people into vats of acid; where people were begging, before they were put into the shredders, to put their heads in first so they could die quickly; women being raped and buried alive? We have not seen atrocities such as this since Hitler in World War II. And here he was talking about things that were taking place in Kosovo and Bosnia. It wasn't happening. Let me tell you what Dr. al-Rubaie said. He said: There is . . . an unofficial ``roadmap'' to foreign troop reductions that will eventually lead to total withdrawal of U.S. troops. The roadmap is there. It is there, and it is one which they have put down in writing. I am going to deliver to you what Minister of Defense Jasim asked me to deliver to you--to us--in this Chamber today. He said: Tell them their sacrifice is for a very noble cause, they have given freedom to 26 million people. I believe they are waging a just war for humanity. The terrorism must be stopped or it will spread all over the world, like a carbon copy of fascism and communism. . . . The American victims have borne the price of a freer world. . . . We are very grateful. . . . The war in Iraq is a just war and we have no option but victory. It is not a war that affects Iraq alone, but is truly a world war. The terrorists are a sickness that must be eliminated . . . There is great transformation taking place in Iraq but, the international media does not focus on positive things happening. Here he talks about the only focus being on the negative things. I will talk against the next amendment later. I can tell you, after 11 trips to Iraq and the AOR, that every time I come back to this Chamber and talk about the quality of the Iraqi security forces and the successes they have had, I am very proud of them, and they are very proud of us.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. INHOFE. Was this a unanimous consent request made by the Senator from Michigan? We are still going back and forth?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Senator Bob Dole, a person who is often thought of as one of the most prominent political figures of our time. Perhaps former Secretary of State Colin Powell described Senator Dole best when he said he is, ``A plain-spoken man of strength, maturity and integrity.'' This ``plain-spoken'' man from Oklahoma's neighboring State of Kansas is legendary for his brave sacrifice to our great country in World War II. In the war, he was a platoon leader in the distinguished Tenth Mountain Division in Italy. He was awarded two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star after being seriously injured in battle, but his service and sacrifice did not end there. After a long, determined road to recovery, a renewed faith in God, and loving support from family and friends, he began his political career. After earning his law degree, Senator Dole served in the Kansas Legislature from 1951 to 1953. He came to Washington to serve in the House of Representatives in 1960. He was then elected to the Senate in 1968. His leadership skills gained swift recognition as he became chairman of the National Republican Committee in 1971 and Senate majority leader in 1984. After Republicans lost control of the Senate in 1986, Senator Dole continued serving his party as Senate minority leader. In this capacity, he became known for his ``watch-dog'' tactics fighting against Democrat tax-and-spend, big-government policies. Thanks to his help in exposing the unrestrained behavior of the Democrats, the American people voted to put Republicans back in control of both Houses of Congress in 1994. After this overwhelming victory, Senator Dole was once again voted to the post of majority leader, making him the longest serving Senate leader in the history of the Republican Party. I was privileged to serve with Bob Dole in this body from 1994 to 1996 and work on different issues with him. I supported him in 1996 when he was fighting tax increases and other excessive governmental policies. After leaving the Senate to run for an unsuccessful Presidential bid in 1996, Senator Dole continued his public service by becoming chairman of the National World War II Memorial to erect a memorial on The National Mall to honor the sacrifice of the brave men and woman who served in the largest and deadliest war in history. He also served as cochair of the Families of Freedom Scholarship Fund to assist the educational needs of the families of victims of the September 11 attacks. Through media appearances, speeches, two best-selling books, ``Great Presidential Wit, I Wish I Was In The Book'' and ``Great Political Wit, Laughing (Almost) All the Way to the White House,'' and his personal World War II memoirs, ``One Soldier's Story,'' Senator Dole continues to leave a legacy of the values and principles that have made this great country what it is today. Bob Dole is a man of character and integrity, and I am proud to honor him with this deserving tribute today.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Association of Energy Service Companies and the beneficial contributions it has made to the oil and gas industry since February 1956. This organization has helped unite the oil and gas industry and advocates the most efficient production models for all of the member companies, resulting in vastly superior oil and gas operations across the Nation. The association formed when six service contractors met and formed the Association of Oil Well Servicing Companies to combat increasing governmental regulations, rising insurance costs, and the rising difficulty in employee recruitment. With Mr. Frank Poole appointed as the first president, the association began to gradually grow and gain prominence in the oil and gas industry. Soon after formation, the group grew to represent 35 wells and 15 trucks and eventually placed an association chapter in 17 oil-producing States. Over the past 50 years, the organization has blossomed from 6 members to over 400. The association currently boasts representation of over 70 percent of the well-servicing rigs in domestic oil production. In 1996, due to a rapidly growing national membership and expansive chapter representation, the Association of Oil Well Servicing Companies changed their name to the Association of Energy Service Companies. The AESC continues to lead the oil and gas industry by providing a host of services including safety training and seminars on current and new technology, environmental protection initiatives, monthly meetings of State and local chapters, as well as national meetings, conferences, and tradeshows. Mr. President, as the members of the AESC prepare to celebrate 50 years of dedicated service, I extend my congratulations to all of those members who have remained committed to excellence in the oil and gas industry. In a world driven by oil and gas production and consumption, this organization has provided guidance and regulation to maintain equal standards in a competitive industry. For the next 50 years and beyond, I sincerely hope this organization's leadership and dedication to fairness remains as strong as it has been the past 50 years.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, let me acknowledge to my friend from Illinois he is attempting to, and I believe will successfully, resolve a problem. I happen to be more sensitive to this than most people. Two of my kids are doctors, and they assure me that this nurse shortage is nationwide. It is all out there. One of the concerns I had when this came up was I would not want this to detract from any of the other programs. Right now I have been one to say our military budget, our Defense authorization bill, is really not quite adequate as it is. It is my understanding the Senator has been very cooperative to make sure this doesn't happen. I have added my name as a cosponsor, and it is my understanding Senator Warner is going to be here shortly and wants to add his name. So the amendment would give the discretion to the DOD, working with the Department of Education, to structure a program that would achieve the dual goals of creating more nurse educators and more Reserve officers. I think we have the support of the committee on both sides, and I commend the Senator for bringing up this solution.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes. Before the Senator from Illinois proceeds, I would like to comment. The Senator has worked very hard on this amendment. There is a problem that the Senator is seeking to correct, and I believe the amendment does correct it. I join him as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. I respond I personally think it is time to pass it. We have limited time. This is one that enjoys support from both sides of the aisle. I am sure the Senator from Virginia can put his name on this and will make his own expression when he gets here.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 512, which was submitted early today.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today, the significance of this resolution is something that needs the attention of this body. We are today honoring the 231st birthday of the U.S. Army. Throughout the centuries, the noble service of Army soldiers has defended this great Nation. From the first Continental Army under GEN George Washington, to the beaches of Normandy, to the city streets of Baghdad, America's Army has protected the flame of freedom. Their sacrifice calls us all--both public and private--to the highest standard of citizenship. We enjoy our freedoms because they have been steadfast through the most difficult of circumstances and continue to spread the light of democracy to the darkest corners of the world. We stand here today because they continue to willingly put their lives in harm's way. The Army's history is one of success. During the Mexican-American War our country expanded westward to the Pacific and south to Texas. The Philippine and Spanish-American Wars demonstrated the Army's courage against strong insurgent forces and created the vital posts that exist today in Southeast Asia. The Army continued to fight bravely in World War I and World War II to defeat the Central powers and the Axis in Europe and the Pacific. With the rise of Communism, the Army once again answered freedom's call in Korea and Vietnam. Today, these courageous soldiers continue the great tradition by serving across the world in the war on terrorism. While the Army maintains a presence in 120 countries across the world in countries such as Djibouti, Korea, and Kosovo, the vast majority of our efforts have been focused in Iraq and Afghanistan. I just returned from my 11th trip to the Iraqi AOR. While I was over there I observed firsthand the progress being made by our troops. The Army has taken the bulk of the responsibility, and much of what we have accomplished we owe to their outstanding service. The Army has brought freedom to a population once under tyrannical control. Freedom shines through the recent election of officials, the formation of a constitution, and formation of the first permanent government under Prime Minister al-Maliki. Recently, the first Iraqi Ambassador in 15 years presented his credentials to the Secretary of State. We have taken out the ``prince of al-Qaida,'' al-Zarqawi. These great successes add to the longstanding tradition of our military. Having just returned from that area, and having been there 11 times, and having talked to our U.S. Army soldiers, as well as with the other services, it is incredible that they are so much like they were in the past. I recall when I was first drafted into the U.S. Army. It was so long ago that I was drafted with Elvis Presley. And he had a little better duty than I did. Nonetheless, you learn something when you become an active member of the U.S. Army. You learn a type of discipline and a type of tradition, and that tradition stays with you all the rest of your life. It was not long ago that my fellow Army veteran, Senator Danny Akaka, and I formed the Army Caucus to bring attention to the work of the Army in the past, the present, and in the future. To let you know how things change, I can remember only 12 years ago, when I was serving in the other body, in the House Armed Services Committee, someone testified at that time that in 10 years we would no longer need ground troops. To let you know some of the problems we have--and the fact is, yes, there are a lot of smart people around--but nobody knows what contingencies we will have to be facing in the future. And I can assure you, as we proceed into the future, as we modernize our equipment, it will be in use again, and the U.S. Army will come through, as they always have since the days of George Washington. As the Army continues to fight for freedom today and peace tomorrow, I salute each Army soldier for their sacrifice, dedication, and perseverance in protecting America. These soldiers are exceptional individuals who live by the values of loyalty, duty, and selfless service. It is in this spirit that the Army continues to uphold its highest values and take its rich tradition into the next 231 years. May God bless the United States Army. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a military fellow, Scott Fisher, be granted floor privileges during the duration of our consideration of the Defense authorization bill.