Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 1313 be set aside for the consideration of amendment No. 1476, which I send to the desk.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say I was listening intently while the senior Senator from Utah talked about the F/A-22. I would like to add one thing that perhaps he assumes everyone is aware of, but I keep finding people are not aware of it, and that is the Chief of the Air Force now, General Jumper, not too long ago, I think 1997, made a very courageous observation. He called to the attention of the American people that the Russians were making--at that time he was referring to the Su-30, a strike vehicle, that it was actually better than anything we had in our inventory, our F-15 or F-16. I think a lot of people assumed automatically that when we go onto the battlefield America has the very best of equipment. That is not true. It is kind of scary when you think about a strike vehicle that is out there that has greater capability than our very best and the fact that the American people expect the United States to have the best of everything. I have talked on this floor many times about the fact that our artillery piece is not as good as one that is made in five different countries. The old Paladin technology is World War II technology. That is something we are going to correct with our future combat system. But I commend the Senator from Utah for his comments about the F/A- 22. When we get the joint strike fighter and the F/A-22, we will be back in a position where we will be sending our young people out there with the best of equipment. We need to get there as rapidly as possible. I also want to make a comment about the depot funding plan amendment that is offered by Senator Hatch. It supports the important and vital work being performed by our aircraft depot facilities. Since the Bush administration came into office, we have seen a renewed interest in the Air Force's depots. To kind of fill us in where we are right now with that, I can remember when the last Secretary of the Air Force came in, his first trip was to Tinker Air Force Base to see how creative they were, to kind of personally examine the kind of work they were doing. He recognized we have to handle the problem that has been there for many, many years; that is, we need to have an in- house capability for depot maintenance on core issues. The problem has always been: How do you define the core issue? The core issue is not an easy thing to describe and define. But until it is properly defined, we have been using the ratio of 50-50; in other words, to have the in-house capability to handle 50 percent of the functions in the case of a war so we would not be held hostage to a single source contractor. The key to this overall reinvigoration has been the Air Force's Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan that will ensure America's air and space assets are ready to rapidly respond to any national security threat. Because of this plan we have begun a restoration and modernization of our Air Force's three depot facilities located in Oklahoma, Utah, and Georgia, which will ensure the United States is able to maintain world-class aircraft repair and overall facilities. If we are to realize the end result of this Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan, it is incumbent upon Congress to fulfill the Air Force's commitment for allocating $150 million a year, over a 6-year period, for recapitalizing, investing, and procuring advanced facilities, equipment, and operation. This funding began in fiscal year 2004, and significant in-roads have already been made. In one year alone, with this funding support, the Air Mobility Command reported that the rate of aircraft grounded due to parts issues decreased by 37.6 percent. It bettered its flying hour goal by 922,000 hours. The rate of aircraft incidents due to parts issues decreased by 23.4 percent. Logistics response time increased by 20.4 percent. And the level of spare parts in stock improved by 5.5 percent. Such improvements are an indication of the impact of this funding, and this was only a single 1-year period. We have spoken frequently in this body about the advanced age and challenges of some of our most critical low-density, high-demand aircraft, such as the C-130 tactical airlifter, and the KC-135 refueling tanker. The average age of the C-130 E and H models flying today is 40 years. The average age of the KC-135 E and R models flying today is 44 years. We went through some arduous times, several years ago--about 15 years ago--getting the C-17 on line. It was a recognition that we have to modernize this fleet. I am very thankful we have increased the numbers as the years have gone by. No one would have ever believed, prior to Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the need we would have on these heavy-lift vehicles. We could go on and on, but the point we want to make is, if we are going to keep our aging fleet of aircraft flying, we must not only maintain them but we must also modify them and give them the latest technology, avionics and things, so we will provide our young people with the same advantage that some of our prospective opponents would have. At our Air Force depots today, we require engineers and fabrication technicians to solve ever-challenging design and structural problems due to aircraft stress and fatigue that were never anticipated when the aircraft were manufactured. But because of age, we are seeing such flaws. The civilian aviation industry recapitalizes, buying new aircraft when their planes are no longer feasible to fly. Unfortunately, our Air Force does not have such a luxury. The effort the Air Force has started with the Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan must be sustained, and Congress must provide the necessary resources. In light of this, I applaud the sense of the Senate being offered by Senator Hatch. This has been a problem we have seen coming. We know it is there. We have been able to now give our depots some of the same resources, some of the same modernization. They have, on a competitive basis, proven they can do a very good job. Amendment No. 1313

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will first make a comment or two.

Mr. INHOFE. The other amendment has a new number. We have talked about it before. It is the U.S.-China Commission amendment. It is now No. 1476. It is my intention to make a few comments about these two and then to ask for the yeas and nays. We would like to get to a vote on these amendments by tonight. First, the amendment concerning the ICRC. I simply want to clarify some people's thinking that the ICRC is not the American Red Cross. This is the International Committee on the Red Cross. It has no relationship to the American Red Cross. My first concern is for American troops. The ICRC has been around since 1863 and has been there for American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines throughout two world wars. I thank them for that work. Likewise and moreover, I thank all Americans for military service to America. I did have occasion to be in the U.S. Army. It was the best thing that ever happened in my life. In my continuing preeminent concern for American troops, however, I am compelled to note some concerns and pose some questions about a drift in focus of the ICRC away from its core principles in its mission statement. Indeed, I fear the ICRC may be harming the morale of our American troops by unjustified allegations that detainees and prisoners are not being properly treated. For example, an ICRC official visited Camp Bucca, a theater internment facility for enemy prisoners that is, as of January 2005, being operated by the 18th Military Police Brigade and Task Force 134, near Umm Qasr in southern Iraq. As of late January 2005, the facility had a holding capacity of 6,000 prisoners but only held 5,000. These prisoners were being supervised by 1,200 Army MPs and Air Force airmen. According to the Wall Street Journal, citing a Defense Department source, the ICRC official told U.S. authorities: You people are no better than and no different than the Nazi concentration camp guards. I ask unanimous consent that this entire article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks about the ICRC.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been informed I will be asking for the yeas and nays for two different amendments. I will do that after explaining the second amendment. I know the Senator from Florida, under UC, now has 15 minutes. My time is about to expire. I would ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Florida, I be recognized to present what was amendment 1312 and now is No. 1476. And at the conclusion, I will be asking for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 15 minutes, followed by the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, so we can get procedurally back where we should be, I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside for the consideration of amendment No. 1313.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this amendment is similar to one that I am not going to offer that was previously going to be offered, No. 1312. There have been several changes made, so a new number is assigned to it. Mr. President, in October 2000, Congress established the United States-China Security Economic Review Commission to act as a bipartisan authority on how our relationship with China affects our economy, China's military and weapons proliferation, and our influence in Asia. For the past 5 years, the Commission has been holding hearings and issuing annual reports to evaluate ``the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship with the United States and the People's Republic of China.'' Their job is to provide us in Congress with the necessary information to make decisions about the complex situation. However, I fear their reports have gone largely unnoticed. This has been very disturbing. I have had occasion to give four rather lengthy speeches concerning the recommendations. I will not be redundant, and I certainly will not take the time I took previously, but it is something that is very significant. This was a bipartisan commission, made up of Democrats and Republicans, some Members of Congress, and some former Members of Congress. They came out with recommendations over a period of years. I found the recommendations of the Commission's 2004 report--this is the most recent approach--objective, necessary, and urgent, and I am offering an amendment to express our support for these viable steps. This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that China should, first, reevaluate its manipulated currency level and allow it to float against other currencies. In the Treasury Department's recent report to Congress, China's monetary policies are described as ``highly distortionary and pose a risk to China's economy, its trading partners, and global economic growth.'' Second, the appropriate steps ought to be taken through the World Trade Organization to hold China accountable for its dubious trade practices. Major problem issues, such as intellectual property rights, have yet to be addressed. Third, the United States should revitalize engagement in the Asian region, broaden our interaction with organizations such as ASEAN, which is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Our lack of influence has been demonstrated by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization recently demanding that we set a troop pullout deadline in Afghanistan. This clearly shows we do not have much influence there. Fourth, the administration ought to hold China accountable for proliferating prohibited technologies. Chinese companies, such as NORINCO, have been sanctioned frequently and yet the Chinese Government refuses to enforce their own nonproliferation agreements. Fifth, the U.N. should monitor nuclear, biological, and chemical treaties and either enforce these agreements or report them to the Security Council. The United States-China Commission has found that China has undercut the U.N. in many areas, undermining what pressures we have tried to apply on problematic states, such as Sudan and Zimbabwe. Sixth, the administration ought to review the effectiveness of the one-China policy in relation to Taiwan to reflect the dynamic nature of the situation. The Defense Department's annual report to Congress, released 2 days ago, states that China's military ``sustained buildup affects the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.'' We have been watching this for a number of years. We have also been watching the growth and enhancement of China's conventional military capability. We have known about their nuclear capability for some time. Now we see, as the Senator from Utah was mentioning a few minutes ago, that countries are buying these superior strike vehicles from Russia, such as the SU-30s. China, in one purchase, I understand, bought some 240. One has to stop and think about this. It puts them in the position to have better strike vehicles than we do. Of course, we have seen the buildup, the effect on their relationship in the Taiwan Strait. Seventh, various energy agencies should encourage China to develop its strategic oil reserve in order to avoid a disastrous economic crisis if oil availability becomes unstable. We have to understand that we have a serious problem in this country with the fact that we are relying upon foreign countries for some 65 percent of the oil we import. We are now starting to compete with China which has that great problem, too. As one travels around and looks at countries such as Iran, Sudan, Nigeria, and other countries where they are establishing relationships--we have seen what they are doing in Venezuela right now--we have to recognize they are going to be our chief competition in becoming self-sufficient in our ability to fight a war without dependency upon foreign countries. Eighth, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, called CFIUS, should include national economic security as a criterion for evaluation and the chairmanship to be transferred to a more appropriate chair allowing for increased security precautions. Right now CFIUS has actually reviewed some 1,500 cases of purchases by foreign countries, and they have only questioned 24. They relented on those and only stopped one. That is 1 out of 1,500. There is something wrong. We see some things that are going on right now, such as Unocal, that have received a lot of publicity. This is a very strong recommendation. In fact, I have a separate resolution that covers just this issue and this alone. It will recommend that the chairmanship be changed from the Secretary of Treasury to the Secretary of Defense. Ninth, the administration should continue its pressure on the EU to maintain its arms embargo on China. The recent Defense Department report states the EU would not have the capability to monitor and enforce any limits if the arms embargo is lifted. Tenth, penalties should be placed on foreign contractors who sell sensitive military use technology or weapons system to China from benefiting from U.S. defense-related research development in production programs. What is going on is sales are taking place to China on technology that has been subsidized by the United States. In other words, we are putting ourselves in a situation where our national security would be impaired by our own research for which we have paid. Eleventh, the administration should also provide a report to Congress on the scope of foreign military sales to China. Finally, Congress should support the recommendations of the Commission's 2004 report to Congress. Unless our relationship with China is backed up with strong action, they will never take us seriously. We will certainly see more violations of proliferation treaties. It is happening over and over. We are looking at it right now. They continue to manipulate regional global trade through currency undervaluation and other unhealthy practices. They will develop unreliable oil sources and energy alliances with countries that threaten international stability. They will continue to escalate the situation over Taiwan, raising the stakes in a game neither country can win. In today's world, we see how the unpaid bills of the past come back to haunt us in full. Ignoring these problems is unacceptable. The United States-China Commission was created to give us in Congress a clear picture about what is going on. They have done their job. It is time for us to do our job. I repeat, this is a commission that has been working now for 4 years. It is a bipartisan commission. These are specific recommendations. This amendment is a sense of the Senate to follow these recommendations. This is amendment No. 1476. Amendment No. 1312 Withdrawn

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. We are considering amendment No. 1476. I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1476.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I withdraw amendment No. 1312.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk, No. 1311, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as a practical and timely step toward addressing problems with China, I am introducing amendment No. 1311. This amendment addresses the review process of foreign acquisitions in the U.S. The review of controversial buys, such as the CNOOC, currently falls to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS. I will state this simply: CFIUS has not demonstrated an appropriate conception of U.S. national security. I understand that Representatives Hyde, Hunter and Manzullo expressed similar views in a January letter to Treasury Secretary John Snow, the chairman of CFIUS. Of more than 1,500 cases of foreign investments or acquisitions in the U.S., CFIUS has investigated only 24. And only one resulted in actually stopping the transaction. This lone disapproval, in February 1990, occurred with respect to a transaction that had already taken place--it took President George H.W. Bush to stop the transaction and safeguard our national security. Another example of CFIUS falling short is with Magnequench International Incorporated. In 1995 Chinese corporations bought GM's Magnequench, a supplier of rare earth metals used in the guidance systems of smart bombs. Over 12 years, the company has been moved piecemeal to mainland China, leaving the U.S. with no domestic supplier of neodymium, a critical component of rare-earth magnets. CFIUS approved this transfer. The United States now buys rare earth metals, which are essential for precision-guided munitions, from one single country--China. Some experts believe that China's economic policy is a purposeful attempt to undermine the U.S. industrial base and likewise, the defense industrial base. Perhaps it is hard to believe that China's economic manipulation is such a threat to our Nation. In response, I would like to read from the book ``Unrestricted Warfare'', written by two PLA, People's Liberation Army, senior Colonels: Military threats are already no longer the major factors affecting national security . . . traditional factors are increasingly becoming more intertwined with grabbing resources contending for markets, controlling capital, trade sanctions and other economic factors. I have outlined in my earlier speeches how China is a clear threat. I believe it is. But I also believe that this threat can be addressed and allow a healthy, mutual growth for both our countries. The CFIUS process is at the heart of this issue. Chairman of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Dick D'Amato, stated this morning that the CFIUS process is ``broken.'' This amendment is a step toward fixing the problems, enabling the foreign review to carry out its function and truly protect our national security. First, it clearly charges the commission with measuring energy and economic security as fundamental aspects of national security. Second, it brings congressional oversight into the foreign investment review process. After a 10-day review period, an oversight committee chairman can extend the review period to 30 days. Congress then has the option to pass a resolution of disapproval and thus stop an acquisition harmful to our country. Third, the amendment calls for a report on the security implications of transactions on a monthly basis. There will also be a yearly report to the proper congressional committees that will review the cumulative effect of our sales with China. The amendment also changes the name of the review mechanism to reflect the national security focus that it should be emphasizing. The new name would be Committee on Foreign Acquisitions Affecting National Security, or CFAANS. Further, the designated chairman of the process would become the Secretary of Defense, also reflecting the security focus that the process should be based on. The foreign investment review process is vital to providing for U.S. security, particularly in relation to countries such as China. However, it is in need of attention and changes no less drastic than I have suggested here. We are going to have to do something about the performance of this organization. To do it, we will have to change the structure. I am going to be recommending that the chairman of CFIUS no longer be the Secretary of the Treasury but be the Secretary of Defense, since they deal with very critical national security issues. Amendment No. 1312

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send amendment No. 1312 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside for the purposes of consideration of amendment No. 1313 which I send to the desk.

Mr. INHOFE. I respond to the distinguished chairman that I do have three amendments that are prepared and I am ready to bring them up and get them into the system. I also have two UC requests. If I could be recognized for that purpose, I would appreciate that.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. We have talked about some of the problems that have existed with the ICRC, the International Committee on the Red Cross. I would like to make sure people understand we are not talking about the American Red Cross. There have been problems that have come up. My first concern is for the American troops. The ICRC has been around since 1863 and has been there for American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines through two world wars. I thank them for that good work they did. Likewise, I thank all Americans for their military service to America. I did have occasion to be in the Army. That was one of the best things that happened in my life. In my continuing preeminent concern for American troops, however, I am compelled to note some concerns and pose some questions about the drift in focus of the ICRC. In spite of some of the things that have been very good that they have done in the past, there have been some very serious problems. I think they need to be called to the attention of the Senate and be made a part of this bill. Specifically, the ICRC has engaged in efforts to reinterpret and expand international law so as to afford terrorists and insurgents the same rights and privileges as military personnel of states party to the Geneva Convention. They have advocated, lobbied for arms control, issues that are not within the organization's mandate, and inaccurately and unfairly accused the United States of not adhering to the Geneva Conventions when the ICRC itself has demonstrated reluctance to ensure that the Geneva Convention protections are afforded U.S. prisoners of war. Neither the American Red Cross nor any other national Red Cross or Red Crescent Society is consulted by the ICRC or is in any way involved in the ICRC's policy decisions and statements. The Government has remained the ICRC's single largest contributor since its founding in 1990. The Government has provided more than $1.5 billion in funding for the ICRC. Congress should request from the administration and the GAO an examination of how the ICRC spends the U.S. taxpayers' dollars to determine whether the entire annual U.S. contribution to the ICRC headquarters--in other words, the ICRC operations--is advancing American interests. Additionally, Congress should request that the State, Defense, and Justice Departments jointly certify that the ICRC's operations and performance have been in full accord with its Geneva Conventions mandate. The administration strongly advocates for full transparency of all ICRC documents relating to the organization's core and noncore activities and the administration argues for a change in the ICRC statute so as to allow non-Swiss officials to be a part of the organization and directing bodies of the ICRC. Indeed, I fear that the ICRC may be harming the morale of our American troops by unjustified allegations that detainees and prisoners are not being properly treated. For example, an ICRC official visited Camp Bucca, a theater internment facility for enemy prisoners of war that is, as of January 2005, being operated by the 18th Military Police Brigade and Task Force 134, near Umm Qasr in southern Iraq. As of late January 2005, the facility had a holding capacity of 6,000 prisoners but only held 5,000. These prisoners were being supervised by 1,200 Army MPs and Air Force Airmen. According to the Wall Street Journal, citing a Defense Department source, the ICRC official told U.S. authorities, ``you people are no better than and no different than the Nazi concentration camp guards.'' The ICRC and the State Department have confirmed that this ICRC official is now transferred from the Iraq assignment in the wake of her comment. Such a comment is obviously damaging to the morale of our American troops and offended the soldiers and airmen present. The Senate Armed Services Committee has now held 13 hearings on the topic of prisoner treatment. Sometimes we get bogged down in all the detail and we forget about the overall picture, the big picture. And I'm shocked when I found, only last Tuesday, from the Pentagon's report, that after 3 years and 24,000 interrogations, there were only three acts of violation of the approved interrogation techniques authorized by Field Manual 3452 and DOD guidelines. The small infractions found were found by our own government, corrected and now reported. In all the cases no further incidents occurred. We have nothing to be ashamed of. What other country attacked as we were would exercise the same degree of self-criticism and restraint. Most, if not all, of these incidents are at least a year old. I'm very impressed with the way the military, the FBI, and other agencies have conducted themselves. The report shows me that an incredible amount of restraint and discipline was present at Gitmo. Having heard a lot about the Field Manual 3452, I asked, ``Are the DOD guidelines, as currently published in that manual, appropriate to allow interrogators to get valuable information, intelligence information, while not crossing the line from interrogation to abuse?'' The answer from Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, Commander of U.S. Southern Command was, ``I think, because that manual was written for enemy prisoners of war, we have a translation problem, in that enemy prisoners are to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions-- that doesn't apply. That's why the recommendation was made and I affirmed it. We need a further look here on this new phenomenon of enemy combatants. It's different, and we're trying to use, I think, a manual that was written for one reason in another environment.'' Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, the senior investigating officer said, ``Sir, I agree. It's critical that we come to grips with not hanging on a Cold War relic of Field Manual 3452, which addressed an entirely different population. If we are, in fact, going to get intelligence to stay ahead of this type of threat, we need to understand what else we can do and still stay in our lane of humane treatment.'' Brig. Gen. John T. Furlow, the investigating officer, stated, ``Sir, in echoing that, F.M. 3452 was originally written in 1987, further updated and refined in 1992, which is dealing with the Geneva question as well as an ordered battle enemy, not the enemy that we're facing currently. I'm aware that Fort Huachuca's currently in a rewrite of the next 3452, and it's in a draft form right now.'' It is clear that our military has humane treatment placed at the forefront of their concerns. At the same time I want to ask, ``What other country would freely discuss interrogation techniques used against high-value intelligence detainees during a time of war when suicide bombers are killing our fellow citizens? Why would we freely explain the limitations placed on our interrogators, when we know that our enemy trains his terrorists in methods to defeat our interrogations? We're handing them new information on how to train future terrorists. What damage are we doing to our war effort by parading these relatively minor infractions before the press and the world again and again and again while our soldiers risk their lives daily and are given no mercy by the enemy? Our enemies exploit everything we do and everything we say. Al- Zarqawi, the other day, said to his followers, quote, ``The Americans are living their worst days in Iraq now. Even Members of Congress have announced that the u.S. is losing the war in Iraq.'' Let us stop demoralizing our troops. I say let us support our troops in their continuing humane treatment of the detainees at Gitmo. While we have done more than enough examining of ourselves, I believe it is fair to pose some questions to others as well. In this amendment, I am requesting, with my cosponsors, simply a report to the Congress about activities of the ICRC. In the past 15 years the United States has provided more than $1.5 billion dollars in funding to the ICRC. I would like to ask for some accountability for the use of this money and a modicum of oversight. For example, I think it is fair to ask: ``How is our money being spent?'' ``What are the activities of the ICRC to determine the status of American POW's/MIA's unaccounted for since World War II?'' ``What are the efforts of the ICRC to assist American POW's held in captivity during the Korean War, Vietnam War, and any subsequent conflicts?'' ``Has the ICRC exceeded its mandate, violated established practices or principles, or engaged in advocacy work that exceeds the ICRC's mandate as provided for under the Geneva Conventions?'' Please join with me in supporting this simple, fair request for such a report. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me also join Senator Frist in this legislation. I believe it is very significant. I spoke last April on the Senate floor on behalf of this issue, and I am proud to do so again with this amendment. Sadly, since my previous speech, there has been a recent Federal court ruling against the Pentagon's support for the National Boy Scout Jamboree, which occurs every 4 years and attracts about 40,000 people. It will be taking place on July 25. In her decision, a Federal judge in Chicago ruled that a statute permitting the military to lend support for the National Scout Jamboree violates the establishment clause of the Constitution. In short, the judge ruled that Pentagon funding is unconstitutional because the Boy Scouts are a religious organization as it requires Scouts to affirm a belief in God. I will speak more on this later. However, it is clear to me that for more than 90 years, the Boy Scouts have benefited our youth and helped produce some of the best and brightest leaders in our country. I believe we must reaffirm our support for the vital work they have done and continue to do. Like many of my friends here, I was a Boy Scout many years ago. As a result of the great work they do, I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 642, the Support Our Scouts Act of 2005, as well as this amendment. I had at one time considered introducing my own bill on this very important matter. However, I was so pleased with the substance of this bill that I was proud to add my name as a cosponsor, and I again thank Senator Frist for his efforts on this issue. As you may know, this bill, and now this amendment, address efforts by some groups to prevent Federal agencies from supporting our Scouts. This bill would remove any doubts that Federal agencies can welcome Scouts and the great work they do. Sadly, as the following excerpt from a July 20, 2005, Wall Street Journal editorial demonstrates, these great organizations have come under attack. The column from this respected publication explains that: Because the Scouts require members to ``privately exercise their religious faith as directed by their families and religious advisors,'' the ACLU petitioned the court to declare the organization ``theistic'' and ``pervasively sectarian.'' Judge Blanche Manning didn't go quite that far last month, but she did rule it an overtly religious association because it ``excludes atheists and agnostics from membership.'' She ordered the Army to expel the next Jamboree from Fort A.P. Hill in 2010, by which time we trust the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will have overturned her decision. I hope this unfortunate decision is overturned as well. As Senator Frist has said, this legislation will specifically ensure that the Department of Defense can and will continue to provide the Scouts the type of support it has provided in the past. Moreover, the Scouts would be permitted equal access to public facilities, forums, and programs that are open to a variety of other youth or community organizations. It is enormously regrettable to me that the Scouts have come under attack from aggressive liberal groups blatantly pushing their own social agendas and become the target of lawsuits by organizations that are more concerned with pushing these liberal agendas than sincerely helping our youth. Rather than protecting our religious freedoms, these groups are clearly bent on discriminating against any organization that has faith as one of its tenets. Thus, today, the Federal Government continues to defend the lawsuit aimed at severing traditional ties between the Boy Scouts and the Departments of Defense and Housing and Urban Development. What is more, Scouts have been excluded by certain State and local governments from utilizing public facilities, forums and programs, which are open to other groups. It is certainly disappointing and, frankly frustrating that we have reached a point where groups such as the ACLU are far more interested in tearing down great institutions like the Boy Scouts than helping foster character and values in our young men. I am tired of these tactics. It is very disturbing to me that these groups unabashedly attack organizations, regardless of the good they do or the support they have from the vast majority of Americans, simply to further their own subjective social agendas. I, for one, am saddened that the Boy Scouts of America has been the most recent target of these frivolous lawsuits. I reject any arguments that the Boy Scouts is anything but one of the greatest programs for character development and values-based leadership training in America today. We should seek to aid, not impede, groups that promote values such as duty to God and country, faith and family, and public service and sacrifice, which are deeply ingrained in the oath of every Scout. To fail to support such values would allow the very fabric of America, which has brought us to this great place in history, to be destroyed. Today, with more than 3.2 million youth members, and more than 1.2 million adult volunteers, we can certainly say that the Boy Scouts of America has positively impacted the lives of generations of boys, preparing them to be men of great character and values. Remarkably, Boy Scout membership since 1910 totals more than 110 million. I am proud to report that in Oklahoma we have a total youth participation of nearly 75,000 boys; and in Oklahoma City alone, we have about 7,000 adult volunteers. These young men have helped serve communities all over our State with programs such as Helping Hands for Heroes, a program where Scouts help military families whose loved ones are serving overseas. These young men have cut grass, cleaned homes, taken out the garbage, and walked dogs. What a great service for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines and their families. Our Boy Scouts have also served as ushers and first-aid responders at the University of Oklahoma football games for more than 50 years. Notably, Scouts in my State have also shared a long and proud history of cooperation and partnership with military installations in Oklahoma. Furthermore, events, such as the National Jamboree, allow an opportunity to expose large numbers of young Americans to our great military in a time when fewer and fewer receive such exposure. I believe this is a very good thing, and I will fight to see that it continues. Given all this, I hope my colleagues will join me in defending this organization and others like it. We must not be afraid to support our youth and organizations like the Boy Scouts that support them. As the Wall Street Journal editorial that I mentioned previously argued: The values the Scouts embody are vital to the national good and in need today, more than ever. I agree and am proud to rise in support today and always for this great cause. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee for allowing me to offer these amendments. I will stay within a timeframe that will allow other speakers under the UC to be heard. I have three amendments I will be bringing up. I first ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1312 and that Senator Kyl be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1313.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to support the nomination of Tom Dorr for Under Secretary for Rural Development in the Department of Agriculture. Thomas Dorr, with his powerful vision for rural America, with his proven leadership as Under Secretary, and with the trust that so many have placed on him, is more than qualified to be confirmed by the Senate. Let me provide a little background information on this nomination process since President Bush took office in 2001. On March 22, 2001, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Tom Dorr to serve as the Under Secretary of Rural Development. During that year, three nomination hearings were scheduled and then canceled; finally, during the August 2002 recess, the President appointed Mr. Dorr as Undersecretary. During Mr. Dorr's tenure as Under Secretary, it has been his leadership and dedication that led to the long list of improvements that increased economic opportunity and improved the quality of life in rural America. He tackled the very complicated and difficult problems involved in the Multi-Family Housing Program that, according to the one congressional staff member, ``were ignored by all previous Under Secretaries''--he believes all rural citizens deserve safe and secure housing. Dorr initiated an aggressive marketing program to extend the outreach of USDA Rural Development programs to more deserving rural Americans and qualified organizations, especially minorities. Also while he served as Under Secretary, Mr. Dorr supported the use of renewable energy, which led to millions of dollars in grants to develop renewable energy sources; Mr. Dorr boosted the morale of USDA Rural Development employees; Mr. Dorr aided in the development of community water/wastewater infrastructure--and the list goes on. After his temporary position as Under Secretary, Tom Dorr has completely resurfaced USDA Rural Development. This is a result of his vision for USDA Rural Development. During his term, Mr. Dorr changed USDA Rural Development from being the lender of last resort to one where employees aggressively seek out investments to make in people and organizations that will fulfill its mission. On June 18, 2003, the Agriculture Committee recommended Mr. Dorr to the Senate on a bi-partisan vote of 14-7. On December 19, 2003 the full Senate failed to break Senator Harkin's hold on the nomination by a vote of 57-39, six Democrats and fifty-one Republicans. Since the attempted cloture, President Bush again nominated Tom Dorr in January of this year, only for Mr. Dorr to meet more of the same from the Senate. One Senator has held up the confirmation since April 30, 2001, and after President Bush has nominated a qualified candidate for this position three times, we still have yet to see an up or down vote. Despite the fact that Tom Dorr has proven his leadership as Under Secretary, some have still insisted on using the politics of obstruction and partisanship to keep Mr. Dorr from receiving confirmation in this Senate. For my State of Oklahoma, the strong leadership of Thomas Dorr resulted in an increase of millions of dollars in rural development. Mr. Dorr's leadership for Rural Development included an aggressive outreach program to rural residents in need of assistance and an innovative effort to leverage more appropriated dollars into program dollars. In fact, Rural Development receives from Congress annual budget authority of about $1.9 billion, and they turn it into $15 billion in program dollars. This includes the administrative money for the agency. In other words, Rural Development takes 12 cents and turns it into a dollar of assistance for rural economic development efforts, which is a level of efficiency difficult to find in most Federal agencies. During his term, Mr. Dorr encouraged the increased use of guaranteed loan programs versus grants to achieve this efficiency as well as very strict tracking of loan servicing. In other words, Rural Development ``invests'' its dollars expecting a return on investment, rather than just throwing money at communities and hope they fix themselves. I have seen many of these projects first hand in Oklahoma, from revolving loan funds to business incubators to new water systems. Loans matched with grants with realistic expectations from Rural Development partners is what I see as I tour rural Oklahoma. It takes visionary leadership to achieve this, and for a short time in 2002 and 2003, Mr. Dorr provided this leadership. It is still needed in this important agency. What Mr. Dorr's vision has meant for Oklahoma is an increase in funding assistance. Oklahoma's Program Level in the past 4 years has gone from $193 million to $322 million. Business Programs have increased 500 percent, Housing Programs have doubled, and all of this is attributable to the outreach efforts encouraged by Mr. Dorr as well as the leveraging efforts he has put in place to allow each Federal dollar to go further. Mr. Dorr has also made several visits to Oklahoma providing technical assistance on ethanol production, which may lead to the development of our first ethanol plant in our State. He has also met with our Rural Health Care Providers in Oklahoma to help bridge the gap between rural health needs and resources available from Rural Development. Mr. Dorr is supported by many of our rural advocacy groups in Oklahoma as exemplified by the following quotes: Ernest Holloway, President of Langston University Oklahoma's 1890 College: Langston University has a direct stake in improving economic opportunities in rural Oklahoma . . . It is critical that we have strong and creative leadership at the Department of Agriculture in the Rural Development Mission Area. We strongly support Thomas C. Dorr for the position of Under Secretary for Rural Development. Ray Wulf, President of Oklahoma Farmers Union, that includes 48 percent of the membership of the National Farmers Union: . . . (Mr. Dorr) visited our state office here in Oklahoma City. During that meeting we had a very fruitful discussion relative to rural development and the creation of ethanol and oilseed opportunities within the state. He shared several rural development experiences within his own home state and demonstrated his expertise relative to those projects . . . we can see the value in having Mr. Dorr's expertise and experiences put to work on behalf of rural America. We trust that you will equally find such favor with Tom Dorr when he is considered for confirmation by the United States Senate. Jeramy Rich, Director of Public Policy for the Oklahoma Farm Bureau: Mr. Dorr has proven that he has the passion, skill and experience to lead the USDA's Rural Development efforts. Mr. Dorr has been a leading advocate for the value-added and sustainable agriculture that has benefited small family farmers and offered them an opportunity to remain competitive. In addition, he has pushed the Department to provide more creative outreach to minorities in order to ensure their full participation in USDA Rural Development program . . . Our members need Tom Dorr's leadership at USDA Rural Development. Mr. Dorr also has the strong support of Oklahoma's Rural Development State Director, Brent Kisling: The fact that the President continues to stand by Mr. Dorr since 2001 is a true testimony to the confidence he has in the abilities of Thomas C. Dorr. With all of the confidence that has been placed on Tom Dorr and with the incredible results that Mr. Dorr has delivered, I believe that he is capable of doing the job that rural America deserves. The nomination process is supposed to be one of bipartisanship, where the Senate is given the opportunity to evaluate the credentials and to assess the competence of the nominee. Instead, this process has been skewed and perverted by Senator Harkin and others that stand only for obstruction. To some, it seems that the confirmation of Thomas Dorr has been a small, unimportant matter. To the agriculture industry, to the people of my State of Oklahoma, and to the people of rural America, this confirmation is not a small matter. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be inserted into the Congressional Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my Air Force fellow, LTC Carlos Hill, be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of the Defense authorization bill.