Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, is it necessary to set aside the pending amendment for me to offer my amendment?

Mr. INHOFE. In October of 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 and industrial base and China's military and weapons proliferation. I have read these recommendations. I have given four 1-hour speeches on the floor of the Senate concerning the recommendations. I think it is appropriate that we have those recommendations incorporated into the Defense authorization bill under consideration at this time. My amendment 1312 puts these recommendations into place that I have spoken on before in the Senate Chamber. As I said, in October of 2000 Congress established the U.S.-China Security Economic Review Commission to act as the bipartisan authority on how our relationship with China affects our economy, industrial base, 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 between 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 this complex situation. However, I fear their reports have gone largely unnoticed. In the most recent report, dated June 2004, the commission makes this alarming opening statement: Based on our analysis to date, as documented in detail in our Report, the Commission believes that a number of the current trends in U.S.-China relations have negative implications for our long-term economic and national security interests, and therefore that U.S. policies in these areas are in need of urgent attention and course corrections. As their report and recent news headlines show, China has continued on an alarming course of expansion, in some aspects threatening U.S. national security. I have found the recommendations in the commission's 2004 Report objective, necessary, and urgent, and I am introducing an amendment to express our support for these viable steps. This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that: China should revaluate 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.'' 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. The U.S. should revitalize engagement in the Asian region, broadening our interaction with organizations like ASEAN. Our lack of influence has been demonstrated by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization recently demanding that we set a pullout deadline in Afghanistan. The administration ought to hold China accountable for proliferating prohibited technologies. Chinese companies such as CPMIEC or NORINCO have been sanctioned frequently and yet the Chinese government refuses to enforce their own nonproliferation agreements. The U.N. should monitor nuclear/biological/chemical treaties and either enforce these agreements or report them to the Security Council. The U.S.-China Commission has found that China has undercut the U.N. many areas, undermining what pressure we've tried to apply on problematic states such as Sudan or Zimbabwe. The administration ought to review the effectiveness of the ``One China'' policy in relation to Taiwan to reflect the dynamic nature of the situation. Various energy agencies should encourage China to develop a strategic oil reserve so as to avoid a disastrous oil crisis if availability should become volatile. The administration should develop and publish a national strategy to maintain U.S. scientific and technological leadership in regards to China's rapid growth in these fields. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, 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. The administration should continue in its pressure on the EU to maintain its arms embargo on China. Penalties should be placed on foreign contractors who sell sensitive military use technology or weapons systems to China from benefiting from U.S. defense-related research, development and production programs. The administration should also provide a report to Congress on the scope foreign military sales to China. And finally, we should provide a broad consensus in support of the Commission 2004 Report's recommendations. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission have done an outstanding job providing us with a clear picture of a very complex and serious situation. 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. They will continue to manipulate regional and 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. As the China Commission states, We need to use our substantial leverage to develop an architecture that will help avoid conflict, attempt to build cooperative practices and institutions, and advance both countries' long-term interests. The United States cannot lose sight of these important goals, and must configure its policies toward China to help make them materialize . . . If we falter in the use of our economic and political influence now to effect positive change in China, we will have squandered an historic opportunity. The U.S.-China Commission was created to give us in Congress a clear picture about what is going on--they have done their job. Now let's do ours. Amendment No. 1313

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, that is a fair request.

Mr. INHOFE. That is my judgment.

Mr. INHOFE. I am aware that only one affects the Banking Committee. The national security ramifications of the performance and the functions of CFIUS are far greater than any banking function. I would be happy to deal with the chairman of the Banking Committee and talk about the proper jurisdiction.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Senator Harkin and I are introducing the True Competition Act which will resolve a longstanding debate about the status of Dallas Love Field Airport. This is a critical issue for those of us from States that depend on access to the Nation's air transportation network through hub airports in other States. In the late 1960s the Federal Government expressed concern that it was funding three airports very closely located to each other in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. It asked the local communities to build a single major airport to serve the entire region. The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, in consultation with the airlines serving the local airports, agreed to do so only under the condition that all three local airports be permanently closed to all commercial airline traffic. It was this agreement that resulted in the construction of the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. The legislation I propose today would return to the original intent of all the parties involved in the decision to build DFW International by closing Love Field to commercial air traffic. If enacted, competition at DFW will increase significantly. This will be good for consumers and it will be good for communities that used DFW as their access to the world. The Federal statute that is central to this debate is the so-called Wright amendment. This was a law enacted in 1979 that allowed Love Field to stay open for limited service despite the desire of the local communities to have it close. It was necessary because activist judges in Texas had ruled against the local government's intent to consolidate all air traffic at DFW. Recently, legislation has been introduced that would completely reverse the agreement of the parties to limit Love Field to an airport serving short haul markets. This would return to the situation that was supposed be corrected 30 years ago. The runways of Love Field and DFW are 8 miles apart. To have two major, federally funded airports so close simply doesn't make sense. Moreover, if flights are transferred from DFW to Love Field--as they surely would be if the Wright amendment is repealed--there will be fewer connecting opportunities at DFW for passengers from outside the north Texas area. I understand that Southwest Airlines is lobbying strongly for repeal of the Wright amendment. I want to make it clear that I have the greatest respect for Southwest and consider myself a good customer. But Southwest surely does not need the continued permanent home court advantage that the courts gave them years ago. Southwest operates very successfully at some of the most congested and high volume airports in the country. They have the skill and the resources to compete against any carrier at any airport. If they moved their operations to DFW, consumers and communities could have the best of all worlds--intense head-to-head competition between carriers and even more opportunities to travel throughout the world. It is time to resolve this controversy once and for all by returning to the original intent of the parties.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, somewhere in the world a child dies from malaria every 30 seconds. The disease debilitates more than 500 million people annually and kills well over 1 million of them. Suffering most acutely from this epidemic is the continent of Africa where 90 percent of the world's malaria deaths occur. In fact, malaria is the No. 1 killer of pregnant women and children under the age of 5 in Africa. I have personally visited nearly 20 countries in Africa. Everywhere you go there, children have it. These trips have changed statistics into incomprehensible reality for me. Malaria--a debilitating and deadly disease--is a huge problem. I recently heard from a young boy in Ghana named Ibrahim who has accepted the dismal reality of dealing with malaria. ``Malaria is just a part of life,'' Ibrahim told me. The United States has been concerned about this problem for many years. The United States Agency for International Development, USAID, budget to fight this disease has increased nearly fivefold since 1998 to $90 million in 2005. However, the incidence of malaria continues to increase alarmingly in underdeveloped African countries. Unequivocally, the current strategy is not working. USAID spends 90 percent of its money on advice giving, conferences, and technical assistance, but not on direct interventions that produce significant results. Insecticides to preempt malaria are cheap. Drugs to cure malaria can be purchased for $2--less than a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Indoor residual spraying is a technique that has eradicated malaria in many regions. We know how to address malaria and we have the resources to do it. We have talked enough about the problem. It is time to fix it. I am pleased that we have addressed this problem with language in the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. This is an important step toward achieving real results. Instead of doling out money to beltway- based consultants, this language will ensure that tangible aid reaches desperate African women and children. It is vital that we require USAID malaria allocations go toward lifesaving drugs, mosquito nets, and pesticides, which are proven to reduce malaria death and infection rates. In the hands of the affected individuals these commodities can save lives. It does not take a lot of money to make a huge difference. Additionally, this language requires transparency from USAID. I have often had difficulty determining exactly how USAID malaria money is being spent. In fact, the latest data available to Congress on how USAID spends malaria funding is from fiscal year 2004. That year only 1 percent of total malaria funding was spent on indoor residual spraying, 1 percent was spent on purchasing antimalarial drugs, and 6 percent was used to purchase insecticide-treated bed nets. I am also concerned that too much of our foreign aid goes to conferences and research. Not enough resources get directly to the Africans who suffer so acutely. No more studies. It is time to act and to prevent that aid from being diverted to Washington consultants. To effectively address this epidemic, Congress needs to ensure that the money it appropriates is wisely spent. Within 90 days of enactment, this language requires USAID to submit their malaria expenditure report to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees to describe how they plan to follow these new priorities. I am confident that this increased accountability will prevent funds from going primarily primarily to beltway-based consultants. When we know how to eradicate malaria and possess the resources to do that, there is no reason that six children should have died in the time it took me to give this speech. It is a needless tragedy that we have the opportunity to arrest. Children in Africa have accepted the reality that malaria is inevitable. Today, we have the chance to change that dismal reality into tangible hope.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to honor one of America's fallen, a brave soldier from the State of Oklahoma. SPC Adam Brewer was serving in Iraq when he died defending his fellow soldiers and this Nation. His memory continues on in testimony to the selfless way he lived. Specialist Brewer graduated from Bartlesville High School in 2000 and joined the Army shortly thereafter. He served for 2 years and was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, normally stationed Fort Hood, TX. Specialist Brewer was serving his second tour in Iraq and had taken part in the original invasion that began in March 2003. On February 25, 2005, his unit was deployed to an area near Taji, Iraq. An improvised explosive device exploded nearby, tragically killing him and two other soldiers. At Specialist Brewer's funeral, the pastor put it well: ``Not only did he defend our country but he defended the values of freedom that we hold so dear . . . I know his passing has been hard. But for the rest of your life, whenever you see his picture or mention his name, you can be proud.'' We are indeed proud, as we are of those young men and women who have committed to defend our Nation and put their lives on the line every day. But I think Specialist Brewer's mother Karen Brewer said it best, ``He wanted to serve his country, and he served it all the way.'' He indeed gave all that he had, in life and in death, for his country. The legacy of such sacrifice challenges us on behalf of the Senate, this Nation, and the cause of freedom around the world, I honor a special Oklahoman and true soldier, SPC Adam Brewer. Specialist Robert T. Hendrickson Mr. President, I wish to honor a true hero who, on February 1, 2005, gave his life while serving in Iraq. SPC Robert Hendrickson is an example of the selfless service that is essential to this country's freedom. Although he was born in Biloxi, MS, Specialist Hendrickson listed Broken Bow, OK, as his hometown. He attended school in Del City and Edmond before moving with his mother to Broken Bow. His father, Dave Hendrickson, says his son planned to return to school when he returned from service and study to become a pediatric nurse. After high school, Specialist Hendrickson enlisted in the U.S. Army. He was assigned to the 2d Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, normally stationed in Fort Hood, TX. He was serving in Iraq with this unit when, just after the successful elections took place, his vehicle overturned. He was found unconscious and never recovered. He died to help the Iraqi people achieve their freedom,'' Dave Hendrickson said. ``He died for the Iraqi people and the war against terrorism so that his son might have a safer world to live in.'' Specialist Hendrickson is survived by his parents, his sister, and a 6-year-old son, Dylan. ``He loved Dylan more than anything,'' Dave said. ``My son was a good boy. He was a good man. He was a good dad.'' SPC Robert Hendrickson was indeed a good man. He put aside his own safety, volunteering to serve in the most dangerous of professions. He gave so much and his sacrifice will be remembered by friends, family, and all of us who are profoundly indebted to him. Staff Sergeant Jason R. Hendrix

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise to honor a brave soldier who gave his life to the defense of this Nation. SSG. Jason Hendrix chose to place himself in harms way and for this service he paid the highest price. Staff Sergeant Hendrix joined the Army right out of high school and served for 11 years. He was a squad leader in the 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division. This unit is usually stationed in South Korea, but was deployed to assist in Operation Iraqi Freedom. When Staff Sergeant Hendrix found out that he was heading for one of the most dangerous areas in the world, he told his family, ``You guys might not understand why we're over here, but we need to be over here, and I've got to do my job.'' Those who knew Staff Sergeant Hendrix best describe him as a ``professional soldier.'' They also speak of his compassion and care for the men in his unit. Last Christmas, Staff Sergeant Hendrix gave up his leave so that other men could go home and see their newborn children. He also bought, at his own expense, equipment for his men such as night-vision goggles, facemasks, flashlights, dozens of handcuffs and magazine couplers for their M-16s. Staff Sergeant Hendrix fought in the rebel stronghold of Fallujah late last year and was serving in Ar Ramadi at the time of his death. On February 16, 2005, he was leading a 25-man squad when they came under a heavy artillery attack. Staff Sergeant Hendrix was hit and died from his wounds. For this soldier from Claremore, Ok, there is no deeper honor than the memory he leaves behind. He gave of himself in life as well as in death, and stands out as an example to all of us. Today I honor a true hero, SSG. Jason Hendrix. Specialist Jeffrey S. Henthorn Mr. President, I wish to rise in honor of a son of Oklahoma and an American hero. SPC Jeffery Henthorn demonstrated the type of patriotism that protects our freedom and encourages freedom in other countries. For his dedication and sacrifice I am pleased to honor him on the Senate floor today. Specialist Henthorn was from Choctaw, OK. After earning his high school degree, Specialist Henthorn enlisted in the Army and was assigned to the 24th Transportation Company, out of Fort Riley, KS. Specialist Henthorn was serving in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He died on February 8, 2005, while stationed in Balad, Iraq, from noncombat related injuries. He was 25 years old and leaves behind family and friends who grieve along with our grateful Nation. Specialist Henthorn was willing to place his life on the line and paid the fullest cost for the sake of freedom. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I wish to express my profound gratitude and deepest honor for the men and women who, like Specialist Henthorn, know the true meaning of service. They continue to give so much, and as freedom spreads throughout the Middle East region we know that their sacrifice has not been in vain. I honor the life and memory of those who have given their lives in this noble cause. I am grieved, but very proud of this young man from Oklahoma, SPC Jeffery Henthorn. Army Specialist. Lyle W. Rymer II Mr. President, I wish to honor one of this country's fallen warriors, a young man that comes from my home State of Oklahoma. Army SPC Lyle Rymer II was making way for freedom in Iraq when he paid the ultimate price. Specialist Rymer was born in Roland, OK. After graduating from high school, he joined the National Guard to help his family. ``That's what he decided to do,'' his grandmother Bobby Sue Drake said. ``He liked it. He said, `Somebody's got to defend this country. It might as well be me.' He was a great kid.'' According to his friends, he planned to make a career of the Army and was considering enrolling in Airborne school. Rymer also had a reputation for cheering up fellow soldiers. Specialist Rymer was serving in Iraq with the 239th Engineer Company, an Arkansas-based National Guard unit. On January 28, 2005, he was guarding an area where engineers were setting up barriers in preparation for the elections. Without warning, he was shot by an enemy sniper and died from his wounds. Army Specialist Rymer is buried at Fort Smith National Cemetery, AR. Many are left behind who are both proud and grieved at his sacrifice. Specialist Rymer is survived by his wife LaTisha, a 2-year-old son, Sean, and a 10-month-old daughter, Jasmine. He was able to see his newborn daughter during a November furlough. The loss of Specialist Rymer is one that will continue to be felt as the years pass. He was one who gave more than was required, in life and in death. He sacrificed his own well-being and put himself in harm's way, showing courage that demands our recognition. I am honored to honor him, and hope that I somehow express gratefulness beyond these mere words.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Senator Harkin and I are introducing the True Competition Act which will resolve a longstanding debate about the status of Dallas Love Field Airport. This is a critical issue for those of us from States that depend on access to the Nation's air transportation network through hub airports in other States. In the late 1960s the Federal Government expressed concern that it was funding three airports very closely located to each other in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. It asked the local communities to build a single major airport to serve the entire region. The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, in consultation with the airlines serving the local airports, agreed to do so only under the condition that all three local airports be permanently closed to all commercial airline traffic. It was this agreement that resulted in the construction of the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. The legislation I propose today would return to the original intent of all the parties involved in the decision to build DFW International by closing Love Field to commercial air traffic. If enacted, competition at DFW will increase significantly. This will be good for consumers and it will be good for communities that used DFW as their access to the world. The Federal statute that is central to this debate is the so-called Wright amendment. This was a law enacted in 1979 that allowed Love Field to stay open for limited service despite the desire of the local communities to have it close. It was necessary because activist judges in Texas had ruled against the local government's intent to consolidate all air traffic at DFW. Recently, legislation has been introduced that would completely reverse the agreement of the parties to limit Love Field to an airport serving short haul markets. This would return to the situation that was supposed be corrected 30 years ago. The runways of Love Field and DFW are 8 miles apart. To have two major, federally funded airports so close simply doesn't make sense. Moreover, if flights are transferred from DFW to Love Field--as they surely would be if the Wright amendment is repealed--there will be fewer connecting opportunities at DFW for passengers from outside the north Texas area. I understand that Southwest Airlines is lobbying strongly for repeal of the Wright amendment. I want to make it clear that I have the greatest respect for Southwest and consider myself a good customer. But Southwest surely does not need the continued permanent home court advantage that the courts gave them years ago. Southwest operates very successfully at some of the most congested and high volume airports in the country. They have the skill and the resources to compete against any carrier at any airport. If they moved their operations to DFW, consumers and communities could have the best of all worlds--intense head-to-head competition between carriers and even more opportunities to travel throughout the world. It is time to resolve this controversy once and for all by returning to the original intent of the parties.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. The independent producers of oil and gas are a backbone of our domestic supply of energy. The independent producers have made clear the high value they place on research performed at the Tulsa office of the Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil at National Energy Technology Laboratory.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President. I think I will be able to do it within that time, anyway. Let me make a couple comments. I think almost none of these items have been covered before. It is approaching this whole CAFTA idea from a different perspective. Let me first of all say that when this first came up, I just heard ``CAFTA,'' and I said: I am against it. I led the opposition against NAFTA 11 years ago. I thought this was more of the same, and so I was opposed to it. Then someone showed me how my Oklahoma farmers might be affected. I am not sure you can see this chart, but it shows the various grains, cattle, meat products, dairy products, vegetables, and so forth. The blue bars are the tariffs that are charged to our farmers, and the others are what are charged to imports coming in. I have found that in every case, when this is fully implemented--if it is--my Oklahoma farmers will benefit, and benefit materially. So I actually went and talked to some of the farmer groups that were leaning against the agreement for a number of reasons--a number of reasons that have been posed on this floor--only to find out they have changed their minds and they are very much supportive. That is not really why I am here today. I think that is something very specific we can look at. We know it is true. I would like to look at this in a little different way. I was distressed a little bit because some of my very good friends in the conservative communities were opposing CAFTA. I have gone to any lengths to try to determine specifically what their opposition was. There are five organizations that are conservative organizations-- they are great organizations. I agree with them almost 100 percent of the time. Their argument was: We are against this as we are against all treaties because anything that is this kind of a multinational thing will infringe upon our Nation's sovereignty. Well, I have to tell my good friends in these five conservative organizations, there is no one who is stronger in this position than I am. I am the guy who stopped the Law of the Sea Treaty. Quite frankly, I think it was going to pass. It actually had passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with a unanimous vote. I found out what was in it. I found out we were ceding our jurisdiction--our sovereignty, if you will--over some very important parts of the water-covered part of the planet. I felt it was wrong. And we have not--I am not saying it is all dead in the water right now, to use a phrase, but I think it is. Certainly it has been stalled. I led the opposition. I was opposed to it. I was not for it. The Kyoto treaty, you all know how I feel about that. We debated climate change on the Senate floor 2 weeks ago. I spent 2 whole days talking about that. I think we know that under that treaty, according to the Wharton Econometrics Survey from the Wharton School of Economics, if we had to comply with the Kyoto treaty, it would have cost our average family of four $2,700 a year. It would have doubled the price of energy and gasoline and all that. We know that is true. I led the opposition to that and was very proud to do that. Eleven years ago, we had NAFTA. I was in the other body, in the House of Representatives, 11 years ago. I was elected in a special election to come over to this body. So the year they had NAFTA, I was able to lead the opposition to the ratification of NAFTA in both the House and the Senate. I was the only one who could do that. So I came over here to the Senate. I say to my good friend from North Dakota, who posed some excellent arguments against NAFTA just a few minutes ago, this CAFTA is not NAFTA. On the NAFTA part, I agree. I remember standing on the floor of both the House and the Senate saying: If we pass NAFTA, that is going to allow a Mexican trucker to pick up a load in Brownsville, TX, take it to Tulsa, OK, and not have to comply with any of our health standards, our environmental standards, our wage and hour standards. Sure enough, these things turned out to be true. I do not think it was a success. I think it was a failure. So getting back to the ones who are for this agreement and against it, I would have to say to the very small number of conservative organizations that are opposing this, the vast majority of the organizations in the conservative column are supporting it. Listen to this. Those organizations that are supporting CAFTA include Americans for Tax Reform, Center for Security Policy, National Tax Payers Union, The Heritage Foundation, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, The Club for Growth, the National Tax-Limitation Committee--that is Lew Uhler and his group--Citizens for a Sound Economy, Empower America, and the James Madison Institute. That is just to name a few. They are the 40 most prominent--except for 5--organizations that are supporting it. I am very sensitive to this. Maybe I should not be that sensitive, but I am because, according to the American Conservative Union, in their rating, I am not No. 2 or No. 3 or No. 4 but the No. 1 most conservative Member of the Senate. Now, I am qualifying myself for this because I keep hearing that conservatives are somehow opposed to this agreement, as they were NAFTA. Of course, I agreed with them back at the NAFTA time. Now, what kind of liberal groups are opposing CAFTA? We have already talked about the conservative groups that are supporting CAFTA. Those who are opposing it are Earthjustice, National Environmental Trust, Friends of the Earth, EnviroCitizen, Freedom Socialist Party--there is another great group--the Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists' Social Justice Committee, Nonviolence International, Progressive Democrats of America, Safe Earth Alliance, Public Citizen, Social Welfare Action Alliance, Community Alliance for Global Justice, Gray Panthers of Austin, San Francisco Neighbor-to-Neighbor, New York State Green Party, and the Holland Peacemakers. I could go on and on. And we will insert more of them in the Record. But by and large, what I am trying to get across is that virtually every far-left, extremist, liberal group in America is opposing CAFTA. And somebody has to say it. I was sent an e-mail from my State of Oklahoma saying that they understood I was still undecided. The responses are about 9 to 1 in opposition to CAFTA, and, therefore, you cannot dare go ahead and support CAFTA. Let me just say, on many occasions, when the people at home do not have available to them the information that we do because that is what we are paid to do for a living and we find out the information is wrong, I do not mind doing that. I can explain this to the people in my home State of Oklahoma. They do not want to identify themselves with that group, that liberal group I just read off. And when they find out about it, they will be very supportive. But I only bring that up to say that if anyone is out there with the thought that this is a conservative versus liberal issue, it is, but it is on the other side. The liberals are opposed to it. The conservatives are supporting it. But I have another concern that is far greater, that far outweighs even the benefits it might give to my farmers in my State of Oklahoma, even the benefits that would be achieved by passing this to the very conservative groups in America; that is, I happen to be old enough to remember what happened in the 1980s. I remember Ronald Reagan, a great President. I remember at that time we had Communist regimes in Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, and that they were infiltrating--at that time, it was still the Soviet Union--they were trying to take over America by doing it through Cuba, and then all these organizations, all of these countries where they had taken over the government. By failing to pass this treaty, we could undo all of those successful democratizations of the Reagan and the first Bush administrations. I remember the Contras, the freedom fighters, who were down in Nicaragua at that time, and the fight that was almost impossible; they were fighting for their freedom. I remember those five countries that are part of this treaty: the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. They have all committed troops in support to the Iraqi coalition forces and have demonstrated their support for the global war on terrorism. They are fighting side by side with our troops over in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are the people we want to reward. These are not people we want to somehow punish, as though they have done something wrong. They are fighting for freedom. CAFTA approval for these countries and their economies should aid security there and counter the influence by Cuban and Venezuelan Governments under Castro, Chavez, Ortega, and others opposed to the United States influence in the region. I mentioned Chavez, Ortega, and Castro. They are among the anti-U.S. forces in the region, and they are all against CAFTA. These Communists, these enemies of the United States, Chavez, Ortega, and Castro, are all in opposition to CAFTA. If you want to be on their side, you would vote against CAFTA. They fear its passage would show support for and facilitate the efforts of the pro-American countries and parties in the region. Also, Daniel Ortega, former Nicaraguan president and Sandinista leader, is making attempts to elevate his obsolete ideology based on Marxist-Leninist theory. Further, upon his capture, Ortega expressed solidarity with Saddam Hussein against what he called the Yankee occupiers of Iraq. In other words, here is a guy who has been ousted as President of Nicaragua, one we defeated back in the 1980s, one who was trying to spread communism against freedom and democracy in Latin America. He was on the side of Saddam Hussein and called us the Yankee occupiers of Iraq. A couple weeks ago I had a pretty bitter competition with one of my friends here in the Senate from Arizona, Senator McCain. I disagreed with him on an issue, and we spent 2 days debating that issue and fighting with each other. I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree. I happened to hear some of his remarks a few minutes ago. I share his concern about the state of democracy in Central America. Failing economies will create an environment in which regimes such as those of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez may once again poison the future of these nations. The historical threat of communism in Central America, the influence of Castro in countries such as Nicaragua, and the Sandinistas in power also affected neighboring countries such as Honduras and El Salvador. CAFTA can protect these emerging democracies. For example, Nicaragua, the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, second only to Haiti, has a President Enrique Bolanos. He is a pro-American President. He is facing a tough 2006 election, and the candidate he is facing is none other than Daniel Ortega. Bolanos knows that CAFTA is the keystone to his plans to boost economic growth and blunt the political attacks of the Sandinistas. Who would have ever thought in the last 10 years that they would reemerge, but they have. So now we have Daniel Ortega back there trying to do some things. To quote Senator McCain: If there's anything that we need today, it is strong, viable economies in Central America so that they can progress, so that they can be strong and they can again be allies of the United States of America, not in a military fashion but in their advocacy for free and open societies, democracies, and places where people can raise their families in a situation of security and peace. That is what Ronald Reagan did back in the 1980s. I heard the junior Senator from Massachusetts speaking in opposition to the agreement. I don't know whether it is because of his past relationship with what was going on down in Nicaragua some 12 or 14 years ago, but I would like to quote from an April 26, 1985 edition of the Washington Post. Keep in mind, this was back when we had Daniel Ortega down there being promoted by Castro and by the Soviet Union to try to spread communism in Central America. The lengths to which some Democrats were willing to go in pursuit of nonintervention were extraordinary. Sens. Tom Harkin and John Kerry returned home from an 11th-hour trip to Managua [Nicaragua] clutching a piece of paper signed by President Daniel Ortega which they announced was a ``new, bold and innovative approach'' and ``a wonderful opening.'' At their arrival home, only the umbrella was missing. We have a difference of opinion. We don't agree. We didn't agree back in the middle 1980s about Daniel Ortega and what the Communists were trying to do in Central America and we don't agree today. For those who weren't around at that time, it was a very emotional time. The contras were the freedom fighters. They were supposed to win. I used to go down there. There was a hospital tent that was right across the border in Honduras. That is where they would take the freedom fighters from Nicaragua. They would take them over there to treat them. This tent was about the size of this Senate Chamber. It had beds all around the periphery. In the middle, not even screened, was the operating table. The only operations they performed there were amputations because of all the mines that were there. And so these freedom fighters would come in there and be mended and go back and fight for their freedom across the border in Nicaragua. There must have been 40 beds all the way around, people who had had these amputations. At that time I did a pretty good job of speaking Spanish. I thought, you kids--the average age was 16 years old because the older ones had already been killed--you kids are fighting for your freedom, you are fighting against this force, the Communists, supplied by Castro and the Soviet Union. It is impossible. Why are you doing this? And I went around and talked to each one of them. I remember coming up to a little girl who was 15 years old. Her name was Elena Gonzales. I asked her that question. And she looked up to me. It was her third trip back to that hospital tent, and they had amputated her right leg a few hours before. The blood was coming from the bandages. She looked up at me with teary brown eyes and she said: Es porque han tomado nuestros campos . . . han tomado todo de lo que tenemos. Pero de veras, ustedes en los Estados Unidos entienden. Porque ustedes tuvieron luchar para su libertad lo mismo que estamas luchando ahora (English translation of the above statement is as follows:) Yes, it is almost impossible, but we are fighting. We are fighting because they have taken our farms and ranches. Why would you in the United States question why we are doing this? You had to fight against the same odds for your freedoms as we are fighting now. That little girl didn't know whether the Revolutionary War was 200 years ago or 20 years ago. But she knew we were that beacon of freedom and that the beacon was about to go out in their country. They were willing to fight. And they died and they won. So now we have the rest of the story. This is an opportunity for us to do something that is good down there. Yes, I think it is good for my Oklahoma farmers. And yes, the conservatives support it, and the extreme liberals oppose the CAFTA treaty. But I think the strongest argument is that this is an opportunity for us to keep the Ortega and Chavez and Castro forces from undoing all the progress that was made throughout the 1980s and the early 1990s. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think under the UC I have been allocated around 15 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to be granted such time as I shall consume.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Montana and chairman of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee for his commitment to work with me on this matter of great importance to me, and I congratulate him on a job well done with respect to this appropriations bill. With his commitment I will withdraw my amendment 1051 to H.R. 2361.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, amendment number 1051 concerns the manner in which the Environmental Protection Agency awards direct assistance grants. Over the past 10 years, regardless of Presidential administration, the U.S. Government Accountability Office and EPA Inspector General have been extremely critical of the way EPA awards and administers grants programs. As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I have made oversight of EPA grants management a Committee priority. Each year, the EPA awards half its budget in grants amounting to over $4 billion. This amount is comprised of non-discretionary grants awarded pursuant to regulatory or statutory formula for expenditures such as capitalization funding for State and local programs and comprised of discretionary grants awarded to a variety of recipients. In a hearing before the Environment and Public Works Committee early last year, the Government Accountability Office and EPA inspector general offered testimony critical of the lack of competition in awarding discretionary funds, the lack of measurable environmental results, and an overall lack of accountability of EPA personnel and grant recipients. More specifically, the GAO testified that due to a lack of competition in grants, EPA can't ensure the most qualified applicants receive grant awards. The EPA inspector general even testified that due to a lack of competition, there is an appearance of preferential treatment in grant awards. On March 31, 2005, the inspector general released an audit concluding that EPA needs to compete more grants and recommended that EPA eliminate noncompetitive justifications for national organizations that represent the interests of State, tribal, and local governments. My amendment reflects the inspector general's recommendation and would simply require open competition to ensure the value of those awards. However, the EPA inspector general's recommendation may be too broad of an approach. Perhaps the most important question that can be raised concerning EPA grants is the question, ``What is the benefit to the environment?'' The EPA has an obligation to ensure taxpayers that it is accomplishing its mission of protecting human health and the environment with the funds it awards each year. My interest is ensuring that EPA direct assistance grants demonstrate environmental value and EPA enacts necessary measures to reach that aim. Can I get the commitment from the chairman of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee to work with me to sufficiently address this issue?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, to begin, let me assure my colleague that as chairman of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, I am fully aware of how important this issue is to his State of Arizona. His State's current allocation under the Clean Water Act is well below the State's proportional need. As my colleague knows, the EPW Committee has for the past two Congresses passed legislation to reauthorize the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs. In those bills, the committee also rewrote the clean water formula. My colleagues Senators Jeffords, Chafee and Clinton and I are working on a new proposal and feel confident that unlike our previous efforts, this bill will be enacted into law. My State of Oklahoma would get more money under the Kyl formula than under the current allocation. I would like to support your amendment because it brings more dollars home to Oklahoma. However, all States need more water infrastructure money as their systems age and struggle to meet the ever-growing list of Federal regulations. There is a significant nationwide shortage of funds that is affecting all States. Given current Federal appropriations, there is simply no way to rewrite the formula so that all States win. If we change the formula, without reauthorizing the State Revolving Loan Funds, some States will have to lose money. In order to assure that each State receives sufficient funds to run an effective program, we need to enact water infrastructure legislation which raises the authorization level for this important program while also addressing the formula. The committee's long-term goal is to keep everyone whole because all States need more money not less. I hope all of my colleagues who care strongly about the Kyl amendment will rally around the bill that we hope to pass out of committee next month. The committee will do as the Senate promised Senator Kyl during the 107th Congress and pass another formula. We will put forth a proposal that minimizes the pain to those States that will see their clean water funding cut while providing modest increases to other States. We will continue to work to increase the authorization to this important program so that the needs of all States can be met. I appreciate my colleague's willingness to withdraw his amendment and allow the committee to do its work.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. How much time remains?

Mr. INHOFE. Sometimes we fall into the trap of thinking all wisdom is in Washington, DC. I noticed an op-ed piece in the Oklahoma Duncan Banner yesterday, written by Steve Fair, wherein he goes through all of his research on the outside, showing virtually all the science since 1999 or since 1998 when Michael Mann came through with his hockey stick, has demonstrated very clearly that the science is not there. I ask unanimous consent this op-ed piece be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield one additional minute to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. INHOFE. No, McCain-Lieberman.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from New Mexico, I yield whatever time he may consume to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. INHOFE. First, I thank the Senator from Kansas for his excellent remarks. I think the Senator from Tennessee had a response or a couple of minutes, that he wanted to respond to something that was said; is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, do we have a time agreement on your resolution?