Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Let me inquire as to what is the regular order?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 7, 2005 at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 7, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Regulatory Reform of the Government-Sponsored Enterprises.''

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, SAFETEA, which the Committee on Environment and Public Works reported out on March 16, 2005. This bill reauthorizes the Federal aid highway program which has been operating on extensions since it expired on September 30, 2003. The bill I am introducing today is essentially S. 1072 as passed by the Senate in the 108th Congress, with the exception that the overall funding level has been changed from $318 billion over 6 years to reflect the President's proposed funding level of $283.9 billion over 6 years. Last year, this body voted 76 to 21 to adopt S. 1072. Clearly, there was overwhelming support for this measure then, and in conversations with Members this year, I am confident that there is a real desire to get this bill done. We are already to take the bill up on the Senate floor just as soon as it is scheduled by the leadership. It has been nearly 18 months since the current program, Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century--TEA-21, expired. To date, we have done a total of six extensions with the current extension due to expire on May 31. This next deadline is fast approaching, and in addition to completing action on the floor, we still must conference with the House which has a very different formula program than proposed last year. We will have more challenging issues to address and need as much time as possible to do so. Briefly, as in the bill passed by the Senate last year, the bill I am introducing today will address several critical issues in our transportation system. Specifically, the language improves on the existing program in the following areas: Safety: Nearly 43,000 people died in 2002 on our Nation's highways. This represents the single greatest cause of accidental death in America. The Environment and Public Works Committee bill addresses this by creating a new core safety program and funding it accordingly. Congestion: According to the Department of Transportation, time spent in congestion increased from 31.7 percent in 1992 to 33.1 percent in 2000. Based on this rate, a typical ``rush hour'' in an urbanized area is 5.3 hours per day. The problem is not in just urban areas; cities with populations less than 500,000 have experienced the greatest growth in travel delays, according to the DOT. Under this proposal, we would address the congestion problem by establishing a new Transportation Freight Gateway program which targets bottlenecks around ports and intermodal facilities. Environment: This bill addresses the need to reduce delays in project delivery in several ways. The bill contains carefully balanced language on incorporating environmental concerns into planning and project review as early as practicable, while ensuring that disagreements over such concerns don't indefinitely delay much needed transportation projects. The language on the section 4(f) process will also help reduce unnecessary delays by enabling projects with de minimis impacts on 4(f) resources to proceed in a timely manner. Also, the bill seeks to correct the inconsistencies between the transportation planning and air quality planning that must take place in areas in nonattainment under the Clean Air Act. The bill rationalizes the schedules for developing transportation plans and demonstrating conformity and aligns the length of the transportation plan considered under conformity with the length of the air quality plan. Equity: The bill provides all States at least 10 percent growth over TEA-21 while increasing the rate of return for donor States from the current 90.5 percent to 92 percent by 2009. We maintain the TEA-21 scope of 92.5 percent. The longer we delay enactment of a multiyear bill, we are negatively affecting economic growth. According to DOT estimates, every $1 billion of Federal Funds invested in highway improvements creates 47,000 jobs. The same $1 billion investment yields $500 million in new orders for the manufacturing sector and $500 million spread throughout other sectors of the economy. States contract awards for the 2005 spring and summer construction season are going out to bid. If we fail to pass this bill soon, States will not know what to expect in Federal funding and the uncertainty will potentially force States to delay putting these projects out for bid. According to the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, AASHTO, an estimated 90,000 jobs are at stake. This problem is exacerbated for northern States which have shorter construction seasons. Many State transportation departments have advanced State dollars to construct projects eligible for Federal funding in anticipation of our action to reauthorize the program. Without a new bill, States are essentially left ``holding the bag.'' Over the past 6 years under TEA-21, we have made great progress in preserving and improving the overall physical condition and operation of our transportation system; however, more needs to be done. A safe, effective transportation system is the foundation of our economy. We are past due to fulfill an obligation to this country and the American people. As mentioned earlier, the bill is essentially the same bill that was passed on the Senate floor last year--a bipartisan product of many months of hard work and compromise. It remains a very good piece of legislation. The most significant difference with this bill, of course, is that it is drafted at the $283.9 billion level over 6 years. Since 2004 is behind us, the Environment and Public Works Committee bill includes only years 2005 to 2009 which is effectively $283.9 minus fiscal year 2004. S. 1072 passed the Senate last year and guaranteed all donor States a rate of return of 95 percent. At a lower funding level, we were able only to achieve a 92-percent rate of return but kept the 10 percent floor over TEA-21. I am certain my colleagues share my strong desire to get a transportation reauthorization bill passed and signed into law by the President. I urge the leadership to schedule consideration of this bill this month so we can get it done.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, SAFETEA, which the Committee on Environment and Public Works reported out on March 16, 2005. This bill reauthorizes the Federal aid highway program which has been operating on extensions since it expired on September 30, 2003. The bill I am introducing today is essentially S. 1072 as passed by the Senate in the 108th Congress, with the exception that the overall funding level has been changed from $318 billion over 6 years to reflect the President's proposed funding level of $283.9 billion over 6 years. Last year, this body voted 76 to 21 to adopt S. 1072. Clearly, there was overwhelming support for this measure then, and in conversations with Members this year, I am confident that there is a real desire to get this bill done. We are already to take the bill up on the Senate floor just as soon as it is scheduled by the leadership. It has been nearly 18 months since the current program, Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century--TEA-21, expired. To date, we have done a total of six extensions with the current extension due to expire on May 31. This next deadline is fast approaching, and in addition to completing action on the floor, we still must conference with the House which has a very different formula program than proposed last year. We will have more challenging issues to address and need as much time as possible to do so. Briefly, as in the bill passed by the Senate last year, the bill I am introducing today will address several critical issues in our transportation system. Specifically, the language improves on the existing program in the following areas: Safety: Nearly 43,000 people died in 2002 on our Nation's highways. This represents the single greatest cause of accidental death in America. The Environment and Public Works Committee bill addresses this by creating a new core safety program and funding it accordingly. Congestion: According to the Department of Transportation, time spent in congestion increased from 31.7 percent in 1992 to 33.1 percent in 2000. Based on this rate, a typical ``rush hour'' in an urbanized area is 5.3 hours per day. The problem is not in just urban areas; cities with populations less than 500,000 have experienced the greatest growth in travel delays, according to the DOT. Under this proposal, we would address the congestion problem by establishing a new Transportation Freight Gateway program which targets bottlenecks around ports and intermodal facilities. Environment: This bill addresses the need to reduce delays in project delivery in several ways. The bill contains carefully balanced language on incorporating environmental concerns into planning and project review as early as practicable, while ensuring that disagreements over such concerns don't indefinitely delay much needed transportation projects. The language on the section 4(f) process will also help reduce unnecessary delays by enabling projects with de minimis impacts on 4(f) resources to proceed in a timely manner. Also, the bill seeks to correct the inconsistencies between the transportation planning and air quality planning that must take place in areas in nonattainment under the Clean Air Act. The bill rationalizes the schedules for developing transportation plans and demonstrating conformity and aligns the length of the transportation plan considered under conformity with the length of the air quality plan. Equity: The bill provides all States at least 10 percent growth over TEA-21 while increasing the rate of return for donor States from the current 90.5 percent to 92 percent by 2009. We maintain the TEA-21 scope of 92.5 percent. The longer we delay enactment of a multiyear bill, we are negatively affecting economic growth. According to DOT estimates, every $1 billion of Federal Funds invested in highway improvements creates 47,000 jobs. The same $1 billion investment yields $500 million in new orders for the manufacturing sector and $500 million spread throughout other sectors of the economy. States contract awards for the 2005 spring and summer construction season are going out to bid. If we fail to pass this bill soon, States will not know what to expect in Federal funding and the uncertainty will potentially force States to delay putting these projects out for bid. According to the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, AASHTO, an estimated 90,000 jobs are at stake. This problem is exacerbated for northern States which have shorter construction seasons. Many State transportation departments have advanced State dollars to construct projects eligible for Federal funding in anticipation of our action to reauthorize the program. Without a new bill, States are essentially left ``holding the bag.'' Over the past 6 years under TEA-21, we have made great progress in preserving and improving the overall physical condition and operation of our transportation system; however, more needs to be done. A safe, effective transportation system is the foundation of our economy. We are past due to fulfill an obligation to this country and the American people. As mentioned earlier, the bill is essentially the same bill that was passed on the Senate floor last year--a bipartisan product of many months of hard work and compromise. It remains a very good piece of legislation. The most significant difference with this bill, of course, is that it is drafted at the $283.9 billion level over 6 years. Since 2004 is behind us, the Environment and Public Works Committee bill includes only years 2005 to 2009 which is effectively $283.9 minus fiscal year 2004. S. 1072 passed the Senate last year and guaranteed all donor States a rate of return of 95 percent. At a lower funding level, we were able only to achieve a 92-percent rate of return but kept the 10 percent floor over TEA-21. I am certain my colleagues share my strong desire to get a transportation reauthorization bill passed and signed into law by the President. I urge the leadership to schedule consideration of this bill this month so we can get it done.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank Senator Bond for the leadership he and his subcommittee staff have demonstrated in bringing this piece of legislation together. I have great hopes for getting a WRDA bill passed this session. We have not enacted a WRDA bill since 2000, and the water resources are in much need of this authorization. We made great progress and were very close to finishing a bill at the end of the 108th Congress. That effort has provided a great stepping stone toward quick completion this year. The Army Corps of Engineers has provided a valuable service to the Nation for over 200 years. It has been instrumental in creating one of the most dynamic inland waterway systems in the world. For example, the Corps activities have provided Tulsa, OK with one of the Nation's most inland ports and provides the dredging needed to keep the San Francisco Bay navigable. There is not a State in the Union that does not reap the benefits of the Army Corps. I am well aware of the stacks of requests that have come in from every State for projects to be included in the bill. While it is important that we insure the Corps is capable of meeting our future water resource needs, it is also very important that we do not demand more of the Corps than it is capable of providing. No Federal agency could complete all of the projects requested by all of the Senators. Considering the limited staff and budget of the Corps, an ``authorize everything'' approach may leave everyone with nothing. While I know that each Senator has his or her own priorities, we all must understand the limitations with which we reside. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we give clear direction to the Corps to focus on completing the highest priority and most beneficial projects.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor an important institution in America that has contributed greatly to the quality of our youth and is very dear to my heart and the hearts of many here--the Boy Scouts of America. For more than 90 years, the Scouts have supported our youth and helped produce some of the best and brightest leaders in our country-- as many of my colleagues can attest--and 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 am pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 642, the ``Support Our Scouts Act of 2005'', a bill that reinforces our strong commitment to the Boy Scouts. In fact, 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 thank my leader, Senator Frist, for his efforts on this issue. This bill addresses 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 from camping on Federal property to hosting the national jamboree every 4 years at Fort A.P. Hill. As Senator Frist has said, this legislation will specifically ensure that the Department of Defense can and will continue to provide 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. Regrettably, as we all know, in recent years, the Boy Scouts have come under attack from aggressive liberal groups blatantly pushing their own social agendas. In particular, Scouts have been the target of lawsuits by organizations that are more concerned with pushing these liberal agendas than sincerely helping our youth. For instance, the Federal government is currently defending a 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 like 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 must coalesce around those values that are so important to our society. We should seek to aid, not impede, groups that promote values like 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 like Helping Hands for Heroes, 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 to 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. 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.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank Senator Bond for the leadership he and his subcommittee staff have demonstrated in bringing this piece of legislation together. I have great hopes for getting a WRDA bill passed this session. We have not enacted a WRDA bill since 2000, and the water resources are in much need of this authorization. We made great progress and were very close to finishing a bill at the end of the 108th Congress. That effort has provided a great stepping stone toward quick completion this year. The Army Corps of Engineers has provided a valuable service to the Nation for over 200 years. It has been instrumental in creating one of the most dynamic inland waterway systems in the world. For example, the Corps activities have provided Tulsa, OK with one of the Nation's most inland ports and provides the dredging needed to keep the San Francisco Bay navigable. There is not a State in the Union that does not reap the benefits of the Army Corps. I am well aware of the stacks of requests that have come in from every State for projects to be included in the bill. While it is important that we insure the Corps is capable of meeting our future water resource needs, it is also very important that we do not demand more of the Corps than it is capable of providing. No Federal agency could complete all of the projects requested by all of the Senators. Considering the limited staff and budget of the Corps, an ``authorize everything'' approach may leave everyone with nothing. While I know that each Senator has his or her own priorities, we all must understand the limitations with which we reside. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we give clear direction to the Corps to focus on completing the highest priority and most beneficial projects.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Tom Coburn, to introduce a resolution to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. The attack occurred at 9:02 a.m. Central Daylight Time on April 19, 1995, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 168 Americans lost their lives while more than 850 others were injured. This terrible act of domestic terrorism affected thousands of families across the State of Oklahoma and the United States. I thank the local, State and Federal law enforcement, firefighters and emergency services and search and rescue teams across the United States, public and private medical personnel, and thousands of volunteers from the community who saved lives, assisted the injured, comforted the grieving, and provided meals and support to those who came to help the people of Oklahoma. I applaud the people of Oklahoma for making tremendous progress over the past decade and for demonstrating their steadfast commitment to triumph over violence and stand behind them as they continue to persevere. I am privileged to be from the great state of Oklahoma and encourage my colleagues to join me in commemorating the tenth anniversary of the attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as I have done many times before on this floor, I rise to address a national security issue of the highest importance, one that demands our utmost attention. I wish to alert this body and the American people to China's spreading global influence and the imminent threat this poses to our national security. Our past concerns have come to fruition on all levels--economically, militarily, and ideologically. We are on a collision course. As I will detail, China has become a progressive danger we can no longer afford to overlook. As I said, this is not new. Over the years I have made numerous remarks on the Senate floor regarding our national security and China. During the Clinton administration, there were growing concerns about Chinese espionage, which were later confirmed in the Cox report. The report showed that reality surpassed our worst fears. China had been stealing U.S. nuclear secrets. The W-88 warhead, with which we are all familiar, was the crown jewel of our nuclear program which allowed for up to 10 nuclear warheads to be attached to the same missile. In 1995, we discovered that China had stolen this technology. Under President Clinton, U.S. companies such as Loral Space and Communications and Hughes Electronics were given the green light to improve the precision and reliability of China's satellites and their nuclear missiles, undoing 50 years of technology export restrictions. China also gained the capability of accurately reaching the continental United States with nuclear missiles and targeted between 13 and 18 U.S. cities. All of this occurred while President Clinton proclaimed ``not one missile is pointed at American children.'' This body responded by investigating to what extent we were lied to and our security was compromised, but ultimately nothing changed. From those events, the Chinese Government learned that it could rely on our acquiescence and charged ahead. China transferred prohibited weapons technology to North Korea, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and other countries. China threatened to absorb Taiwan and intimidated our regional treaty allies, South Korea and Japan. That was 5 years ago. Since then we have had a new administration and have gone through such major events as 9/11, the current conflict in Iraq, and an ideological shift in the way we fight war. I wish I could say that with the new administration China's conduct has changed. President Bush has taken some steps in the right direction, notably rejuvenating the missile defense system; however, I am afraid that transpiring events tell a different story. Since 2000, the United States-China Security Economic Review 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.'' Congress established the 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. I fear their reports have gone largely unnoticed. It is remarkable they have gone unnoticed as significant as they were. In a most recent report, dated June of 2004, less than a year ago, the Commission makes this alarming opening statement. This is a bipartisan report: Based on our analyses 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 the report and recent events show, China has continued on an alarming course in conflict with our national security. Last January, the Bush administration imposed sanctions against eight large Chinese companies for aiding Iraq's missile program and transferring technology to other problematic countries. There was no public announcement, and the only reason we know about this is that some Sino-American Web sites came across this information on page 133 in the Federal Register. Last December, four companies were sanctioned for the same reason. Many other examples can be cited from 2004, with some of these companies being repeatedly penalized for more than a decade. The fact is that China has repeatedly vowed to curb its weapons sales and has gone back on its promises. This has been going on for some time. I spoke of this on the Senate floor on June 23, 1999. Beijing made nonproliferation commitments in 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000, and most recently in 2002. The U.S. State Department admits these guarantees came about ``only under the imminent threat, or in response to the actual imposition, of sanctions.'' The Commission report comments on China's continued assistance to countries such as Libya, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea. This assistance has continued despite nonproliferation assurances as the report outlines. Keep in mind, they have agreed to all these agreements, and yet the report says: China's assistance to weapons of mass destruction-related programs in countries of concern continues despite repeated promises to end such activities and the repeated imposition of U.S. sanctions. The Chinese Government and Chinese enterprises have assisted such states to develop their nuclear infrastructure, chemical weapons capabilities, and/or ballistic missile systems notwithstanding a consistent history of denials. Libya's decision to open up its weapons of mass destruction programs and the revelations by Pakistan that A.Q. Khan supplied uranium enrichment technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea, provides new insight into China's legacy of proliferation. China's continued failure to adequately curb its proliferation practices poses significant national security concerns to the United States. Again, this is not new. As I stated on the floor on March 15, 1999, China has been stealing our nuclear secrets, but, as the Commission points out, China is now sharing its nuclear knowledge--some of it is quite possibly ours--with other countries. For years China has transferred ballistic and cruise missile technology to countries with troubling proliferation records, but these transfers have evolved to become even more problematic. Again I quote from the bipartisan Commission that spent 4 years studying this relationship: . . . Chinese transfers have evolved from sales of complete missile systems, to exports of largely-dual use nuclear, chemical, and missile components and technologies . . . Recent activities ``have aggravated trends that result in ambiguous technical aid, more indigenous capabilities, longer range missiles, and secondary proliferation.'' Continuing intelligence reports indicate that the Chinese cooperation with Pakistan and Iran remains an integral element of China's foreign policy . . . Beijing's failure to control such transfers gives the appearance that these are allowed in accordance with an unstated national policy. China has generally tried to avoid making fundamental changes in its transfer policies by offering the United States carefully worded commitments or exploiting differences between agreements. As further evidence of this disturbing proliferation, the CIA report to Congress in mid-2003 said that ``firms in China provided dual-use missile-related items, raw materials, and/or assistance to . . . countries of proliferation concern such as Iran, Libya, and North Korea.'' Virtually every country we worry about possesses or has access to some form of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon, but most lack effective delivery systems. China is a proven violator of nonproliferation treaties that keep such countries from gaining access to delivery system technology. According to State Department testimony, China has a ``serial proliferation problem,'' and while the official line is to crack down on weapons trade, ``reality has been quite different.'' In her January Senate confirmation hearings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice listed six countries as ``outposts of tyranny.'' China has strong ties to four of these. They are Cuba, Burma, North Korea, and Iran. Recently, Iran has been in the headlines because of its support for terrorism, threatening posture, and nuclear program. China supplying them with weapons technology is similar to the role the Soviet Union played in the Cuban missile crisis. It is probably worse because at least in Cuba, the U.S.S.R. maintained control of the weapons and technology. On the other hand, China is fully willing to proliferate regardless of the consequences. Some say the real issue is with private companies and Beijing does not have knowledge of what is going on. With the delicate situation in North Korea, the Bush administration is holding that line. But the fact remains that at the very least, the Chinese Government is negligent in deterring such proliferation and apparently does not feel any pressure to do so. However, as some of these companies are closely linked with the Chinese military, it is clear that the government is not so ignorant as we may like to imagine. This continued proliferation in the face of intense pressure to stop makes me ask the question: What is China getting in return? China seems to proliferate with countries that have been terrorist sponsors, such as Iran, Iraq, and Libya. These countries offer China something they desperately need, and that is oil. That is what is significant. Energy is a major problem facing China, which ranks No. 2 in the world for consumption. This is very interesting because right now we have been talking about the fact we have a very serious problem in not having an energy policy, not being able to pass an energy bill--it has been killed by people who think we do not need to run this great machine called America. Since my floor speeches in 1999, China's oil imports have doubled and surged upwards of 57 percent in the last year alone. I have a chart that shows what could very well happen in the future. This chart starts in 1990 and goes to 2025 and shows what China's projected oil production versus consumption is. The red line is consumption. The green line is production. We can see they do not have production. They have to get production from someplace. That is something to which we should be most sensitive. China's oil production is topped out while its demand continues to rise at an alarming pace. Some analysts project China's oil needs will double again by 2010, and it will use its reserves within 14 years. This information is from International Energy Outlook of 2004. We believe this to be accurate. China's alarming need for oil has caused it to look around to the world for new sources, sources that are often problematic states with security concerns to the United States. The Commission makes an unpopular but straightforward observation. I am going to quote this very significant statement out of the Commission report: This need for energy security may help explain Beijing's history of assistance to terrorist-sponsoring states with various forms of weapons of mass destruction-related items and technical assistance, even in the face of U.S. sanctions. But this pursuit of oil diplomacy may support objectives beyond just energy supply. Beijing's bilateral arrangements with oil-rich Middle Eastern states also helped create diplomatic and strategic alliances with countries that were hostile to the United States. For example, with U.S. interests precluded from entering Iran, China may hope to achieve a long-term competitive advantage relative to the United States. Over time, Beijing's relationship-building may counter U.S. power and enhance Beijing's ability to influence political and military outcomes. One of Beijing's stated goals is to reduce what it considers U.S. superpower dominance in favor of a multipolar global power structure in which China attains superpower status on par with the United States. In Venezuela, anti-American President Hugo Chavez announced a $3 billion trade strategy with China, including provision for oil and gas. Army GEN Bantz Craddock, who heads the United States Southern Command, stated that China is increasing its influence in South America, filling a vacuum left by the United States. In his March 9 House testimony, General Craddock called China's progressive interest in the region ``an emerging dynamic that could not be ignored.'' I have been traveling to Africa for many years. The Chinese are everywhere. I just got back last night from Africa. I saw a conference building being constructed, given to them free, from China, and we know what kind of relationship that gives them. I saw a conference center being constructed in the Congo. I saw a large sports stadium. Both were donated by the Chinese. China has been expanding its influence throughout Africa with projects like this. One saying I heard was: The U.S. tells you what you need, but China gives you what you want. Has China suddenly become compassionate and generous? I think the fact that these countries have large oil and mineral deposits paints a real picture. In the Middle East, Beijing recently signed a $70 billion oil and gas deal with Iran from which it receives 14 percent of its oil imports. Naturally, China has come out firmly against the U.N. Security Council holding Iran economically accountable for its nuclear program. I was just in Sudan 2 days ago. Likewise in Sudan, China seeks to diffuse or delay any U.N. sanctions against Khartoum. It hardly seems coincidental that 7 percent of its oil imports comes from that conflict-stricken country, a supply that China seems ready to protect. At this point, I will pause and tell my colleagues the experience we had just 2 days ago in that area in Uganda, just across the Sudan border. We were working with President Museveni. We actually went up to the area called Gulu, which is right on the Sudan border where the terrorists are coming across maiming children, cutting their limbs and their lips off. It is horrible. It is beyond description. I do not think there has been anything like that since the Holocaust. Yet China is supporting that group. Not only are they willing to use the U.N. to safeguard its energy sources but also its regional influence. This is not new. In 2003, the United States spearheaded the proliferation security initiative as a multilateral weapons of mass destruction interdiction strategy. The initiative has proven effective, particularly in the interception of centrifuge parts bound for Libya. The Bush administration believes this success was a major reason Libya peacefully ended its nuclear program. Major European and Asian countries have joined and China was invited to participate and refused, citing dubious concerns about the delicate situation in North Korea. To quote the Commission: China appears to be working through the United Nations to not only undermine the initiative but also to render it globally ineffective. This has been accomplished by getting the United States to drop a provision on the interdiction of foreign vessels carrying banned weapons on the high seas. I think it is worth repeating what the Commission statement said: One of Beijing's stated goals is to reduce what it considers U.S. superpower dominance in favor of multipolar global power structure in which China attains superpower status on par with the United States. The tense situation in Taiwan continues to simmer. A few days ago, the Chinese Communist Party formalized a new stance on Taiwan. The following was approved by the National People's Congress: If possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ nonpeaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity. This represents a change from earlier ambiguous language that would have allowed China flexibility to consider other options should a conflict arise. As it is, China has taken away its alternatives. This is a direct threat. The Chinese are solidifying and increasing their presence in east Asia. When not using overt political influence, they are expanding economically. As political economist Francis Fukuyama observed: The Chinese [have been] gearing up a series of multilateral initiatives of their own, including Asean Plus One, Asean Plus Three, a China-Asean Free Trade Area, a Northeast Asian Free Trade Area and so on in seemingly endless profusion. The purpose of these proposals, it seems fairly clear in retrospect, was to allay fears of China's growing economic power by offering selective trade concessions to various Chinese neighbors. The Chinese greased the path to the East Asian Summit last December by offering its Asean neighbors a free trade agreement that would open access to much of the Chinese market by 2010. Asean Plus Three appears to be a weak and innocuous organization. But the Chinese know what they are doing: Over the long run, they want to organize East Asia in a way that puts them in the center of regional politics. China is also expanding militarily. Their string of pearls strategy includes a listening post in Pakistan, billions of dollars in military aid to Burma, military training and equipment to Cambodia, increased naval activities in the South China Sea, and expanding cooperation with Thailand and Bangladesh. The purpose of this strategy is to create a military corridor for the Middle East to mainland China that would be impervious to any potential American oil embargo. As a recent internal Pentagon report outlines: China . . . is not looking only to build a blue-water navy to control the sea lanes, but also to develop undersea mines and missile capabilities to deter the potential disruption of its energy supplies from potential threats, including the U.S. Navy, especially in the case of a conflict with Taiwan. The weapons in which China is investing include cruise missiles, submarines, long-range target acquisition systems, specifically cutting edge satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles, and the advanced SU-30 fighter aircraft, and I have to pause at this moment and say something about someone to this day I still think is a real American hero, GEN John Jumper, the Chief of the Air Force. Back before he was in that position in the late 1990s--I believe it was 1998--he had the courage to stand up and publicly say something, and it certainly was not endorsed or wanted by the Clinton administration, but he said we have to do something. We have stopped our modernization program so now Russia is selling tactical vehicles, air vehicles, that are better than our fighters. He is talking about the SU-30 series, better than our F- 15s and F-16s. There are a lot of people who do not want us to advance militarily and be No. 1 and give our troops and our airmen the very best equipment. There are people who are trying to keep us from developing the F-22 and the joint strike fighter so that we again will gain superiority. Right now we do not have it. China has bought in one purchase, and this has been several years ago, 240 of the SU-30s and probably a lot more, but that is what we found out. The new intelligence report states that China has accelerated its amphibious assault ship production. It plans to build 23 new boats capable of ferrying tanks and troops across the Taiwan Strait. This development is potentially destabilizing and has alarming implications. We have to keep in mind they now are buying this capability to get across to Taiwan after for the first time coming out and directly threatening Taiwan. A further concern is China's investment in nuclear submarines. It recently launched the type 094 class, the first capable of striking the continental United States with nuclear missiles from its own waters. It can strike the United States of America from its own waters. They have launched this class of a nuclear missile--or the ability to deploy it. China has also been developing the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile, expected to have a range of 4,600 miles. These represent a departure from traditional Chinese deterrent strategies. They have little tactical purposes. They will not be used in a regional battle. Rather, their importance is strategic. China has modernized its military at an unprecedented rate. According to testimony from Dr. Evan Medeiros of the RAND Corporation, between 1990 and 2002 China's official defense budget for weapons procurement grew approximately 1,000 percent. That is 1,000 percent in a 12-year period. Nearly every year since 1997 has seen a defense budget increase of 13 percent, an increase far above China's GDP growth average of 8.2 percent for those same years. In comparison, President Bush's fiscal year 2005 budget increase in defense spending is 4.8 percent. Keep in mind, we are currently engaged in two major operations and numerous smaller ones as part of the global war on terror. Yet this is just China's officially announced defense budget. The Commission and the Defense Department assess: The PLA defense budget is grossly underreported and that official figures exclude much of China's military modernization program. So when we are talking about what China is putting into their military program, we recognize that this may be 50 percent of what they are really putting in it because we have no way of knowing. Our intelligence does show in an unclassified form that they are doing a lot more than the reports they send out. The Commission estimates the actual defense budget is two to three times the stated amount. In the midst of this ominous military expansion, the European Union is planning on lifting its arms embargo against China. The embargo was put in place after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre to reflect China's appalling human rights record. The European Union claims the embargo is no longer effective but ignores the obvious. Why lift the embargo without replacing it with a better one? Their solution, an informal code of conduct, allows for no comprehensive enforcement. Without uniform and enforceable standards, competent European firms will be left to themselves to determine acceptable arms sales. Even with the embargo, Europe's sales to China recently doubled this past year to a half billion dollars. Underneath all of the semantics, the EU appears to have more to gain in Euros than by maintaining what principled respect for human rights it once had. Any weapons technology China buys will only add to its leverage against Taiwan and our other Asian allies. If the embargo is lifted, Europe and Russia will be in competition to sell China increasingly higher technologies. We can also expect the EU technology to proliferate beyond China's borders to states that would gladly use it against the United States. The EU does not consider this a strategic threat. The United States-China Commission report observes, however: Access to more advanced systems and integrating technologies from Europe would have a much more dramatic impact on overall Chinese capabilities today than say five or ten years ago. For fourteen years China has been unable to acquire systems from the West. Analysts believe a resumption of EU arms sales to China would dramatically enhance China's military capability. If the EU arms embargo against China is lifted, the U.S. military could be placed in a situation where it is defending itself against arms sold to the PLA by NATO allies. With all the other problems that we have had recently with some of our multinational groups, this is really not surprising. Imagine, we share military technology with our European allies and then find our security threatened and possibly our servicemen killed by this same technology. We cannot allow for this potential to exist. Because of China's centralized economy, economic issues are irrevocably intertwined with security implications. The Commission reports: The Chinese government has selectively chosen firms-- predominantly State-owned enterprises, SOEs--to list on international capital markets . . . Many SOEs were previously controlled by the People's Liberation Army, PLA, and there is concern that unofficial links to the PLA remain intact after privatization . . . As of 2002, more than three-quarters of companies listed as A shares in China's capital market are State-controlled. These include known proliferators such as NORINCO, which was sanctioned by the U.S. Government on four separate occasions in 2003 for offenses including missile proliferation and sales of equipment or expertise to Iran that could be used in a WMD or cruise or ballistic missile program. Chinese firms lack adequate disclosure; as the case of NORINCO demonstrates, American investors may unwittingly be supporting companies that oppose our national security. One company, China National Nuclear Corporation--CNNC--is currently slotted to receive $5 billion from the U.S. Export Import Bank to build nuclear power plants in China. However, there are two problems: first, this company was discovered to be sending Pakistan prohibited materials that weaponize uranium. Sanctions were imposed for 1 month and removed. Later that same year, a subsidiary of CNNC was discovered to be selling more illegal materials to Pakistan. Connections have also been made to Iran's weapon program. Second, because the Export-Import Bank of the United States supplies the credit, the U.S. Treasury will have to back this loan, either by direct payment or guarantee. Ultimately, American taxpayers will be aiding a Chinese company that is a known proliferator. I look at these things and ask why doesn't that bother anybody? Nobody is talking about it. Another issue is China's purchasing of U.S. companies. On March 9, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--CFIUS-- approved China's Lenovo Group buying IBM's PC business. The $1.75 billion deal creates the third largest PC maker in the world. The problem is that there is potential for Chinese computer experts to use this as a base for espionage. Some say that this is ridiculous; that China could never use IBM networks that way. I would ask that they consider not only the immediate situation but also China's track record. As a side note, I believe that CFIUS does not apply a broad enough conception of U.S. 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. One 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. For 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 problem takes a unique twist, as Nathan Tabor of The Conservative Voice outlines: China [has] become the dominant supplier of rare-earth elements, also called lanthanides. But in the U.S., owners of the Mountain Pass mine in California, one of the finest rare- earth deposits in the world, have been spending millions of dollars over many years to resolve an environmental complaint that processing the element threatens the habitat of the desert tortoise. This is something that has restricted some of our activities. Dependence on outsourcing has the potential to be a paralyzing problem in time of war. During the current Iraq conflict, Switzerland stopped shipments of smart-bomb components to the U.S. because it disagreed with our role. As more and more of our military equipment is outsourced, we have become dangerously dependent on the whims of foreign countries. Current law requires only 50 percent of defense equipment be American-made. When Representative Duncan Hunter tried to raise this to 65 percent, defense contractors told him that it would force them out of the market. Information technology is also leaving our borders at an alarming rate. John Chambers, the CEO of CISCO Systems, said: China will become the IT center of the world, and we can have a healthy discussion about whether that's in 2020 or 2040. What we're trying to do is outline an entire strategy of becoming a Chinese company. However, this technology transfer can also have a darker side. The Commission report states: U.S. advanced technology and technological expertise is transferred to China in a number of ways, both legal and illegal, including through U.S. invested firms and research centers in China, Chinese investments in the United States, bilateral science and technology cooperative programs, and Chinese students and researchers who return home following their work and study at U.S. universities and research institutes. In a previous speech that I gave on China, on June 23, 1999, I called attention to China's covert stealing of our technology. The FBI is currently investigating numerous instances of alleged industrial espionage; over 3,000 companies in the U.S. are suspected of supplying illegal technology and collecting information for China. Such cases are major problems in industrial centers like Silicon Valley where espionage investigations linked with China have increased 20 to 30 percent annually. Most recently, the Bush administration is investigating whether China has illegally altered legitimate U.S. exports for military use. One instance of this is U.S.-made Boeing 737 jetliner being modified to have military capabilities. Experts believe that China is using the aircraft to monitor tests of its long-range cruise missile similar to our Navy Tomahawk. Such a missile would be capable of delivering long- range conventional or nuclear payloads. Whether it is military or economic expansionism, human rights, illegal proliferation or outright stealing of military technology, China has continued to defy the U.S. and the world unabated and unchallenged. Let me repeat what concerns me, and apparently the U.S.-China Commission, about China: No. 1, eight major Chinese companies, some of which are directly connected with the military, were sanctioned last January for illegally selling weapons technology to countries including Iran. This is only one example of an ongoing and grave strategic problem. It is a problem we cannot afford to tolerate. No. 2, China has been modernizing and expanding its military to reduce any leverage we may have in a conflict situation, particularly over Taiwan. They have been stealing or developing highly advanced technology, including nuclear warhead designs and technology that would enable them to reach the continental U.S. No. 3, skyrocketing energy consumption is a major problem for China and a potential conflict with us. It is drawing the PRC into cooperation with Iran and other problematic states. These bilateral arrangements improperly influence Chinese action the U.N., and in some cases may involve illegal weapons transfers. You can see from this chart behind me that China has to do something. Look at their energy requirements. They are doing it today. No. 4, the European Union is projected to lift its arms embargo on China by this summer, an embargo that was meant to pressure China to improve its human rights record. That record has not improved. Europe has also failed to address the question: What country will China most likely use the new European technology against? It is ultimately the United States. No. 5, despite Justice Department and Homeland Security concerns, China's Lenovo Group is taking over IBM's PC manufacturing business, based in North Carolina. This is revealing of a distressing trend that threatens the U.S. industrial base. Our practice of outsourcing military equipment is also of deep concern. No. 6, China continues to repress religious and human rights, and intimidate our Asian allies while expanding their influence in areas like South America and Africa. The recent Taiwanese ``anti-secession'' bill is further evidence of this hegemonic outlook. No. 7, according to the FBI, cases of Chinese espionage in the States are increasing at 30 percent annually in some places. Civil aircraft that the U.S. sold to China appear to be outfitted with military surveillance equipment. Revelation of such activities garners few headlines because this behavior is nothing new. They have been doing it for a long time and no one seems to care. Indeed, we are used to this pattern and have become all too complacent about it. Scolding the Chinese for their disregard for proliferation treaties, while providing them unprecedented economic benefits is at best a bizarre foreign policy. We must link China's trading privileges with its human rights record and its conduct abroad, including its weapons proliferation. As China's No. 1 importing customer, accounting for 35 percent of total Chinese exports, we have the influence. I agree that the way we handle an emerging China must be dynamic, but it must not be weak. As the Commission report concludes: 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 has the leverage now and perhaps for the next decade, but this may not always be the case. We also must recognize the impact of these trends directly on the domestic U.S. economy, and develop and adopt policies that ensure that our actions do not undermine our economic interests . . . the United States cannot lose sight of these important goals, and must configure its policies toward China to help make the 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 . . . China will likely not initiate the decisive measures toward more meaningful economic and political reform without substantial, sustained, and increased pressure from the United States. There is an inherent tension between drawing China to freedom through relaxed policies, and a vital need to protect U.S. security. I fear we have conceded far too much and contributed to the emergence of a very real threat. Finally, I wish to applaud the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Their efforts to provide this body with a clear picture of a very complex and multifaceted situation have been illuminating and challenge us to face these real problems. Thank you for your hard work. The Chinese have something called an idiom, a four-character phrase that is sometimes used to simplify a complex thought. I would borrow one to describe the current situation: ``One who obeys on the surface but not from one's heart.'' 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 and in the context of the growing threat of terrorism. That is unacceptable. We have also ignored the danger that China is becoming in its own right. Some think that I am alarmist. If China breaks its consistent pattern of human rights abuses, military and economic expansionism, and illegal weapons proliferation, I am prepared to concede my concerns are unfounded. But I fear that the next few years will continue to confirm an obvious trend. The time to act is now, before the problem is beyond the realm of policy. We urgently need a coherent strategy for dealing with China, one that allows room for China's changing role without sacrificing our national security and other interests. As I have demonstrated, we are on a collision course with China on all levels: economically, militarily, and ideologically. The situation has only worsened since my previous floor speeches about China in 1999. We are two trains accelerating in different directions on the same track. After the last decade I think we have seen that appeasement doesn't work; it's time to deal in a very real way with our unpaid bills. I often think about the appeasement policies we sometimes have against these countries. I think it was Horace Mann who said: No man survives when freedom fails. The best men rot in filthy jails. Those who cried ``appease, appease'' are hanged by those they try to please. I am afraid that pretty well describes our relationship with China. I hope this debate will awaken the American people to the real threat China poses. To that end, I intend to deliver several more talks highlighting the United States-China Commission's report and will introduce a resolution to formally adopt the Commission's recommendation. I remember so well back when I was critical of the Clinton administration in the very opening months of that administration in the early 1990s when one of the first things they did at our energy laboratories was to intentionally lower our security policy. They did away with background checks. They did away with the color-coded security badges to demonstrate on site what level of security an individual could have. They did away with some of the FBI checks. I was very disturbed. That was over 10 years ago. We knew this was coming, and now it is here. It is time for us to take a different policy to China. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I believe we secured acceptance from the other side for me to speak for 45 minutes. I might go 10 minutes longer. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 55 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Budget Committee's attention a great program that saves the Federal Government both money and energy--it is called Energy Savings Performance Contracting or ESPC. Under this public-private initiative, the private sector upgrades our aging federal facilities and military bases with new energy efficient equipment, at no upfront cost to the government. The private sector is then paid back over time with the savings from the government's utility bills. The beauty of this program is that under the law, the energy savings must cover the project costs and also guarantee that there will be additional savings to the government, as codified per the Energy Policy Act of 1992:

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the 80th Annual ``The Prince of Peace'' Easter Pageant that has been performed annually in the historic Holy City of the Wichitas since 1926. I am very proud of this truly outstanding Oklahoma tradition and would like to congratulate the dedicated performers and organizers both past and present who have kept it alive all these years. The pageant was the brainchild of a young pastor, Reverend Anthony Mark Wallock, of the First Congregational Church in Lawton, OK. Eighty years ago, he gathered a few hardy souls from his church and Sunday school class on a mountain peak at Medicine Park, OK, where he conducted a short Easter morning service. That worship ceremony, which was carried out in word, song, and pantomime, eventually became the world-renowned Easter pageant, ``The Prince of Peace.'' Word about the pageant spread quickly, and began attracting a larger audience. As a result, the pageant was moved to the foot of Mount Roosevelt in the heart of the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. The twenty-two buildings at the new site were completed and dedicated on March 31, 1935, and the first pageant there, performed on April 21, drew a crowd of 82,000 people. In the 1940's, the pageant even drew the attention of Hollywood and in 1948 the film, ``The Lawton Story--The Prince of Peace'' was produced with the participation of many local citizens in Lawton and the surrounding area. Although Reverend Wallock passed away on December 26 of that year, the story of the pageant he founded lived on in the community that he loved. Since then, hundreds upon thousands of volunteers have carried on the annual tradition of presenting this historic production. It has become the longest continuously running outdoor Easter pageant in America. Every Easter season, on Palm Sunday Eve and Easter Eve, starting at 9:00 in the evening, 300 costumed volunteer performers bring the pageant to life. The voices of the characters come from the reading cast. Their timed speaking gives life to the pantomiming actors. Those in charge of music, sound effects, and the all-important lighting give realism to the story. The brilliant costumes, live animals, and surprise special effects all contribute to a rich and beautiful depiction of the life of Christ. Mr. President, as the Easter season approaches and this storied pageant enters its 80th year, I extend my gratitude for all those who have committed to keep its flame burning. The message of hope and human redemption that is at the heart of this pageant is one that we sorely need today, and I hope that Reverend Wallock's inspiring legacy will live on for 80 more years and beyond.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to honor a brave Oklahoma soldier who gave the last full measure to protect our freedom. Staff Sergeant Melvin Blazer of the United States Marine Corps embodied the spirit of service and the values that make this country what it is. Sergeant Blazer was a great Marine. He joined soon after graduating from Moore High School in 1984. As he rose through the ranks, he developed a reputation of dependability. He was serving as a platoon leader with the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force when his unit was deployed to Iraq. Sergeant Blazer was no stranger to the hazards of duty. He survived an improvised explosive device attack that struck his convoy last November and was awarded a Purple Heart. Sergeant Blazer was also a family man. He married his wife, Dana, in 1989 and they had two children, Alyssa and Erik. As his wife recalls, ``To know my husband was to love my husband. Everybody loved him and admired him and respected him and held him in such high regard. He was a hero In his everyday life.'' Sergeant Blazer was also a Christian. He told relatives he was excited to see Iraq because the Bible talks about it and was proud to help and serve an oppressed people. On December 12, 2004, Sergeant Blazer was killed by enemy small arms fire in the city of Fallujah. He was 38 years old. He loved God, devoted himself to his family and gave the highest sacrifice to his country. He leaves behind many who know what a true hero he is. As a son of Oklahoma and a fine example of what this country stands for, Staff Sergeant Blazer deserves our honor and remembrance. Lance Corporal Jordan D. Winkler Mr. President, I wish to honor one of Oklahoma's fallen sons, Marine LCpl Jordan Winkler. From an early age he felt called to defend our country and the freedom it stands for. For his life of service and his final sacrifice, we are eternally indebted to him. Corporal Winkler admired the military even before he was old enough to join. His parents still have a letter from the Marine Corps that he received when he was fifteen. While in Union High School in Tulsa, he was active in sports and respected by his peers. Through family friends and recruiters, he gained an accurate picture of what would be required of him if he joined. During his senior year he was able to pursue his dream and joined the Marines through a delayed entry program. Those who knew him say he wore the uniform with pride. Corporal Winkler is remembered for his determination, honesty and integrity. As his teacher Paul Todd said, ``You knew where he stood. He lived by his principles and he was a good role model for everyone that knew him.'' After training, he was assigned to the Combat Service Support Battalion 1, Combat Service Support Group 11, 1st Force Service Support Group, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, normally stationed at Camp Pendleton, California. This unit was deployed to Iraq to contribute to the ongoing US effort to rid the country of tyranny and the influence of terrorism. On November 26, 2004, in Camp Fallujah, Corporal Winkler died in a non-combat incident. He was buried at Tulsa's Memorial Park Cemetery with military honors. Corporal Winkler made a deep impact on those who knew him, but those who most deeply loved him look forward with hope. As his family said in a statement, ``Jordan was a dedicated Marine who was proud to be in Iraq serving his country and doing his job as a Marine. We will miss him more than words can say. However, we know we will see him again. Jordan Winkler was a Christian and knew that no matter what happened in his life, God was always in control.'' Lance Corporal Jordan Winkler was worthy of deep respect and embodies all the qualities that make our Armed Forces and our country great. He was a soldier and a man of integrity, and he will be deeply missed. sergeant carl w. lee Mr. President, today I stand in proud memory of an American hero. Army Sgt Carl W. Lee was a native of Oklahoma City, OK. He graduated from Crooked Oak High School in 2000 and enlisted in the Army. Although Sergeant Lee initially expected to stay only for the 3-year commitment, he soon chose to make a career of military service. He was assigned to the United States Army's 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division. Sergeant Lee is remembered as an example of service and motivation. As Rusty McMurtrey, Lee's 21-year-old brother, emotionally recalled, ``He was the reason I graduated school and got as far as I did. Since I can remember, Carl was the only one who'd been there for me.'' Rusty credited his older brother with saving him from a life of gangs and violence. The two planned on starting an automotive business together. When he had any free time, Sergeant Lee would volunteer with a local Special Olympics. It was his heart that his friends and family remember most. Sergeant Lee's unit, usually stationed at Camp Howze, South Korea, was deployed to Iraq. He served there as part of the effort to free the Iraqi people from the chains of tyranny and terrorism. On November 28, 2004, his unit was conducting a foot patrol in Ar Ramadi when it came under enemy small arms fire. Sergeant Lee was hit twice and died from those wounds. Mr. President, it is difficult to express the pain of those he left behind; Sgt Carl Lee meant so much to so many and he will forever be remembered as a hero. By putting himself in harm's way he showed bravery and self-sacrifice that few of us will ever know. He gave the ultimate measure, and we are in his eternal debt. I honor Oklahoma's son and America's warrior, Sgt Carl W. Lee. staff sergeant melvin l. blazer Mr. President, I wish to honor a brave Oklahoma soldier who gave the last full measure to protect our freedom. Staff Sergeant Melvin Blazer of the United States Marine Corps embodied the spirit of service and the values that make this country what it is. Sergeant Blazer was a great Marine. He joined soon after graduating from Moore High School in 1984. As he rose through the ranks, he developed a reputation of dependability. He was serving as a platoon leader with the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force when his unit was deployed to Iraq. Sergeant Blazer was no stranger to the hazards of duty. He survived an improvised explosive device attack that struck his convoy last November and was awarded a Purple Heart. Sergeant Blazer was also a family man. He married his wife, Dana, in 1989 and they had two children, Alyssa and Erik. As his wife recalls, ``To know my husband was to love my husband. Everybody loved him and admired him and respected him and held him in such high regard. He was a hero in his everyday life.'' Sergeant Blazer was also a Christian. He told relatives he was excited to see Iraq because the Bible talks about it and was proud to help and serve an oppressed people. On December 12, 2004, Sergeant Blazer was killed by enemy small arms fire in the city of Fallujah. He was 38 years old. He loved God, devoted himself to his family and gave the highest sacrifice to his country. He leaves behind many who know what a true hero he is. As a son of Oklahoma and a fine example of what this country stands for, Staff Sergeant Blazer deserves our honor and remembrance. lance corporal jordan d. winkler Mr. President, I wish to honor one of Oklahoma's fallen sons, Marine Lance Corporal Jordan Winkler. From an early age he felt called to defend our country and the freedom it stands for. For his life of service and his final sacrifice, we are eternally indebted to him. Corporal Winkler admired the military even before he was old enough to join. His parents still have a letter from the Marine Corps that he received when he was fifteen. While in Union High School in Tulsa, he was active in sports and respected by his peers. Through family friends and recruiters, he gained an accurate picture of what would be required of him if he joined. During his senior year he was able to pursue his dream and joined the Marines through a delayed entry program. Those who knew him say he wore the uniform with pride. Corporal Winkler is remembered for his determination, honesty and integrity. As his teacher Paul Todd said, ``You knew where he stood. He lived by his principles and he was a good role model for everyone that knew him.'' After training, he was assigned to the Combat Service Support Battalion 1, Combat Service Support Group 11, 1st Force Service Support Group, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, normally stationed at Camp Pendleton, CA. This unit was deployed to Iraq to contribute to the ongoing US effort to rid the country of tyranny and the influence of terrorism. On November 26, 2004, in Camp Fallujah, Corporal Winkler died in a non-combat incident. He was buried at Tulsa's Memorial Park Cemetery with military honors. Corporal Winkler made a deep impact on those who knew him, but those who most deeply loved him look forward with hope. As his family said in a statement, ``Jordan was a dedicated Marine who was proud to be in Iraq serving his country and doing his job as a Marine. We will miss him more than words can say. However, we know we will see him again. Jordan Winkler was a Christian and knew that no matter what happened in his life, God was always in control.'' Lance Corporal Jordan Winkler was worthy of deep respect and embodies all the qualities that make our Armed Forces and our country great. He was a soldier and a man of integrity, and he will be deeply missed. corporal stephen m. mcgowan

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. This order is a joint request by the chairmen and ranking members of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I want to thank Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for working together with Senator Jeffords and myself on this order.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. My colleagues should know that as a supporter of this group, I continue to encourage the State Department to consider a proposal from World Compassion. This organization's ``Shelter, Support, and Skills Training for Afghan Refugee and Displaced Widows and Orphans'' Program is an integrated plan that addresses the special needs of widows and their children, many of whom are refugees and internally displaced persons. The program provides shelter, access to clean water, psychosocial support and skills training to enable widows to gain the personal dignity of self-sufficiency. I would also point out that village leaders have agreed to cooperate with World Compassion on this project. World Compassion has a long, successful track record of working with Afghanis in other programs to provide for their basic needs, and it is my hope that the State Department will help them continue to do so.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know my friend from Kentucky played the key role III conference negotiations on H.R. 4818, the FY 2005 foreign operations appropriations bill, which were completed last year, and I ask if he is aware of language that was contained in the House report regarding World Compassion's activities in Afghanistan.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my honor to submit today a resolution congratulating the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association on reaching a historic milestone--its 75th anniversary. The NRMCA entered this world in 1930 when the Nation was facing some trying times. The country was suffering from a deep economic depression and midwestern farmers were struggling through a drought. Still, many people were flocking to the movies to see ``All Quiet on the Western Front'' and ``Cimarron,'' which went on to win the Academy Award for best picture. Golfer Bobby Jones won both the British Open and the U.S. Open and in Pennsylvania, a group of men met to officially form the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. The founders of the NRMCA wanted to establish a single voice for the ready mixed concrete industry to represent the industry before all levels of government. They wanted the NRMCA to set product quality standards for the entire ready mixed concrete industry, without governmental intervention or mandates. If you were to ask the founders today about the progress of their National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, I am certain the founders would be proud of the association's accomplishments and the quality of the ongoing work. While the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association continues to represent the ready mixed industry, it has also become the leader in the practical use and applications of ready mixed concrete, a pioneer in the development and implementation of its education and certification programs, and a strong hand reaching out to ready mixed concrete State associations, ready mixed producers, and other members across the country. In my State, the Oklahoma Ready Mixed Concrete Association has a close working relationship with the NRMCA. These benefits can be felt across the State as the use of ready mixed concrete continues to increase. In the latest data, Oklahoma ready mixed production hit 5,440,000 cubic yards by the end of 2003. That is an increase of more than 1 million cubic yards from just 7 years earlier when ready mixed concrete production was at 4,206,000 cubic yards. The growing use of ready mixed concrete has spurred a host of new ready mixed concrete companies and businesses in the State and made the ones already in existence even stronger. People in Oklahoma know some of the names of the ready mixed companies just by the names on the side of the concrete trucks traveling on the roads and highways. Familiar names include: Adair: Arkhola Sand & Gravel Co., Stillwell, OK; Twin Cities Ready Mix, Inc., Tahlequah, OK. Alfalfa: Alva Concrete, Alva, OK; Dolese Bros. Co., Enid, OK; Enid Concrete Co., Inc., Enid, OK; Kimball/Fairview Ready Mix, Inc., Fairview, OK. Atoka: Harold's Redi Mix, Lehigh, OK; Joe Brown Co., Inc., Atoka, OK; Rustin Concrete Company, Atoka, OK; Twin Cities Ready Mix, Inc., McAlester, OK. Beckham: Dolese Bros. Co., Elk City, OK. Blaine: B & W Ready Mix, Inc., Watonga/Okeene, OK; Ogle Ready Mix, Inc., Kingfisher, OK. Bryan: Dolese Bros. Co., Durant, OK; Rustin Concrete Company, Durant, OK. Caddo: Atlas-Tuck Concrete, Inc., Chickasha, OK; Carnegie Concrete Company, Carnegie, OK; Dolese Bros. Co., Anadarko,

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act. On August 26, 2004, President Bush signed Executive Order 13352 promoting a new approach to conservation within the Federal government's conservation and environmental departments. This Executive Order was offered to ensure that Federal agencies pursue cooperative conservation actions designed to involve private landowners rather than simply making mandates which private landowners must fulfill. An example of this new cooperative conservation is the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Since 1987, the Partners Program has been a successful voluntary partnership program that helps private landowners restore fish and wildlife habitat on their own lands. Through 33,103 agreements with private landowners, the Partners Program has accomplished the restoration of 677,000 acres of wetlands, 1,253,700 acres of prairies and native grasslands, and 5,560 miles of riparian and in-stream habitat. Partners Program agreements are funded through contributions from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service along with cash and in-kind contributions from participating private landowners. Since 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has provided $3,511,121 to restore habitat in Oklahoma through the Partners Program, to which private landowners have contributed $12,638,272. In Oklahoma, 97 percent of land is held in private ownership. Since 1990, a total of 124,285 acres in Oklahoma has been restored through 700 individual Partners Program voluntary agreements with private landowners. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service District Office in Tulsa currently reports that at least another 100 private landowners are waiting to enter into Partner's projects as soon as funds become available. As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, a new approach to conservation is especially important to me. All conservation programs should create positive incentives to protect species and, above all, should hold sacred the rights of private landowners. A positive step toward those aims is authorization of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program which has already proven to be an effective habitat conservation program that leverages federal funds and utilizes voluntary private landowner participation. To date, the Partners Program has received little attention. My bill will build on this successful program to provide additional funding and added stability. I am pleased to author legislation to authorize a program with a proven record in positive and actual conservation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act. On August 26, 2004, President Bush signed Executive Order 13352 promoting a new approach to conservation within the Federal government's conservation and environmental departments. This Executive Order was offered to ensure that Federal agencies pursue cooperative conservation actions designed to involve private landowners rather than simply making mandates which private landowners must fulfill. An example of this new cooperative conservation is the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Since 1987, the Partners Program has been a successful voluntary partnership program that helps private landowners restore fish and wildlife habitat on their own lands. Through 33,103 agreements with private landowners, the Partners Program has accomplished the restoration of 677,000 acres of wetlands, 1,253,700 acres of prairies and native grasslands, and 5,560 miles of riparian and in-stream habitat. Partners Program agreements are funded through contributions from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service along with cash and in-kind contributions from participating private landowners. Since 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has provided $3,511,121 to restore habitat in Oklahoma through the Partners Program, to which private landowners have contributed $12,638,272. In Oklahoma, 97 percent of land is held in private ownership. Since 1990, a total of 124,285 acres in Oklahoma has been restored through 700 individual Partners Program voluntary agreements with private landowners. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service District Office in Tulsa currently reports that at least another 100 private landowners are waiting to enter into Partner's projects as soon as funds become available. As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, a new approach to conservation is especially important to me. All conservation programs should create positive incentives to protect species and, above all, should hold sacred the rights of private landowners. A positive step toward those aims is authorization of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program which has already proven to be an effective habitat conservation program that leverages federal funds and utilizes voluntary private landowner participation. To date, the Partners Program has received little attention. My bill will build on this successful program to provide additional funding and added stability. I am pleased to author legislation to authorize a program with a proven record in positive and actual conservation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation requiring parental consent for intrusive physical exams administered under the Head Start program. Young children attending Head Start programs should not be subjected to these intrusive physical exams without the prior knowledge or consent of their parents. While the Department of Health and Human Services has administered general exam guidelines to agencies, the U.S. Code is not clear about prohibiting them without parental consent. To clarify the code, my bill will not allow any nonemergency intrusive exam by a Head Start agency without parental consent. This would not include exams such as hearing, vision or scoliosis screenings. This issue was brought to my attention by some of my constituents from Tulsa, OK who felt their rights were violated when their children were subjected to genital exams and blood tests without their consent. I am pleased to see that the Rutherford Institute has taken an interest in this crucial issue and are representing my constituents. As a father and grandfather, I believe it is vital for parents to be informed about what is happening to their children in the classroom. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the following article be printed in the Record, ``Federal Head Start suit pending.''

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation requiring parental consent for intrusive physical exams administered under the Head Start program. Young children attending Head Start programs should not be subjected to these intrusive physical exams without the prior knowledge or consent of their parents. While the Department of Health and Human Services has administered general exam guidelines to agencies, the U.S. Code is not clear about prohibiting them without parental consent. To clarify the code, my bill will not allow any nonemergency intrusive exam by a Head Start agency without parental consent. This would not include exams such as hearing, vision or scoliosis screenings. This issue was brought to my attention by some of my constituents from Tulsa, OK who felt their rights were violated when their children were subjected to genital exams and blood tests without their consent. I am pleased to see that the Rutherford Institute has taken an interest in this crucial issue and are representing my constituents. As a father and grandfather, I believe it is vital for parents to be informed about what is happening to their children in the classroom. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the following article be printed in the Record, ``Federal Head Start suit pending.''

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first let me say to the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, I have always considered him to be the expert on the Balkans, and it is interesting that he would make the comments about Dr. Rice and her knowledge of that area. At the conclusion of my remarks, I am going to be talking a little bit about West Africa, an area in which I have had a lot of personal experience. There again, she is an expert. We are presented with an extraordinary opportunity to confirm as Secretary of State a truly remarkable American. Dr. Condoleezza Rice is no stranger to the international scene. Her long record of accomplishments is well known to all of us, and her record of exemplary service to this country is without parallel. As President Bush's National Security Adviser, Dr. Rice has played a vital role in protecting our Nation both here and abroad, while providing the President with everything he needed to know to defend the American people and advance the cause of freedom. Her experience, along with her prior knowledge, makes Condoleezza Rice the ideal Secretary of State for these difficult times. Being the Secretary of State has to be one of the toughest jobs I can imagine. The person in that job has to be an expert on everything from Albania to Zimbabwe. Over the last 25 years, Dr. Rice has studied foreign policy in the academic world and lived foreign policy in the trenches, and she is a master of it in both theory and practice. In addition to being an expert, the Secretary of State also has to be something of a salesman. It is not enough to understand every detail of America's foreign policy; you also have to be able to explain it to others who might be reluctant or even defiant; and then you have to convince them that joining in our work is the right thing to do. Again, Dr. Rice possesses this ability in abundance, and I cannot imagine anyone more qualified to be the face of America in the world of diplomacy. As if these two jobs were not enough, the Secretary also has to manage an enormous Cabinet Department spread across the globe. Most of us have been in many parts of the world where you are dealing with people in each one of these countries. These people are experts, and you have to be more of an expert than they are. Staying on top of the day-to-day workings of the State Department would be enough for any three people, apart from the other jobs. But Dr. Rice has proven her ability in this area as well, managing a giant research university with great success. Of course, Dr. Rice will face many challenges as Secretary of State: the ongoing military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, our efforts to rebuild those countries as we continue to share the joys of freedom, the relationships with our allies that have been strained in recent years, and of course the threat of ideological hatred that we know all too well. Dr. Rice will also have to rally our allies and coordinate their support to carry out the global war on terrorism. But Dr. Rice has both the experience and the vision to chart America's course in the international community. The path ahead of us is clear. It is a path that Dr. Rice knows, believes in, and can articulate better than anyone else. I have no doubt she will continue the great tradition of American diplomacy with honor, confidence, and the utmost dedication. Dr. Rice has faced some intense questioning during the nomination. I have been very proud of her. One of the characteristics of Dr. Rice is that she knows she can stand up against anyone. We have seen this. We have seen it over and over again on television. I said in one of the shows not too long ago one of her great characteristics is, she cannot be intimidated. Quite frankly, there are a lot of Senators who don't like someone they can't intimidate, but she cannot be intimidated. I was very proud of her during the process that I was able to watch mostly on television. I know Dr. Rice will acquit herself well, as she has thus far. Last week President Bush laid out his vision. He said: It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. Dr. Rice helped formulate this vision for our foreign policy, and she knows how to make it happen. Senator Voinovich was talking about the Balkans. I have had the opportunity over the last 8 years to spend a great deal of time in West Africa. I have to say that 4 years ago last month, I was the first visitor Dr. Rice had in the White House. As she was unpacking her things, I told her about things we were dealing with in countries such as Benin, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, Congo Brazzaville, Congo Kinshasa, Gabon. Each country I brought up to her, she knew the history of that country, the individuals and problems that are there and how we must deal with the problems. I can't think of anyone who is even similarly equipped for this job unless we go back to Henry Kissinger. There was an editorial in the Washington Post this morning by Henry Kissinger and George Shultz. People are struggling to try to find reasons that she should not be confirmed. Those reasons all seem to boil down to one of the argument on weapons of mass destruction. Why is it that she thought there were weapons of mass destruction? That was answered so articulately by Senator John Warner a few minutes ago on the floor when he read the quotations of former President Bill Clinton as well as Senator John Kerry when they said: there are weapons of mass destruction. We have to go in and take out Saddam Hussein. And so everybody knows that was the prevailing wisdom and it was accurate. There were weapons of mass destruction. Anyway, that argument has been diffused. They are going to say, we want to know a timetable as to when our troops are going to come out. That is what this article was about this morning. It was an editorial by Kissinger and George Shultz. And they talk about it. I will read part of one paragraph: An exit strategy based on performance, not artificial time limits, will judge progress by the ability to produce positive answers to these questions. In the immediate future, a significant portion of the anti-insurrection effort will have to be carried out by the United States. A premature shift from combat operations to training missions might create a gap that permits the insurrection to rally its potential. But as Iraqi forces increase in number and capability, and as the political construction proceeds after the election, a realistic exit strategy will emerge. This is two people thought to be as knowledgeable as anyone else, certainly, one of those being Henry Kissinger. I ask unanimous consent to print this editorial at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. INHOFE. One of the great experiences I had in my career on the Hill was when I was in the other body. It was about a year before former President Nixon died. No matter what you think of former President Nixon, I don't think there is anyone who won't tell you that he was the most knowledgeable person on foreign affairs of anyone of his time. He came before the House of Representatives where I was serving at the time and gave a 2\1/2\ hour talk. He didn't use any notes. He stood up there, stood erect at his age and his health condition, and he took us for 2\1/2\ hours all the way around the world, every remote country there was, and talked about the history of that country, the history of our relationship to that country, what our relationship would be and should be with those countries. I don't think there is anyone who can do that today other than the nominee we are talking about today in Dr. Condoleezza Rice. I have seen her do the same thing. We are blessed to have her as our nominee for Secretary of State. I am certainly looking forward to serving with her. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Jan. 25, 2005] Results, Not Timetables, Matter In Iraq (By Henry A. Kissinger and George P. Shultz) The debate on Iraq is taking a new turn. The Iraqi elections scheduled for Jan. 30, only recently viewed as a culmination, are described as inaugurating a civil war. The timing and the voting arrangements have become controversial. All this is a way of foreshadowing a demand for an exit strategy, by which many critics mean some sort of explicit time limit on the U.S. effort. We reject this counsel. The implications of the term ``exit strategy'' must be clearly understood; there can be no fudging of consequences. The essential prerequisite for an acceptable exit strategy is a sustainable outcome, not an arbitrary time limit. For the outcome in Iraq will shape the next decade of American foreign policy. A debacle would usher in a series of convulsions in the region as radicals and fundamentalists moved for dominance, with the wind seemingly at their backs. Wherever there are significant Muslim populations, radical elements would be emboldened. As the rest of the world related to this reality, its sense of direction would be impaired by the demonstration of American confusion in Iraq. A precipitate American withdrawal would be almost certain to cause a civil war that would dwarf Yugoslavia's, and it would be compounded as neighbors escalated their current involvement into fullscale intervention. We owe it to ourselves to become clear about what post- election outcome is compatible with our values and global security. And we owe it to the Iraqis to strive for an outcome that can further their capacity to shape their future. The mechanical part of success is relatively easy to define: establishment of a government considered sufficiently legitimate by the Iraqi people to permit recruitment of an army able and willing to defend its institutions. That goal cannot be expedited by an arbitrary deadline that would be, above all, likely to confuse both ally and adversary. The political and military efforts cannot be separated. Training an army in a political vacuum has proved insufficient. If we cannot carry out both the political and military tasks, we will not be able to accomplish either. But what is such a government? Optimists and idealists posit that a full panoply of Western democratic institutions can be created in a time frame the American political process will sustain. Reality is likely to disappoint these expectations. Iraq is a society riven by centuries of religious and ethnic conflicts; it has little or no experience with representative institutions. The challenge is to define political objectives that, even when falling short of the maximum goal, nevertheless represent significant progress and enlist support across the various ethnic groups. The elections of Jan. 30 should therefore be interpreted as the indispensable first phase of a political evolution from military occupation to political legitimacy. Optimists also argue that, since the Shiites make up about 60 percent of the population and the Kurds 15 to 20 percent, and since neither wants Sunni domination, a democratic majority exists almost automatically. In that view, the Iraqi Shiite leaders have come to appreciate the benefits of democratization and the secular state by witnessing the consequences of their absence under the Shiite theocracy in neighboring Iran. A pluralistic, Shiite-led society would indeed be a happy outcome. But we must take care not to base policy on the wish becoming father to the thought. If a democratic process is to unify Iraq peacefully, a great deal depends on how the Shiite majority defines majority rule. So far the subtle Shiite leaders, hardened by having survived decades of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, have been ambiguous about their goals. They have insisted on early elections--indeed, the date of Jan. 30 was established on the basis of a near-ultimatum by the most eminent Shiite leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The Shiites have also urged voting procedures based on national candidate lists, which work against federal and regional political institutions. Recent Shiite pronouncements have affirmed the goal of a secular state but have left open the interpretation of majority rule. An absolutist application of majority rule would make it difficult to achieve political legitimacy. The Kurdish minority and the Sunni portion of the country would be in permanent opposition. Western democracy developed in homogeneous societies; minorities found majority rule acceptable because they had a prospect of becoming majorities, and majorities were restrained in the exercise of their power by their temporary status and by judicially enforced minority guarantees. Such an equation does not operate where minority status is permanently established by religious affiliation and compounded by ethnic differences and decades of brutal dictatorship. Majority rule in such circumstances is perceived as an alternative version of the oppression of the weak by the powerful. In multiethnic societies, minority rights must be protected by structural and constitutional safeguards. Federalism mitigates the scope for potential arbitrariness of the numerical majority and defines autonomy on a specific range of issues. The reaction to intransigent Sunni brutality and the relative Shiite quiet must not tempt us into identifying Iraqi legitimacy with unchecked Shiite rule. The American experience with Shiite theocracy in Iran since 1979 does not inspire confidence in our ability to forecast Shiite evolution or the prospects of a Shiite-dominated bloc extending to the Mediterranean. A thoughtful American policy will not mortgage itself to one side in a religious conflict fervently conducted for 1,000 years. The Constituent Assembly emerging from the elections will be sovereign to some extent. But the United States' continuing leverage should be focused on four key objectives: (1) to prevent any group from using the political process to establish the kind of dominance previously enjoyed by the Sunnis; (2) to prevent any areas from slipping into Taliban conditions as havens and recruitment centers for terrorists; (3) to keep Shiite government from turning into a theocracy, Iranian or indigenous; (4) to leave scope for regional autonomy within the Iraqi democratic process. The United States has every interest in conducting a dialogue with all parties to encourage the emergence of a secular leadership of nationalists and regional representatives. The outcome of constitution-building should be a federation, with an emphasis on regional autonomy. Any group pushing its claims beyond these limits should be brought to understand the consequences of a breakup of the Iraqi state into its constituent elements, including an Iranian-dominated south, an Islamist-Hussein Sunni center and invasion of the Kurdish region by its neighbors. A calibrated American policy would seek to split that part of the Sunni community eager to conduct a normal life from the part that is fighting to reestablish Sunni control. The United States needs to continue building an Iraqi army, which, under conditions of Sunni insurrection, will be increasingly composed of Shiite recruits--producing an unwinnable situation for the Sunni rejectionists. But it should not cross the line into replacing Sunni dictatorship with Shiite theocracy. It is a fine line, but the success of Iraq policy may depend on the ability to walk it. The legitimacy of the political institutions emerging in Iraq depends significantly on international acceptance of the new government. An international contact group should be formed to advise on the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq. Such a step would be a gesture of confident leadership, especially as America's security and financial contributions will remain pivotal. Our European allies must not shame themselves and the traditional alliance by continuing to stand aloof from even a political process that, whatever their view of recent history, will affect their future even more than ours. Nor should we treat countries such as India and Russia, with their large Muslim populations, as spectators to outcomes on which their domestic stability may well depend. Desirable political objectives will remain theoretical until adequate security is established in Iraq. In an atmosphere of political assassination, wholesale murder and brigandage, when the road from Baghdad to its international airport is the scene of daily terrorist or criminal incidents, no government will long be able to sustain public confidence. Training, equipping and motivating effective Iraqi armed forces is a precondition to all the other efforts. Yet no matter how well trained and equipped, that army will not fight except for a government in which it has confidence. This vicious circle needs to be broken. It is axiomatic that guerrillas win if they do not lose. And in Iraq the guerrillas are not losing, at least not in the Sunni region, at least not visibly. A successful strategy needs to answer these questions: Are we waging ``one war'' in which military and political efforts are mutually reinforcing? Are the institutions guiding and monitoring these tasks sufficiently coordinated? Is our strategic goal to achieve complete security in at least some key towns and major communication routes (defined as reducing violence to historical criminal levels)? This would be in accordance with the maxim that complete security in 70 percent of the country is better than 70 percent security in 100 percent of the country--because fully secure areas can be models and magnets for those who are suffering in insecure places. Do we have a policy for eliminating the sanctuaries in Syria and Iran from which the enemy can be instructed, supplied, and given refuge and time to regroup? Are we designing a policy that can produce results for the people and prevent civil strife for control of the State and its oil revenue? Are we maintaining American public support so that staged surges of extreme violence do not break domestic public confidence at a time when the enemy may, in fact, be on the verge of failure? And are we gaining international understanding and willingness to play a constructive role in what is a global threat to peace and security? An exit strategy based on performance, not artificial time limits, will judge progress by the ability to produce positive answers to these questions. In the immediate future, a significant portion of the antiinsurrection effort will have to be carried out by the United States. A premature shift from combat operations to training missions might create a gap that permits the insurrection to rally its potential. But as Iraqi forces increase in number and capability, and as the political construction proceeds after the election, a realistic exit strategy will emerge. There is no magic formula for a quick, non-catastrophic exit. But there is an obligation to do our utmost to bring about an outcome that will mark a major step forward in the war against terrorism, in the transformation of the Middle East and toward a more peaceful and democratic world order.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have long been dedicated to quality healthcare for my constituents in Oklahoma and across America. I supported the Medicare bill of 2003 to give a voluntary prescription drug benefit to seniors. I have championed the rural health care providers, who received some of the greatest benefits of the Medicare bill. In 1997, I was one of few Republican to vote against the Balanced Budget Act because of its lack of support for rural hospitals. Back then, I made a commitment to not allow our rural hospitals to be closed, and I am pleased we finally addressed that important issue in the Medicare legislation. I also co-sponsored S. 816, the Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act, to protect and preserve access of Medicare beneficiaries to health care in rural regions. I am a strong advocate of medical liability reform and am an original cosponsor of S. 11, the Patients First Act, to protect patients' access to quality and affordable health care by reducing the effects of excessive liability costs. There are solutions to alleviate the burden placed on physicians and patients by excessive medical malpractice lawsuits, and I am committed to this vital reform. I have also worked with officials from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand access to life-saving Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators. I supported legislation to increase the supply of pancreatic islet cells for research and co-sponsored a bill to take the abortion pill RU-486 off the market in the United States. The Federal Government invests in improving hospitals and healthcare initiatives, and I have fought hard to ensure that Oklahoma gets its fair share. Specifically, over the past three years, I have helped to secure $5.2 million in funding for the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, the Oklahoma State Department of Health planning initiative for a rural telemedicine system, the INTEGRIS Healthcare System, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology, St. Anthony's Heart Hospital, the Hillcrest Healthcare System, and the Morton Health Center. Mr. President, the unexpected influenza (flu) vaccine shortage beginning last month highlights the need to encourage the production of flu vaccine in America. As you know, on October 5, 2004, Chiron, a California-based biotechnology company, notified U.S. health officials that its plant in Liverpool, England had been shut down due to vaccine contamination. Almost 50,000 doses of flu vaccine were thrown away, which created a severe shortage for Americans just as the flu season began. In light of the current shortage, I have examined why America found itself unable to accommodate the public demand for the flu vaccine. As we have seen, once a vaccine shortage strikes, a rapid response is difficult and often impossible. Thirty years ago, more than a dozen American companies were in the flu vaccine business. Today, only two companies make the vaccine for America, and only one is an America- based company. This is no coincidence. High liability costs, tedious production, price caps, and the complicated United States tax code have kept the market bare. In October, President Bush signed the JOBS bill, which curbed the billion-dollar lawsuits that have crippled the flu vaccination industry. By adding flu vaccine to the list of vaccines protected by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a no-fault alternative must be used for resolving vaccine injury claims. I am encouraged with this progress, but more can be done to prevent a shortage in the future. The FY2005 Omnibus bill provides $100 million to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ensure a year-round flu vaccine production capacity and for the development of rapidly expandable flu vaccine production technologies. The Omnibus language also permits HHS to purchase flu vaccine with these funds, if deemed necessary. Such costly purchasing is a waste of federal dollars that could otherwise be used for research through the National Institutes of Health to develop faster and safer vaccine production technology. My bill strikes the language that allows government purchasing of the flu vaccine with these funds. Optimizing the flu vaccine production process is imperative. The ever-changing nature of the flu virus results in a complicated production process. The dominant strain of the flu virus mutates each year, requiring a different vaccine for every flu season. Because harvesting the flu vaccine currently takes at least six months and requires tens of thousands of fertilized eggs susceptible to contamination, this process must begin nearly a year before the flu season begins. Research should be focused on developing new technologies to allow us to produce more vaccine--in the same season--when we encounter a shortage. For example, a company in Connecticut is developing a flu vaccine relying on cell lines from silk moths. Reverse genetics technology also holds potential that researchers should explore. These types of innovative research promise to shave at least one month off of production time and significantly reduce cost. Rather than temporarily masking problems through wasted spending on vaccine surpluses, my bill would ensure that the federal government invests in lasting solutions to the challenges of flu vaccine production. The encouragement of safer and faster flu vaccine production technology is a prudent use of federal research dollars through the National Institutes of Health. To invest in these new technologies, flu vaccine manufacturers will have to renovate existing facilities or construct new ones. My bill gives a tax credit to companies, new and old, to assist them in this important venture. Currently, ten American companies produce the forty-seven FDA- approved vaccines. An investment tax credit will encourage these existing companies to expand their production to cover the flu vaccine and will invite start-up companies to join the industry. This will better equip the United States market to prevent and deal with a shortage in the future. Furthermore, my bill removes the suffocating price controls that have discouraged companies from producing the flu vaccine. The Vaccines For Children program (VFC), enacted under the Clinton Administration, imposed a price cap on all vaccines purchased through federal contracts. From a shortsighted perspective, these regulated prices may expand access to vaccines. However, in the long run this policy devastates the vaccine production industry and decreases the availability of vaccines. This occurred in 1998 when manufacturers of Tetanus Diphtheria vaccine refused to bid on government contracts. Consequently, this vaccine is no longer available to children through the VFC program. Similarly, the CDC purchased nearly 12 percent of the flu vaccine this season, and significant quantities were purchased through the Department of Defense, the Veteran's Administration, and Medicare. The price controls imposed from federal government purchasing create a high-risk, low-reward business market. Price controls destroy any profit incentive. Manufacturers avoid this artificial environment and will continue to as long as the government over steps its bounds. The harmful effect of government price controls is especially pronounced in the flu vaccine market because the vaccine has a single- season shelf life. The difficulty of predicting the demand for vaccines each year exposes companies great risk. A slight drop in demand can force them out of the market. Financial losses--from seven million extra doses in 2002 and 4.5 million extra in 2003--compelled Wyeth Pharmaceutical Company to end its flu vaccine manufacturing. Scientific experts consider vaccination to be the most effective medical intervention, and we live in an age of unprecedented vaccine development and implementation. We cannot continue to over-regulate the flu vaccine industry and hope companies will hang on and produce vaccines regardless of profit. The current national flu vaccine shortage reveals the need to act. My bill would steer NIH research dollars towards cutting-edge technology, remove suffocating price controls, and free American companies to enter the flu vaccine industry with an investment tax credit. I urge my colleagues to stand with me in supporting this vital legislation.