Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, to respond to the question asked by the distinguished Senator from California, why are we fighting it? One of the biggest problems is, you get in this quagmire of lawsuits and nothing ever gets done in terms of cleanup. This is something we have been fighting for a long time. This is going to be a more brief statement than it was going to be before because right now we have a very significant piece of legislation before the committee I chair on the clear skies legislation, which is the most far-reaching reduction in powerplant pollutions in the history of clean air. So it is very significant, and I do have to get back. I have stated on many occasions my concern about the fact that this country does not have a comprehensive energy policy. I have also criticized Republicans and Democrats alike. We didn't get a comprehensive energy policy in the Reagan administration or the first Bush administration or the Clinton administration. We are going to get one with this. That is why this is so significant. As Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said, it is a serious strategic issue. This is a national security issue. The amendment we are talking about, the underlying bill, the Frist- Daschle-Inhofe amendment, represents a compromise on a lot of contentious issues. As with all compromises, there are provisions I like and I don't like. I am afraid there is a lot of misinformation being circulated about the safe harbor provision. Time and time again, we hear if the safe harbor provision is enacted into law, first, citizens cannot take refiners to court under our tort system; and, second, any responsible ethanol contamination that happens in the future would not get cleaned up. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, let me address the statement that any tort claim that has not been filed by the date of enactment of this section will be forever barred. Even with the enactment of the safe harbor provision, if a plaintiff makes a case, here are just a few tort theories that can be used in environmental cases: Trespass, trespass is not affected by safe harbor; nuisance, not affected by safe harbor; negligence, not affected; breach of implied warranty, not affected by safe harbor; a breach of express warranty, not affected by safe harbor. Safe harbor does not affect any of these tort theories. In fact, ethanol has been approved by the EPA as a fuel additive. Now Congress is mandating the use of ethanol. So the Federal Government has given ethanol its stamp of approval and now Congress is mandating it. How can we now say that refiners and blenders are open to suits for claims that the ``product has design or manufacturing defects''? Design defect claims actually hamper cleanups by interfering with regulatory agencies. Regulatory agency oversight--Federal, State, and local--is frustrated by the product liability claims because these agencies lose control of the remedy process. These agencies are supposed to be in control of the remedy process. That answers the question asked, Why are we concerned about this? We want to get these things cleaned up. When product liability claims are permitted, the plaintiff's motive becomes recovery of a large money judgment rather than a judgment mandating a remedy to be performed by the party who released the gasoline. Very often, the only thing getting cleaned up are the trial lawyers' mansions purchased with the spoils of these settlements. In fact, a recent report from the Council of Economic Advisors found that using the tort system in this way ``is extremely inefficient, returning only 20 cents of the tort cost dollar for that purpose.'' Now, I would like to address the rumors that sites will not get cleaned up or that polluters will not pay. The Safe Harbor provisions-- in no way--affects liability, and therefore, cleanups under any Federal or State environmental law. Any statement to the contrary is false. Enforcement of these laws is by the authorized Federal agency and States. If there were a spill, here are some examples of environmental laws that offer cleanup and liability provisions: 1. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); 2. Clean Water Act; 3. Oil Pollution Act (OPA); 4. Superfund. Generally speaking, Congress intended that oil spills be cleaned up by the Oil Pollution Act. However, the Inhofe Amendment to last Congress' Brownfields bill signed into law by the President is taking hug strides in cleaning up nearly 250,000 petroleum contaminated sites, such as abandon gas stations. No. 5, Natural Resource Damages (NRD), under the Oil Pollution Act, Superfund, and the Clean Water Act. So as you can see, there are enormous protections through the tort system as well as through environmental laws. Again, I ask my colleagues to oppose the Boxer amendment and support the motion to table. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business until 2:50 today with time equally divided.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the distinguished chairman. Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee for his remarks, and also the distinguished Senator from Arizona. I would like to start off by saying, I was elected to the other body in 1986. In 1987, a very distinguished Congressman, Dick Armey, came up with the whole idea of how to get rid of excess infrastructure, using this system that should be free of political influence, or as free as possible. I supported it and voted for it. I went through four BRAC rounds. The first one was in 1988, the second one was in 1991, the third in 1993, and the fourth was in 1995. During that period of time, it worked very well. We closed or realigned some 300 installations but 97 specific major installations were closed. There was a lot of pain that went with that. There were probably a few people who were defeated on the basis of that. But, nonetheless, the idea he had worked. I made the statement during that time that with regard to the installations we have in my State of Oklahoma, if they came out through this process and said they, in fact, wanted to do something, and it was necessary to close a classified, excess infrastructure in one of my installations, I would support that statement. As it turned out, it did not happen. There are three major reasons, that even though what my colleagues have said sounds very good--and I believe most of it is true and factual; and I know they believe it--but three things are different today than were in those four BRAC rounds. No. 1, I look across the Chamber and I can see a chart that makes reference to the fact that the threat is different since September 11. Well, I will not belabor that point because I was not on the floor and I assume that point has been made. When you talk about the threat that is out there, you are talking about a threat that could not have been foreseen 10 years ago or even 5 years ago or even 3 years ago. It is a totally different threat. I can remember sitting in a hearing when we had expert testimony by individuals who were saying at that time that we will no longer need ground forces in 10 years. That was 10 years ago, and we have had two major victories--primarily on the ground--in the last year. So these things were not foreseen at that time. The change in the threat is going to cause us to make other adjustments. The second thing that I have strong feelings about is this: I was listening to the distinguished Senator from Michigan talk about the amount of money that has been saved. I would question that. There are a lot of cleanups that have not been concluded yet. We hear glowing figures about how much is going to be saved by each installation that is closed. Some installation closings have resulted in no savings whatsoever. But there is one thing that is a certainty; and that is, when you close an installation, for the first 2 or 3 or 4 years, it is going to cost a lot of money. For that reason, and that reason alone, I would want to adopt this amendment so we do not have a 2005 BRAC round because we do not have any idea how many installations will be closed and how much money that will cost us. Right now we are in a crisis in our defense system. I know a lot of people do not like to say this. A lot of people do not believe it. But we went through the last administration, when the proper attention was not given to defending America, and a lot of people had this great euphoria that the cold war was over and thinking there was no longer a threat out there and that we could cut down the size of our military; and, as the Senator from Arizona said, we did cut it down from some 3 million troops to 1.4 million. I am certain a mistake was made. Now we look at the problems we have in our military and they go all the way across the board. No. 1, we have inadequate troop strength. We know that. That is a fact. We can't do what has to be done in Iraq and other places and have enough reserve for a contingency that might happen in North Korea, Syria, or any other place. This is something that has concerned us. No. 2, force strength deficiency is resulting in a crisis in our reserve component. Our Guard and Reserves are all overworked. They are unable to carry on the responsibilities they have. We can't expect the employers to continue with all these deployments and pay these people, hold these jobs, particularly in an economy that is not robust. This problem is serious. A third problem that took place over the last administration was a slowing down of our modernization program. I have said in the Senate that we are sending our troops out to fight on the ground with artillery that is World War II technology. The best thing we have in artillery right now operating is called Paladin. Paladin technology came about in the 1950s. When you tell people you have to get out and swab the breach after every shot, they don't believe you until they see that is the case. There are four countries, including South Africa, making artillery pieces better than that which we have. Then with all of these problems out there, we find out that the threats are greater today than they were during the cold war. People don't like to hear that, but back in the cold war, we had one great threat. That was the Soviet Union. We were the two superpowers. They were predictable. We knew what each other had. We developed a program under a Republican administration that I did not agree with. That was a program of mutual assured destruction. That is, I will make you a deal: You don't defend yourself against us and an incoming missile; We will not defend ourselves. So if you fire on us, we will fire on you. Everybody dies and everybody is happy. That seemed fairly reasonable at that time. Now we have a little sense of the changing threat out there and recognize it is not coming from one place. We have some 20 countries that have weapons of mass destruction or that are developing them. It is not something we can quantify now as to what kind of force structure we need. That brings me to my second point one more time. While we don't know how much savings will be effected, we do know it is going to cost millions and millions of dollars for every installation that is closed. We cannot afford it now. We cannot afford to leave our force structure where it is, our modernization program where it is. We cannot allow the Russians, who are selling on the open market their S.U. series that are better than our F-15s and F-16s--we want to give our troops, the most capable troops in the world, the resources and modern resources to make sure they have something that is better than the enemy has. The third reason it is very significant is, we are going to rebuild. We have been asking the administration to give us as much detail as to what our future force structure should look like. I am not criticizing them for not being able to come back with it because this is a moving target. We have threats that are out there we didn't have before. We have to learn how to accommodate these threats and how to combat them. Until such time as we know what the force structure is going to look like, I don't believe we should be closing any infrastructure. If we have an inadequate force structure right now that is down to here and we have perhaps more infrastructure, it does not make sense to bring the infrastructure down to an inadequate force structure and then build that up and wonder, wait a minute, why do we have something that can't be used. So for that reason, until we find out what our force structure is going to look like, we don't know what remaining installations will be needed. Let's stop and remember, we had 97 major installations that have been closed. That is behind us. We supported that. Those were the four BRAC rounds. We are now to a point where we do not know what the threat is going to be. We don't know how we will have to rebuild our force structure and our system. So we don't know what kind of infrastructure it is going to take to accommodate that. These three reasons were not present in 1989. They were not present in 1991, 1993, and 1995. But they are present today. So we have to face this crisis, which we will, and rebuild our military. And when we get to the point where we know what it is going to look like and how to adequately defend against this new threat, we had no idea it would be out there as recently as 3 or 4 years ago, then it is time to maybe look and reevaluate where we might be. It would be premature to do it at this time. I support the amendment. These are three very good reasons that were not present in the future rounds. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that time consumed during the quorum call be equally divided.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as the war in Iraq demonstrated, our troops are the finest in the world. Through their mastery of precision- guided weapons, they minimized casualties of noncombatants and effectively contained war's inevitable destruction. In just 21 days, they liberated Iraq, a country almost the size of California, from a brutal tyranny. Many factors contributed to the success of the Iraq war. In my view, the most important--and this, I believe, is true of any war--was training. To be strong in battle, soldiers must train as they fight. On U.S. training ranges, our troops engage in highly realistic, combat ready exercises, preparing them to fight and protect themselves in battle. This is what they deserve. But gradually, those readiness exercises--so critical to the military's training mission--are steadily being constrained and inhibited. Slowly, but surely, training simulations bear little connection with the true-to-life. The cause is straightforward but very disturbing: the extreme agenda of some environmental groups, whose hostile lawsuits are precipitating a crisis in training . Environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biological Diversity have launched an unconscionable war on the military. They believe there are no compromises, even when the issue involves protecting and preparing our troops for battle. They would rather file lawsuits--something they are quite good at, incidentally--than find commonsense solutions to balance environmental protection with the best military training available. These lawsuits are gradually eroding not just the land available for training and readiness, but are gravely diminishing the actual training exercises and live-fire simulations that are so critical to prepare for real-life combat. Despite the claims made by environmental groups, the Pentagon has demonstrated a strong commitment to environmental stewardship. The evidence is overwhelming. But land development is fast encroaching upon military facilities, driving wildlife and endangered species into the relative sanctuary of training ranges. The military has made environmental accommodations time and time again, but there is only so much it can do. The flood of environmental lawsuits is diverting the military away from its all-important training mission. As a result, training slowly but surely is dying a death of a thousand cuts. There are too many egregious examples to recount here. The situation facing Camp Pendleton in California bears special mention. Camp Pendleton is considered the premier training base for the Marines. Because of a lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council to list the gnatcatcher as endangered, 57 percent of the base may become ``critical habitat,'' which in effect means no training and readiness exercises in that area. Also, there are 17 miles of beach at Camp Pendleton--because of environmental restrictions, only 200 yards of beach are available to practice amphibious landings. All military vehicles that come ashore during an amphibious landing are restricted to designated roads. Troops can only come ashore in single file columns, which is hardly a good simulation of actual warfighting conditions. To address these problems, the Pentagon has a reasonable, commonsense proposal to clarify existing environmental laws. Contrary to statements by some of my colleagues, the Pentagon is not seeking blanket exemptions from current laws. To say otherwise is simply false. Take, for example, the provision clarifying how the Endangered Species Act applies to training bases. DoD wants to continue a policy first implemented by the Clinton administration's Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposal would codify Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans, INRMPSs, in place of critical habitat designations. INRMPs, which are required to provide for, among other things, fish and wildlife management, land management, forest management, fish and wildlife-oriented recreation, and wetland protection, allow the military to balance species protection and training needs. DoD's proposal explicitly requires DoD to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service under section 7 of ESA. Also, the Interior Secretary must approve INRMPs in writing. Other provisions of ESA, as well as statutes such as the National Environmental Policy Act, also would continue to apply. Thus it is simply unconscionable that this is characterized as a ``sweeping exemption.'' My Democratic colleagues also contend that such a clarification isn't necessary because ESA already contains national security exemptions. Ironically, while complaining about a proposed provision that, in effect, continues to subject DoD to ESA, my colleagues want to pursue exemptions under current law. In practice, those exemptions mean DoD could ignore existing statutory requirements altogether under ESA. Yesterday, 51 Senators voted for an amendment sponsored by Senators Lautenberg and Jeffords that effectively guts the ESA provision in the fiscal year 2004 Defense reauthorization bill. The amendment upsets the balance stuck between species protection and training. It tilts irresponsibly in favor of species protection, which is not the mission of DoD. The amendment says DoD must ``conserve the species,'' rather than, as stated in the bills original language, provide ``conservation benefits.'' The distinction is significant because ``conserve' means DoD must recover species. This is an unacceptably high threshold, one that even Fish and Wildlife has been unable to meet under ESA. According to original 1973 ESA, conserve means ``to use and use all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include but are not limited to all activities associated with scientific resources and management, such as research, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance promulgation, live trapping, and transplanting.'' As is obvious, the burdens on DoD training and readiness would be enormous. DoD opposes the amendment because it could have perverse and unintended consequences, such as removing the Fish and Wildlife Service's flexibility to make decisions based on the differing circumstances facing each training range. Also, DoD and the Department of the Interior believe it will lead to more lawsuits, not less-- exactly what DoD is trying to prevent. The question remains: What should DoD's most important focus be, training or recovering the gnatcatcher? I am also very disturbed by statements an characterizations of DoD's training predicament. Some Senators alluded to the March 13 testimony of EPA Administrator Christie Whitman before my committee. Governor Whitman, said, ``I don't believe that there is a training mission anywhere in the country that is being held up or not taking place because of the environmental protection regulations.'' With all due respect to Governor Whitman, the EPA does not have jurisdiction over the Endangered Species Act, which, of all the existing laws addressed in the Pentagon's proposal, is responsible for the most serious training restrictions. Moreover, I am extremely troubled by the way some Senators have summarized a General Accounting report on military encroachment. To say ``the GAO found the military has presented no evidence that the Endangered Species Act has impaired training'' is utterly false and irresponsible. Here is what the GAO said about encroachment in its report: Over time, the impact of encroachment on training ranges has gradually increased. While the effect varies by service and individual installation, in general encroachment has limited the extent to which training ranges are available or the types of training that can be conducted. This limits units' ability to train as they would expect to fight and/or requires units to work around the problem. Barry Holman, director of the GAO's Defense Capabilities and Management section, and author of the June 2002 encroachment report, stated in his testimony before the House Government Reform Committee on May 16, 2002: One thing I want to make clear, I would not want anyone to conclude from looking at that report that GAO is saying `no data, no problem.' We're not saying that. I think it's very clear . . . that there are limitations on training. In addition to the ESA clarification in the base bill, I filed an amendment to clarify how the Superfund law applies to military training and readiness. Though it appears this issue will not be addressed as part of the Defense authorization bill this year, it does deserve some explanation. Live-fire training, which is the ``capstone event of a unit's training cycle,'' has come under heavy fire from environmental groups. The Army at Fort Richardson is engaged in a lawsuit that could shut down firing munitions at Eagle River Flats range. If environmentalists succeed, live fire operations at every Army range--more than 400 sites--could be severely constrained, seriously threatening training and readiness for our men and women in uniform. This suit is not an isolated incident--there is another one much like it regarding the range at Vieques in Puerto Rico. The pattern is clear, and the Committee on Environment and Public Works received testimony as to the real agenda behind this pattern of lawsuits. Describing yet another lawsuit by an eco-radical group against the Department of Defense, witness Frank Gaffey, president and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, stated illuminatingly ``a plaintiff in the lawsuit was Melanie Dutchen who was described in the New York Times as an Anchorage activist with Greenpeace who said, `Obviously the hope of this litigation is that delay will lead to cancellation.' She went on to say, `That is what we always hope for in these suits.' I believe this is sort of an instructive insight into why the Defense Department is concerned, not only about the circumstances that you personally observed, in terms of limitations and impediments to training, but the train wreck that is coming. It is not something that is coming up by accident. It is coming about, I believe, by people, at least some of whom, have very little interest in the readiness of our military.'' My amendment will try to stop this by clarifying how RCRA and CERCLA apply to live-fire training ranges. I worked closely with the Pentagon and State officials--in particular, Doug Benevento of Colorado's Department of Public Health and Environment--in drafting compromise language that will balance training needs with environmental protection. This amendment would codify and confirm longstanding regulatory policy of EPA and every State concerning regulation of munitions on operational ranges under RCRA and CERCLA. The amendment excludes military munitions from the definition of ``solid waste'' under CERCLA. That way, the military can perform live fire training exercises without having to break up those exercises with extensive, time-consuming clean-up operations. But this change would still offer environmental protections under existing law. Again, as stated previously, this is not an exemption. Cleanup of operational ranges is not required so long as material stays on range, but if such material moves off range, it still must be addressed under existing law. Also, if munitions cause an ``imminent and substantial endangerment on range, EPA will still retain its authority to address it on range under CERCLA. If we fail to address these and other issues the Pentagon has put before us, we are doing a great disservice to our men and women in uniform. Unfortunately, it appears that Congress will pass only a few pieces of the Pentagon's proposal this year. I think it is imperative, for the sake of our troops, that we address the remaining pieces next year.

Mr. INHOFE. If the distinguished Senator from Virginia would yield, Mr. Chairman, I also have concerns about this provision and the effects it would have on our ability to meet production needs to get necessary meals to our service men and women in the field.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the chairman and the Senator from Indiana and look forward to working with them on this issue as we proceed with the bill. the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I strongly agree with the Senator from Georgia. I truly believe our depots are a national asset and we should address the basic question of ``core'' requirements. Currently, there is no acceptable definition of ``inherently governmental'' functions or ``core'' which can guide the administration and the Department of Defense as they decide which functions should be competed for outsourcing. As we have seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States does not have the luxury of time in addressing the threats of tomorrow. Before we start making short-term decisions, we need to look at the long-term effects and requirements in support of national defense.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I join my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, in introducing by request a bill to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration. EDA works with partners in local communities to create wealth and minimize poverty by promoting favorable business environments to attract private investment. Studies show that EDA uses Federal dollars efficiently and effectively. EDA's average cost of creating and retaining long-term jobs is among the lowest in government. In my home State of Oklahoma, we have some communities that struggle with economic distress, and EDA has worked long and hard with those communities to bring in private capital investment and jobs. In fact, over the last ten years, EDA projects have resulted in more than 15,000 jobs being created or saved. With an investment of about $53 million, we have leveraged another 50 million in State and local dollars and more than 1.1 billion in private sector dollars. I would call that a wonderful success story. I am pleased that the President has chosen to send to Congress a reauthorization bill for this agency. His bill promotes coordination, flexibility and performance--all excellent goals. The EDA's authorization is set to expire on September 30, 2003, and I look forward to working with the Administration, as well as my colleagues here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, to try to reauthorize it before then.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent John Swisher, a military fellow, be granted access to the floor during debate.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have been listening with great interest to the debate. I start out saying I have some similarities to the previous speaker from Vermont. I am a veteran, I should say. Also, the reference was made to the Environment and Public Works Committee. I do agree with the Senator from Vermont that there is a jurisdiction thing there in which we are interested. However, there is also one having to do with the readiness, with the authorization bill that is under consideration now. I can't tell you how strongly I feel about this particular amendment. This is something we have been discussing now, not for just days or weeks but for years. We have actually had several hearings. Right now, we have had some 12 hearings in the past 2 years on this subject. Some of this was when I chaired the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. We have had hearings there and, of course, hearings in the Environment and Public Works Committee. I share the compliments to Senator Ensign, in the way he has been chairing this committee and spending the time on this very critical subject. Let me just remind everybody that when INRMP first came along, the Integrated National Resource Management Plan, they came along not in a Republican administration, they came along in the Clinton administration. They recognized at that time the seriousness of proper training and the fact that we have a very serious problem affecting some of the environment encroachments on our limited land area. It is something that is measured, not by cost of training, not by effectiveness of training, as much as it is human lives. The Senator from New Jersey talked about the Endangered Species Act. I spent 3 years and lost trying to stop the prohibition of live-fire training on a Navy range on land we own in Vieques. I have a background, as does the Senator from Vermont, in having gone through training. I am sure he would share this with me. When we went through training and crawled under inert fire, it was quite a bit different from crawling under live fire. This is the kind of training that I think we had in Vieques--integrated training, which we don't have today. In Kuwait, we lost five lives, four of whom were Americans. If you read the accident report, it very clearly states that we lost those lives because we didn't have adequate live-fire training. It was denied us right before that time at the range in Vieques. I am going to talk about Camp Pendleton. Before I do so, the Senator from New Jersey had talked about Camp Pendleton and how compatible everything has been in Camp Pendleton. He suggests that in Camp Pendleton there are some 17 miles of shoreline. We can only train in some 200 yards of that area. It is a very serious matter. I agree that we have very well-trained troops in the field. But I also say we are not enjoying the state of readiness that our troops are entitled to have--unlimited capability of training in a live and integrated relationship. The Lautenberg amendment would essentially gut the bill language because it would impose an unachievable standard of recovering species according to the legal definition of concern. DOD would be forced to guarantee sufficient funding to accomplish species recovery while the Department of Interior and Endangered Species Act have not been able to recover species. This is very important. We have had since 1973--30 years--the Endangered Species Act. Yet no species have come off the list as a result of operation of the Endangered Species Act. In other words, he is putting on a test that cannot be fulfilled. In other words, we are not going to be able to have this type of training. This is the quote from a committee hearing which we had. This was the Deputy General Counsel for Environment and Installations. It gets into the question as to how this is going to affect the training: With respect to the ESA, what our proposal seeks to do is to codify a policy that was adopted during the Clinton administration with respect to the INRMPs. Then Craig Manson said: I concur as to the ESA provision. The amendment is very similar to the amendment that Senator Akaka tried to get approved in committee. Normally, Senator Akaka and I agree on these issues. During the years when I was chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he was my ranking member, and during the years he was chairman, I was his ranking member, we normally agreed on these issues. However, I believe the Lautenberg amendment goes much further than the Akaka amendment went because it is an amendment that gets very serious in terms of forcing something to come off the list. The essential difference between Senator Akaka's failed amendment in committee and Senator Lautenberg's amendment is a subtle but crucial difference between ``provide conservation benefit for the species,'' which Senator Akaka wanted to do and which I can understand, and provide a conservation benefit as Senator Lautenberg wants to do, which is ``conserve the species.'' In other words, recover. Recovery is something that can't happen. It has never happened. I will read to you from the Endangered Species Act of 1973. It said in addressing the terms ``conserving'' and ``conservation'' that it means ``to use and use all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include but are not limited to all activities associated with scientific resources and management, such as research, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance promulgation, live trapping, transplanting,'' and it goes on and on. It says you must be able to recover. As he said, never have we been able to recover a species that was actually a result of the operation of the ESA. The Department of Defense opposes the amendment because, No. 1, the language could have perverse and unintended consequences such as depriving the Fish and Wildlife Service the flexibility to refine the conditions in light of further experience or to tailor them more specifically to diverse sites. The language would give rise to litigation. As the chart shows, again quoting Craig Manson: In fact, the process of using the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan is a collaborative process that requires the agreement of the Fish and Wildlife Service and INRMP and cannot be approved without the agreement of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service will continue to be involved. Habitat will continue to be afforded the protections that are necessary for the conservation of the species. I think most of us understand. That is the seriousness that we are dealing with right now. The next concern we have is the lawsuits which are now preventing continuation of a policy started by the implementation of the Clinton/ Gore administration. And we are talking about the INRMP. This is Jamie Irappaport Clark, the Clinton administration's Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He said: Do I believe that Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans can provide the needs for conservation of listed species? Absolutely. This came from the Clinton administration--not from the current administration. That was the Clinton Fish and Wildlife Director, Jamie Clark, who initiated the practice and gave the testimony before our committee. The marine field training is rated ``not combat capable'' at Camp Pendleton. I am glad the Senator from New Jersey brought up Camp Pendleton. Camp Pendleton is a good model to use as to what we don't want to do. Camp Pendleton has all of these 17 miles of shoreline. We can only use some 200 yards. In fact, if you look at the shoreline, that 200 yards is so small that it doesn't even show up on the map. This shows the proposed critical habitat at the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton, 57 percent. That tells us what is happening to our training area. What is the result of that? The encroachment impact of training degradation at Camp Pendleton in the field of ``not combat capable'' is fifty percent. Fifty percent of the training that takes place has that category of T-4, which is ``not combat capable,'' and 69 percent is ``combat capable'' for only a low threat. That is what is happening. How does that translate into lives? We don't know. As I mentioned, we have lost lives because of a lack of training. This is one that is very serious. The Department of Defense set out to establish quantity of data on encroachment selecting the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton as the subject of the study and came to the conclusion that 50 percent of that training would not be combat ready. That is how serious this is. More holistic than mere designation of critical habitat, the management plan we are talking about, the INRMP approach, pioneered by the Clinton-Gore administration, considers habitat, food, water, predators, noise, and many more factors. The Fish and Wildlife Service opposed the Lautenberg amendment. Let me conclude by saying this is very serious. I could be talking about ranges other than Pendleton. Pendleton I talked about because that was brought up by the Senator from New Jersey. In the case of Camp Lejeune, in the case of Fort Bragg in the southeastern part of the United States, we are down now to just a small portion that can be used for training. I invite my colleagues to go down to Fort Bragg, go down to Camp Pendleton, and look and see how they are inhibited from being able to have the type of training that will really prepare them properly for combat in harm's way to which we will be sending them. I think it is very significant. There is not an issue in this bill that is more significant now than trying to do what we can to provide good training. It has been said before--and I would have to echo it-- that the military has been an excellent steward of the environment. And that is part of the problem. If you go to Fort Bragg today, after having been there 2 years ago, you see many more of these red ribbons around areas precluding them from being able to train there because of the urban sprawl and other encroachments on our training capabilities. Our language is very good, and I would encourage us, at the time we vote, to reject the Lautenberg amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I consume.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, let me make real clear things that somehow get lost in the discussion. I have heard it said by the last four or five speakers that doing this is moving forward with the development and production of low-yield nuclear weapons. Nothing could be further from the truth. By repealing the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons research, our nuclear weapons experts will be able to explore weapons concepts that could help us to respond to new threats. We ought to treat research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons like research and development of any weapon. For any weapon that we have had, any weapon, conventional or otherwise, we have had to go through this period of time. That doesn't mean we are going to make one. It means we are going to be prepared if need be. By repealing the ban as we did in the Senate bill, the administration is still required to specifically request funding at each phase of the research and development as required by the National Advanced Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2003. The Congress has the prerogative whether to authorize and appropriate for such activities. With the many new and emerging threats in the world, we cannot afford to be unprepared. I was listening to the Senator from Wisconsin talk about how, somehow, this starts some kind of a nuclear race. Really that is just not true. People argue that research on nuclear weapons would encourage nuclear proliferation. Since 1993, when the ban went into effect, the ban we are seeking to repeal right now, several nations have sought and in some cases achieved nuclear capabilities--in other words, countries such as India and Pakistan and North Korea. There is no correlation between U.S. weapons research and proliferation. More significant is the U.S. track record of nuclear reductions. Our top military people and diplomatic leaders support repeal of this prohibition: ADM James Ellis, GEN John Jumper, Secretary of State Colin Powell. In 1994, Congress prohibited any research and development which could lead to the production of a low-yield nuclear weapon. That is less than 5 kilotons. This is an arbitrary restriction and it impedes the ability of scientists and engineers who support our national defense to explore a full range of scientific and technical concepts for the nuclear weapons stockpile. It has a chilling effect on creative thinking when scientists have to consult a lawyer before exploring concepts involving nuclear weapons. It restricts the ability of this or any administration to explore options to modify our nuclear weapons capability to prepare for changing defense needs in the 21st century. These needs are changing. I remember 8 years ago, sitting in the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings, when there was a proposal that said we would no longer need ground troops in the next 10 years. It was about 10 years ago. Yet here we come up with the problems that we had in Afghanistan. We had the great battles there, ground troop battles. We went into Iraq. That was on the ground; it wasn't in the air. Now we are looking at other options and possible risks and we don't know what they are going to be. The point is, we have to be ready for whatever does come. It is prudent national security policy to allow the administration to consider weapons concepts that would hold at risk deeply buried and hardened targets to defeat chemical and biological agents and reduce collateral damage. Reducing collateral damage--if we were to be able to do this research and ultimately it became necessary to have this, we would be able to penetrate deeply into the ground to knock out chemical threats, to knock out biological threats, maybe even nuclear threats, and not cause any collateral damage. In the absence of that, you would have to use something else, a MOAB, for example, that would clear an area of maybe 5 or 10 square miles, killing everything within that range. So it would be an effort to reduce collateral damage. Repealing this prohibition would not authorize the administration to build any nuclear weapon. I think it is very important people understand that. What happens if all of a sudden there is a changing threat out there and we discover we need to be able to develop a low-yield nuclear weapon, if every Senator in here, every Democrat and every Republican, agreed that we had to have this? If we don't do research and development now, it could be years before we would be able to have it. If we go ahead, then we would be able to have it in a very short period of time. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness for quite a number of years. I see my colleague from Hawaii over there, who is my ranking member. Of course he chaired it also. We know that the threats change all the time. The whole idea of readiness is to be ready for anything that should come up. Unfortunately, we cannot predict what the future holds. We predicted it wrong 10 years ago. We predicted it wrong 5 years ago. We could predict it wrong this time. Just by doing research and development, we are not coming out with any kind of production on any kind of low-yield nuclear weapon. It is just a matter of being prepared in the event that everyone should decide that we have to have this capability. I hope we vote down this effort to stop our ability to be able to do research and development in this area. Again, on every weapons system we have, we have had to go through an extensive and long period of time on research and development. It doesn't cost us any more to be ready in the event that capability should be required. I thank you very much.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, by request, President Bush's proposed ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003,'' SAFETEA, which reauthorizes the Federal-aid surface transportation program. Joining me are Senators Jeffords and Bond. Although I am not in complete agreement with the President on this proposal, I believe the President deserves the courtesy of getting his proposal introduced. I do agree with the President's desire to build upon the achievements of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century, TEA-21, of 1998 and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, of 1991. In the hearings conducted by the Environment and Public Works Committee over the last 12 months, we consistently heard that TEA-21 works. SAFETEA focuses on reducing highway fatalities and injuries, reducing congestion, protecting the environment, increasing funding flexibility for State and local governments, and providing economic stimulus to the Nation's economy. All very worthy goals. Unfortunately, the funding proposed in the President's bill is woefully inadequate. As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am looking forward to working with the President and my Congressional colleagues to develop a Senate bill that strengthens the national transportation system.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, over the next few days, the Senate will consider legislation that will become the fuels title of comprehensive energy legislation to be enacted by the Congress later this year. As I have stated on other occasions, I firmly believe that the Nation needs comprehensive energy legislation and needs it quickly. One of our largest national security problems is our current energy dependence on foreign countries. I strongly agree with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who has called our energy dependence ``a serious strategic issue.'' I think that most Members of the Senate would agree that expeditious action is needed to address our energy dependence concerns. There is much less agreement, however, on the specific fuels provisions that are best suited to respond to those concerns. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have worked closely with the issue surrounding this amendment and the impact they will have on our environment, as well as the economy. I understand the valid concerns on all sides of the debate. This amendment represents a compromise on a number of contentious issues. I want to thank the members and their staffs for their respective roles in shaping this compromise, particularly the majority and minority leaders, and Senator Voinovich, the Chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over this amendment. This amendment has numerous environmental protection provisions, and, with the repeal of the oxygenate mandate, positive steps in removing barriers to allow refineries to make clean burning and affordable gasoline. As with all compromises, there are provisions in the document that are opposed by various committee members, including myself. Despite that, I hope we can move the proposal out of the Senate with a minimum of controversy. To that end, I intend to support the proposal against amendments even in circumstances where I might agree with the substance of the amendment. I urge others to do the same. This is something that has been of great concern for this country. I became involved with this issue of our energy dependence way back in the early 1980s when then-Secretary of Interior, Don Hodel, and I traveled and talked about the national security ramifications of our dependence on foreign countries for our ability to fight a war. Certainly, I felt after the 1991 war and after the most recent conflict in Iraq that people would be sensitive to that. I think the amendment that we are offering is one that is going to be of great help in getting us to lessen our reliance on foreign countries for our ability to fight a war. I look at this provision of the energy bill as a very significant provision. As I said, there are parts of it and provisions that, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I do not agree with. However, I strongly urge the support of this provision to the energy bill and hope we can do it with minimum or with no amendments. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as the Senate's only commercially licensed pilot, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senator Kyl, Senator Burns, Senator Thomas and Senator Grassley, to introduce a bill that will help end age discrimination among airline pilots. This bill will abolish the Federal Aviation Administration's, FAA, Age 60 Rule--the regulation that for 43 years has forced the retirement of airline pilots the day they turn 60--and replace it with a rational plan that raises the retirement age to 63 immediately and then incrementally increases the age limit to 65. Most nations have abolished mandatory age 60 retirement rules. The United States is one of only two countries in the Joint Aviation Authorities that requires its commercial pilots to retire at the age of 60. Some countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have no upper age limit at all. The Age 60 Rule has no basis in science or safety and never did. FAA data shows that pilots over age 60 are as safe as, and in some cases safer than, their younger colleagues. In 1981, the National Institute of Aging stated that ``the Age 60 Rule appears indefensible on medical grounds'' and ``there is no convincing medical evidence to support age 60, or any other specific age, for mandatory pilot retirement.'' This bill will allow our most experienced pilots--demonstrably healthy, and fit for duty--to retain their jobs, a step that will benefit pilots, the financially burdened airlines, and most importantly, passengers. Now, more than ever before, we need to keep our best pilots flying. Again, there is no scientific justification for requiring pilots to retire at age 60. Our pilots, our airlines, and our passengers deserve our consideration. I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as the Senate's only commercially licensed pilot, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senator Kyl, Senator Burns, Senator Thomas and Senator Grassley, to introduce a bill that will help end age discrimination among airline pilots. This bill will abolish the Federal Aviation Administration's, FAA, Age 60 Rule--the regulation that for 43 years has forced the retirement of airline pilots the day they turn 60--and replace it with a rational plan that raises the retirement age to 63 immediately and then incrementally increases the age limit to 65. Most nations have abolished mandatory age 60 retirement rules. The United States is one of only two countries in the Joint Aviation Authorities that requires its commercial pilots to retire at the age of 60. Some countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have no upper age limit at all. The Age 60 Rule has no basis in science or safety and never did. FAA data shows that pilots over age 60 are as safe as, and in some cases safer than, their younger colleagues. In 1981, the National Institute of Aging stated that ``the Age 60 Rule appears indefensible on medical grounds'' and ``there is no convincing medical evidence to support age 60, or any other specific age, for mandatory pilot retirement.'' This bill will allow our most experienced pilots--demonstrably healthy, and fit for duty--to retain their jobs, a step that will benefit pilots, the financially burdened airlines, and most importantly, passengers. Now, more than ever before, we need to keep our best pilots flying. Again, there is no scientific justification for requiring pilots to retire at age 60. Our pilots, our airlines, and our passengers deserve our consideration. I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to make the Impact Aid Program a Federal entitlement. Impact Aid is one of the oldest Federal education programs, dating from the 1950's, and is meant to compensate a local school district for financial losses resulting from Federal properties or lands in that district. Congress met its obligation of fully funding Impact Aid until the 1970's. When the funding was cut in 1971, many districts that greatly depend on Impact Aid began to suffer. In the past few years, the Impact Aid payment formula has become increasingly complex, causing great funding disparities for the same types of students in different districts. I have consistently supported increased appropriations for Impact Aid because it not only provides an essential revenue source for impacted districts, but it is also a Federal obligation. Often, close to 90 percent of a local school's funding is comprised of the local tax base. When the presence of the Federal Government in a community takes away from this tax base, we must compensate for this loss. When we do not fulfill our obligation by adequately funding Impact Aid, our children suffer the consequence such as lower test scores, lower attendance rates, crowded classrooms, and fewer and older facilities. Although funding for Impact Aid has increased over the past few years, it still remains under-funded. Today, I am taking the first step to correct this inequity. My bill will require Congress to meet its duty to these children and schools that have been under-funded for so long. I urge my colleagues to join me in fulfilling our obligation by permanently fully funding the Impact Aid program.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to make the Impact Aid Program a Federal entitlement. Impact Aid is one of the oldest Federal education programs, dating from the 1950's, and is meant to compensate a local school district for financial losses resulting from Federal properties or lands in that district. Congress met its obligation of fully funding Impact Aid until the 1970's. When the funding was cut in 1971, many districts that greatly depend on Impact Aid began to suffer. In the past few years, the Impact Aid payment formula has become increasingly complex, causing great funding disparities for the same types of students in different districts. I have consistently supported increased appropriations for Impact Aid because it not only provides an essential revenue source for impacted districts, but it is also a Federal obligation. Often, close to 90 percent of a local school's funding is comprised of the local tax base. When the presence of the Federal Government in a community takes away from this tax base, we must compensate for this loss. When we do not fulfill our obligation by adequately funding Impact Aid, our children suffer the consequence such as lower test scores, lower attendance rates, crowded classrooms, and fewer and older facilities. Although funding for Impact Aid has increased over the past few years, it still remains under-funded. Today, I am taking the first step to correct this inequity. My bill will require Congress to meet its duty to these children and schools that have been under-funded for so long. I urge my colleagues to join me in fulfilling our obligation by permanently fully funding the Impact Aid program.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Foreign Assistance Oversight Witnesses AF Panel (Senator Alexander to Chair): Mr. William A. Bellamy, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC; The Honorable Constance Berry Newman, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Africa, United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC. EUR Panel (Senator Allen to Chair): Mr. Charles P. Ries, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Europe and Eurasian Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC; The Honorable Kent R. Hill, Assistant Administrator, Bureau of Europe and Eurasian Affairs, United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC. WHA Panel (Senator Coleman to Chair): Mr. J. Curtis Struble, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC; The Honorable Adolfo A. Franco, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 10 a.m., to mark up original bills, entitled, the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2003; the Clean Diamond Trade Act; and the Tax Court Modernization Act. The Committee may also consider any or all of the following nominees: Mark Everson, to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Diane L. Kroupa, to be Judge of the United States Tax Court; Harry A. Haines, to be Judge of the United States Tax Court; Robert Allen Wherry, Jr., to be Judge of the United States Tax Court; Joseph Robert Goeke, to be Judge of the United States Tax Court; and, Raymond T. Wagner, Jr., to be Member of the Oversight Board, U.S. Department of Treasury.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 10 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management and Office of Legacy Management in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2004.