Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, I am sorry, I did not hear the Senator's question.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements regarding this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, my wife and I have four kids and 11 grandkids. My youngest daughter Katie is the chairman of the Jesse Helms Fan Club. Katie, who looks like she is about 14 or 15 years old, is in her thirties. She just had her second baby. She has, I say to my good friend, Senator Helms, prominently framed as you walk in to her home a picture of Senator Helms holding her first baby, Baby Kate. You see, I have a wife named Kate, a daughter named Kate, and a granddaughter named Kate. The picture is prominently displayed in her living room. She talks about this wonderful, gentle man in Washington who is different than anybody else we have known in Washington. She says he has to be the most lovable man in the history of Washington, DC. Jesse, I say to you, that is not just one little girl talking. She speaks for so many people. Since one of the programs that Senator Helms has always held up and said is the greatest program because it does not involve Government dollars, it involves putting into the hands of young people in America the ideals that made this country great, I thought it would be appropriate if we adopt S. Con. Res. 143, which is the 4-H resolution. The Senator from North Carolina has been such a prominent part and one of the first cosponsors of this resolution. So let's adopt this resolution on Jesse Helms Appreciation Day. My resolution, S. Con. Res. 143, designates next week, October 6 through 12, as the ``National 4-H Youth Development Program Week.'' The 4-H Youth Development Program sponsors clubs in rural and urban areas in every county throughout the Nation. As neighbors and colleagues, 4-H members and volunteers are making a difference by pledging the four Hs: their ``heads'' to a clearer thinking, ``hearts'' to greater loyalty, ``hands'' to larger service, and ``health'' to better living for the club, the community, the country, and the world. In an era when education is recognized as more important than ever, 4-H offers a variety of training through its diverse programs. Young people gain experience and citizenship and civic education, communications and expressive arts, consumer and family sciences, environmental education and earth sciences, healthy lifestyle education, personal development and leadership, plants and animals, and science and technology; and it goes on. 4-H has grown to over 5 \1/2\ million annual participants from all ethnic backgrounds, ranging from ages 5 to 19. 4-H clubs strengthen families and communities and foster leadership and voluntarism for youth and adults. I will say something about my State of Oklahoma. Turning to a survey of 22 counties in Oklahoma, 4-H members and volunteer leaders participated in 4 million hours of community service. No Government program told them to do that. They just did it out of their hearts because they had leadership they could look up to, the ultimate leader being Senator Helms in this case. Whitney Ferris, a 4-H club member and student at the Oklahoma State University, is one example of someone who has given back to her community. She has used skills she has developed through 4-H to conduct leadership development classes for Native Americans in the Chickasaw Nation. As a result of her efforts, Whitney is now working with other Native American tribes in Oklahoma to help them establish development workshops in order to learn skills that will make them tomorrow's leaders. That is what we are really talking about: tomorrow's leaders. We would like to produce more Jesse Helmses for this world. Other OSU students, who are also 4-H members, have won the prestigious Truman Scholarship for their outstanding academic and leadership skills. Recently, I supported 4-H by requesting funding for a national civic education program to be conducted by the National 4-H Council. This program is aimed at involving young people from all socioeconomic backgrounds in public policy and community involvement, with a special focus on community governance and leadership skills. I have also requested funding for an innovative Rural Health Outreach Program, which will be administered through the 4-H Youth Development Program. This program will develop, implement and evaluate an overall youth health promotion and awareness strategy designed to target youth and their families, particularly in rural America. It will also devise strategies to reach minority and disadvantaged youth and their families. 4-H is changing the lives of America's youth for a brighter, better tomorrow and I am proud to recognize this important program. Congratulations, 4-H, on your good work and your centennial. I conclude by saying we have hundreds of thousands of kids around this country who are participating today and have participated in this program. I think that each one of them would look up to the top and see one person who really sets an example for what truly makes America great, and that would be our good friend Jesse Helms. I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 143 and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my intent today to make a few comments about someone I hold in such high esteem, perhaps in higher esteem than anyone else I can think of at this moment. Before doing that, I am compelled, however, to respond to some of the statements that have been made concerning the economy. I think we all recognize our economy started turning south about 3 years ago. We did see this coming. I really do not like people saying-- because I am always afraid someone is going to believe it--that somehow when we reduce tax burdens on individuals that is going to automatically reduce the revenues that would have otherwise come from those taxes. History tells us just the opposite. In fact, yes, we are going to have a deficit. We understand that. We are currently in a war, and we understand even though the amount of additional money, some $48 billion, that went into the war effort is totally inadequate, it is going to have to be more, and we are going to see deficits. The other factor causing deficits is a downturn in the economy. We all know for every 1 percent drop in economic activity, that translates into $24 billion of lost revenue. Turning that around, for every 1 percent increase in economic activity, revenue will increase by $24 billion. It has been proven over and over throughout the history of this country that every time we have had the opportunity and the courage to reduce taxes, not raise taxes, it has resulted in increased revenues. The best evidence of this is 1980. My colleague from Florida talked about the decade of the eighties, but let's look at what happened in the decade of the eighties. In the 1980s, the total amount of money that was raised from marginal rates was $244 billion. In 1990, that same figure was $406 billion. We can see in a 10-year period revenue almost doubled, and that was the 10-year period when we had more reductions in marginal rates and in capital gains taxes and other taxes than any other 10-year period in this Nation's history. Is this a Republican idea? No, it is a conservative idea. Liberals do not like to think we can return money to the people. They do not understand this adds to our economy. I hate to think of where we would be today if we had not had the tax cuts because they have, in fact, had a positive effect on the economy. This is not a Republican idea. I remember a great President of the United States in the sixties. It was President Kennedy. President Kennedy felt Government needed to do more for the Great Society. He said we are going to have to have more revenues. He said: The best way to increase revenues is to decrease taxes. So President Kennedy decreased taxes and revenues increased. Mr. President, I say to my liberal friends, I know they do not believe the private sector and individuals left with freedom in the their hands can operate as well as Government can. They are wrong.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think my colleague from Oklahoma is exactly right. We can carry it one step further. We have these freedoms and that is why they hate us so much; they don't have these freedoms. The idea that individuals can have the freedoms we in this country have is totally alien to everything they believe in. I sat there as others did--I am sure my colleague from Oklahoma did this morning--and looked at the Pentagon, and I know what went through his mind and what went through my mind was the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. We lost about the same number of lives back then as we did in the Pentagon. There are a lot of other similarities there. The appearance after the airplane struck was so similar to that which we experienced in Oklahoma City. That brought back those very sad memories. I sometimes look at things and ask, How can anything good come from something as bad as all that? Yet I can see--it is obvious, as I saw the changes in attitudes of people here in this body, and also the body down the hall--they are reflecting the interests of the American people. I have been concerned for the last 10 years with the deterioration in the condition of our military. We talk about the authorization program. We talk about our end strength. We talk about the fact that we don't have a national missile defense system. Somebody very smart back in 1983 determined that there will be a day--and they put the date, fiscal year 1998--when we are going to have to be able to defend our people from an incoming missile. So we got on schedule to be able to deploy something to defend against a limited missile attack. We talked about land-based, air-based, space-based, and the AEGIS system, and evaluated all of these until the early 1990s when the program stopped. President Clinton was President at that time. He vetoed the Defense authorization bill. In his veto message, he said: I will continue to veto any bill that has money in it for a national missile defense system because there is no threat. Now we know there is. We know the threat is there, and we wish we could look back and say, Why didn't we stay on schedule where we would have to deploy by fiscal year 1998?--which is really 1997. We have been watching the deterioration of our military in terms of end strength and in terms of authorization. Right now, we are sending our troops out into battle with inferior equipment. My colleague from Oklahoma and I have both experienced the condition of our artillery system. It is one that has 1958 technology. You can think of it as Civil War technology where you have to run the barrel between each shot. I think even some of the military leaders in America do not realize how deteriorated it is. I think a lot of our leaders were not aware until September 11 that there are many other countries making more sophisticated strike systems than we have. Our best air-to-air defense and air-to-ground vehicle is the F-16. They now have the SU-27 and SU- 30. They are on the open market. We know that China has bought around 240 of these. It is a very threatening situation. I can recall the day this happened. A year ago, we had the Chamber of Commerce in from the State of Oklahoma. They come up once a year. And they were over in the Hart Building. It was my turn to address them from 9 to 9:30. Senator Nickles was addressing them from 9:30 to 10. As I got to the end of my 30-minute speech, I ended it the same way I have ended my speeches since 1994/95; that is, today we are in the most threatened position we have been in as a nation in the history of our country. Just as I said that, I looked up, and I saw this billowing smoke--not knowing what it was, not even finding out until Senator Nickles ended his speech that in fact it was the bombing of the Pentagon. This mentality that has been permeating the Halls of both the House and the Senate--that somehow the cold war is over and the threat is not out there anymore--is something that people now understand is not true. When this administration came in, they saw our end strength and the problems we have in the military. We have to change our policy--which has always been to defend America against two MTW; that is, two major theater wars. Now it is to defend America against one theater. This is something that is not acceptable to the American people. And they find out. I know this, Mr. President, because every time I say it, they ask the question: Do you mean that we don't have that capability, and we have abandoned the policy we have had in this country for the last 20 years? I say: Yes, that is where we are. I think Secretary Rumsfeld was right when he testified before our Senate Armed Services Committee and said now we are trying to keep a military on a smaller amount of money relative to our gross domestic product than before Pearl Harbor. We are spending less today--3 percent of our gross domestic product--on our military. People talk about how much stronger we are than anyone else. There are not many other countries that do not spend more than that percentage. Historically, it has been between 4 percent and 5 percent. We are having a markup of the Defense authorization bill. I came over from there because I wanted to get on record as strongly as I can about the result and how we might benefit from this tragedy a year ago today. In this debate which we are in, we need to know if there is some way we can relieve the Guard at the gates at our military operations so they can go and relieve some of the Guard and Reserves who are overworked. Right now, there is not a Senator in here who hasn't heard from Guard and Reserve back home. They are overworked and overdeployed. They have lost their jobs. Many of these individuals have had to quit the Reserves and the Guard. Sadly, we are missing the critical MO authorization specialties. It is something we are going to have to do. But there is a mentality among people--and we don't disrespect those people who believe the threat is not out there. There are some people who honestly in their hearts believe that if we all stand in a circle-- all countries--and hold hands and unilaterally disarm, all threats will go away. I know that doesn't sound reasonable, but in Washington, there are quite a few of those around. I think the shock treatment we got on September 11 of 2001 brought us out of that. We understand what we are going to have to do. We are going to have to do a rebuilding. I think if there is anything to come to benefit us as a result of this tragedy a year ago, it is to remind not the people in this Chamber--they react to the people at home--but to remind people at home that we are in a very threatened situation and the most vulnerable in the history of this country. Secretary Rumsfeld said it in a way which I think is very good. He said the consequences of making a mistake now are far greater than ever before. He said they are minuscule by comparison--that the consequence of making mistakes in Somalia in 1993 was that we lost 18 soldiers. The consequence of making mistakes in Yemen in 1999 was tragic. We lost 17 sailors. But he said the consequence of making a mistake right now is that we could lose hundreds of thousands of people. We need to move on and allow this tragedy in America to serve as a reminder to the people of America that we have to rebuild. We have to make America strong again to the point that we can meet the minimum expectations of the American people. We do not today. I only say, as tragic as it is, that the best way to ensure that those individuals who died--over 3,000--a year ago will not have died in vain is by learning the lesson and rebuilding and preventing a far greater catastrophe from happening again. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President; I introduce The Transportation Empowerment Act which will allow states to keep a majority of the federal gas tax dollars raised in their state. Similar to legislation introduced by our former colleague Connie Mack, ``The Transportation Empowerment Act'' restores to states and local communities the ability to make their own transportation decisions without the interference of Washington. This proposal is very straightforward. It streamlines the federal-aid highway program into four core areas: Interstate, Federal Lands, Safety and Research. The proposed bill provides for continued general fund support for transit grants and authorizes states to enter into multi state compacts for planning and financing regional transportation needs. The federal tax is kept in place for a four-year transition period, beginning in FY04. After funding the core programs and paying off outstanding bills, the balance is returned to the states in a block grant. At the end of the transition period, in FY07, the federal tax is reduced to two cents per gallon. I have long believed that the best decisions are those made at the local level. Unfortunately, many of the transportation choices made by cities and states are governed by federal rules and regulations. This bill returns to states the responsibility and resources to make their own transportation decisions.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President; I introduce The Transportation Empowerment Act which will allow states to keep a majority of the federal gas tax dollars raised in their state. Similar to legislation introduced by our former colleague Connie Mack, ``The Transportation Empowerment Act'' restores to states and local communities the ability to make their own transportation decisions without the interference of Washington. This proposal is very straightforward. It streamlines the federal-aid highway program into four core areas: Interstate, Federal Lands, Safety and Research. The proposed bill provides for continued general fund support for transit grants and authorizes states to enter into multi state compacts for planning and financing regional transportation needs. The federal tax is kept in place for a four-year transition period, beginning in FY04. After funding the core programs and paying off outstanding bills, the balance is returned to the states in a block grant. At the end of the transition period, in FY07, the federal tax is reduced to two cents per gallon. I have long believed that the best decisions are those made at the local level. Unfortunately, many of the transportation choices made by cities and states are governed by federal rules and regulations. This bill returns to states the responsibility and resources to make their own transportation decisions.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a great Army officer, and a great soldier. This month, Major General Joe G. Taylor, Jr. will depart the Pentagon to assume new duties as the Commanding General, U.S. Army Security Assistance Command in Alexandria, VA. For over two years, he has served as first the Deputy then the Chief of Army Legislative Liaison where he has proven himself to be a trusted advisor to the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff. During his tour as the Chief of Army Legislative Liaison, he guided the Army's relationship with Congress, wielding a deft and skillful touch during a period of tremendous change. Throughout this period, Joe Taylor ably assisted the Army's senior leadership in dealings with Members of Congress and their staffs in helping them to understand the needs of the Army as it faces the challenges of a new century. His leadership resulted in cohesive legislative strategies, responsiveness to constituent inquiries, well-prepared Army leaders and a coherent Army message to Congress. Joe Taylor's career has reflected a deep commitment to our Nation, which has been characterized by dedicated selfless service, love for soldiers and a commitment to excellence. Major General Taylor's performance over twenty-seven years of service has personified those traits of courage, competency and integrity that our Nation has come to except from its Army officers. The Pentagon and the Army Secretariat's loss will be the Army Security Assistance Commands gain, as Major General Taylor continues to serve his country and the Army. On behalf of the United States Senate and the people of this great Nation, I offer our heartfelt appreciation for a job well done over the past two years and best wishes for continued success, to a great soldier and friend of Congress.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a great Army officer, and a great soldier. This month, Major General Joe G. Taylor, Jr. will depart the Pentagon to assume new duties as the Commanding General, U.S. Army Security Assistance Command in Alexandria, VA. For over two years, he has served as first the Deputy then the Chief of Army Legislative Liaison where he has proven himself to be a trusted advisor to the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff. During his tour as the Chief of Army Legislative Liaison, he guided the Army's relationship with Congress, wielding a deft and skillful touch during a period of tremendous change. Throughout this period, Joe Taylor ably assisted the Army's senior leadership in dealings with Members of Congress and their staffs in helping them to understand the needs of the Army as it faces the challenges of a new century. His leadership resulted in cohesive legislative strategies, responsiveness to constituent inquires, well-prepared Army leaders and a coherent Army message to Congress. Joe Taylor's career has reflected a deep commitment to our Nation, which has been characterized by dedicated selfless service, love for soldiers and a commitment to excellence. Major General Taylor's performance over twenty-seven years of service has personified those traits of courage, competency and integrity that our Nation has come to expect from its Army officers. The Pentagon and the Army Secretariat's loss will be the Army Security Assistance Commands gain, as Major General Taylor continues to serve his country and the Army. On behalf of the United States Senate and the people of this great Nation, I offer our heartfelt appreciation for a job well done over the past two years and best wishes for continued success, to a great soldier and friend of Congress.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am pleased that the supplemental bill contains $75 million additional funding for the Federal Aviation Administration's operational account. It was facing some severe cutbacks in service without this funding. In particular, the FAA had reduced funding for proficiency and developmental training of air traffic controllers. This funding was reduced by about $10 million without reprogramming approval from the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. It is my hope and desire that the FAA add back at least $2 Million to the Air Traffic Instructional Services program. This is a vital program that should never have been cut back. It provides ongoing in-service developmental training all across the country. It has proven to lower error rates by air traffic controllers, thus making the skies safer for the flying public. I believe they should restore the funding immediately.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know time is now precious and we are down to a few minutes. I will skip a lot of things I was going to say since there has been a lot of redundancy. My good friend from New York was on the floor and was talking about the relative significance of the inheritance tax and how it wasn't really all that meaningful. I am sure the occupant of the chair would agree because he was one of the rare Democrats who stood up and said we should repeal that unfair tax on money that has already been spent. Also, with the farm crisis we have had out West in my State, I have yet to find one person out there who wasn't more concerned about losing his farm because of the very unfair death tax than even the farm bill. But that is not what we are here to talk about. I think something the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, said has to be repeated over and over; that is, this Hagel-Ensign bill is a lot less expensive and does a better job, but there is one major reason. We have a saying out in Oklahoma that ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' That is exactly what the situation is. We have a lot of people who don't need additional coverage now. If they don't need it, why provide it? Why get into some very large program? Now, we have had two programs that have been rejected today. The first would not do for seniors what it said it would do, and it would have cost a lot more than we can afford, and it would not have included a lot of the drugs the seniors need. That program, as well as costing too much and not covering enough medications, would sunset in 2010. That means in 2010, people who have been relying on the Medicare prescription drug benefit would have had their coverage taken away. We know better than that. I remember one of the best speeches that should be required reading for all young people, called ``A Rendezvous With Destiny,'' by Ronald Reagan. He said: The closest thing to immortality on the face of this earth is a Government benefit or program once started. We all know that is the way it would work out and we would end up with some very large, spiraling cost program that we could not get rid of. It is not responsible, reasonable, and it is not the best we can do for seniors. I am glad it did not pass. Then we were given a chance to consider a second option, the tripartisan plan. I thought it was too expensive, but I supported it. It is very much like what the House passed. It is something we can go to conference on and have something effective come out of it. Once a person's drug costs reach a higher fixed limit, the Government would have paid 90 percent of the additional cost. Many colleagues supported it, as I did; but it was defeated. Now we have a chance to give seniors a real prescription drug benefit. This legislation is a responsible, long-term, comprehensive plan which truly takes into account the needs and the situation of individual seniors. Several fellow cosponsors have already spoken to the specifics of the plan, such as low premiums, low overall costs on catastrophic coverage. I will tell you what it means to the people who sent us here. Senator Gramm talked about some individuals without identifying them. I will identify the people. The Hendersons are from Okmulgee County, a short distance from where I live in Oklahoma. I told them I was going to use their case. They wrote me to tell me about their struggle with prescription drugs. They had a unique problem--one was a heart problem and one was a cancer problem. The Hendersons have a yearly household income of $24,000 and they spend $9,000 of that on prescription drugs in a single year. The Hendersons' income falls between the 200 percent and 400 percent above the national poverty level. That national poverty level for couples is $11,940 a year. Under our bill, an out-of-pocket limit on the cost of prescription drugs for people with a similar income to the Hendersons is set at $3,500. If they were between 100 and 200 percent of poverty, that would come down to $1,500. But in the case of the Hendersons, they would have to pay that maximum, and then a copay of 10 percent of the cost of these drugs. Calculate that out. While the remaining cost of the Hendersons' drugs is $5,500, their copays would be no more than $550, and under this bill the Hendersons would pay a total of $4,050 a year for prescription drugs, when they are now paying $9,000 a year. This bill cuts their drug costs by more than half. The Hendersons, under the Democrat plan, would have faced uncertainty on three fronts: First of all, uncertainty about which drugs were covered, since only two drugs in each therapeutic class would be covered; secondly, uncertainty about how much the prescriptions would cost since the $10, $40, and $60 copayments in the plan were virtually done away with through amendments; and, three, uncertainty about how long their benefits would last even if it didn't sunset. They would not know this. Uncertainty is there. I believe the Hagel plan is real assistance, and I strongly support it. I believe this is the alternative that is left and the most responsible one. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator for giving me a little bit of time. I believe it is necessary. A number of people have asked me why it is that I support nuclear energy when my home State does not have any nuclear power. My response is that nuclear energy directly benefits every Oklahoman even though not a single kilowatt of energy is produced from nuclear power in our state. Oklahomans benefit from nuclear energy in the form of decreased power bills and increased national and economic security. Currently, nuclear power represents 20 percent of our Nation's electricity generation. As an integral part of the U.S. energy mix, nuclear energy is a secure energy source that the nation can depend on. Unlike some other energy sources, nuclear energy is not subject to unreliable weather or climate conditions, unpredictable cost fluctuations, or dependence on foreign suppliers. However, the lack of storage space for nuclear waste is now threatening the existence of nuclear power. If Yucca Mountain is not approved, nuclear powerplants will be forced to start shutting down at some point because there will be no place to store the waste. This would have profound consequences for all Oklahomans. Even though Oklahoma does not have any nuclear powerplants, if nuclear power goes off line, it would cause an economic crisis in Oklahoma. The reason is simple. If you take 20 percent of the power supply off line, other States' demands of Oklahoma's power would increase, thus creating a smaller supply of energy, and a corresponding increase in the cost of energy for Oklahomans. The days of utility rates in Oklahoma being 19 percent below the national average power rate would be over. Higher energy prices affect everyone. However, when the price of energy rises that means the less fortunate in our society must make a decision between keeping the heat and lights on or paying for other essential needs. In a recent study on Public Opinion on Poverty, it was reported that one-quarter of Americans report having problems paying for several basic necessities. In this study, currently 23 percent have difficulty in paying their utilities. That is almost one out of every four Americans. I will not support attacks on our energy supply, which hurt the poor in Oklahoma and around the Nation, in the name of an environmental crusade. In the mid-1980s, I traveled around the country with President Reagan's energy Secretary, Don Hodel, to bring attention to the need for measures to decrease our Nation's energy dependence. Additionally, in January 1998, I elicited virtual consensus from the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that energy security was a too-often-overlooked aspect of our national security needs. Additionally, in just the last couple of weeks, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said that U.S. dependency on foreign energy ``is a serious strategic issue . . . My sense is that (our) dependency is projected to grow, not to decline.'' It is essential for a strong Navy. The fact is we are at war right now. Every American is benefiting from the war on terrorism. Our subs are nuclear. Our aircraft carriers are nuclear. Every time we send American ships to a different part of the world, whether to keep the peace or defeat an aggressor they head there powered by nuclear fuel. Where does that spent fuel go? Right now the material goes to Idaho. That is right. It is transported right now. It's stored on the surface. So what happens if we fail to set up a permanent repository? We create what Secretary Abraham calls uncertainty regarding the ``continued capability of our naval operations.'' A strong Navy fuels our ability to remain a world power. And we need a safe way to handle what is fueling our Navy. The cold war is over. To those of us who grew up in a time when we had bomb shelters in our backyards, nothing would be more welcome than seeing us dismantle weapons we no longer need. Every time I read about the plans for turning plutonium into ``mixed-oxide'' or MOX fuel, I see the results of our past determination to resist Soviet domination. But whether surplus plutonium is made into MOX fuel or another form, waste is still left over. And it must go to a permanent repository. And that is not just for our own good. How can we urge other countries to get rid of their nuclear weapons if they don't see us doing it? We are now turning swords into plowshares by helping Russia convert its surplus weapons material into fuel for American reactors. Even the by- products of this fuel, once used, will need a repository. Yucca Mountain will provide a safe place for the materials in weapons no longer pointed at our enemies. And it will be a powerful example to other countries that no longer need weapons pointed at us. Maybe a few years back we could not conceive of terrorists making bombs out of planes and striking at the very heart of America. We can now. Make no mistake. They are out there and in our country. Yes, it is good that we are racing to put neutron flux detectors and gamma ray detectors at all our airports. But terrorists don't need to bring radioactive material into the United States. There is enough of it here. And these materials--relics of the cold war--are scattered around the country. Yucca Mountain will put this material where it belongs: safe and secure 1,000 feet underground. A few days back, after Jose Padilla, A.K.A. Abdullah al Muhajir, was arrested, I saw this headline in ``The Washington Post: U.S. Source of Isotopes Become Focus After Arrest.'' Here is what the Post said: ``Of the thousands of nuclear sources still in use, or decommissioned to known storage sites, many are thought to be vulnerable to theft or black market sale.'' That is why Yucca Mountain is so important. That is why we have to move now to create a permanent repository. That is why we need a central underground disposal site, where spent fuel can be more safely and efficiently monitored. And so, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on Yucca Mountain. We caught one terrorist. We can't catch them all. They will come through our airports. They will dock in our major ports. They will go through customs without a hitch because they possess not plutonium, but knowledge. Terrorists want to use that knowledge to threaten our way of life. A vote for Yucca Mountain will make that hard for them. What is America's record when it comes to transportation of nuclear materials? It is astonishingly safe. There are some people who act as if transporting nuclear fuel will be a new thing for America. The fact is that we've seen more than 3,000 shipments of it over the past 40 years. In all those years, there has been zero danger to the environment, zero release of radioactivity, and zero fatalities. We have seen 1.7 million miles of these shipments without any release of radioactive contents. And don't forget: The Energy Department also accepts used nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors under a non- proliferation pact. They come in from Europe and Latin America. They are brought by train to South Carolina. And we're going to do that until 2006--22,743 separate used fuel assemblies. This is something we know how to do. Because we have done it. And we have done it exceptionally well. Will we avoid transporting waste if we don't pass Yucca Mountain? Absolutely not. A lot of sites are reaching their limits for keeping used nuclear fuel on location. 40 of them will need additional storage in the next 8 years. But they don't have the space for it. Where is that waste going to go? Secretary Abraham put his finger on the issue when he testified last February. ``Our real choice is not between transporting or not transporting used fuel, but between transporting it with as much planning and safety as possible, or transporting it with such organization as the moment might invite.'' To keep that waste in 39 States is to keep it at 131 locations never designed for permanent disposal, never intended to manage this waste indefinitely. Clearly, any solution to the disposal of this waste requires it be transported somewhere. Furthermore, as skillful as America is at transporting hazardous materials, we are not the only people in the world who do that well. Europe has been doing it since 1966 about as much material as we want to send to Yucca Mountain. Fatalities? Hazards from radioactivity? Zero. There are those who see in this plan the heavy-handed approach of Washington. As a former mayor of Tulsa, I am always very sensitive to the importance of local control. In fact, the way America handles the problem of nuclear waste is a victory for local control. State and local governments can select alternate routes if they oppose those proposed by DOE and 11 States have done just that. As they should. Meanwhile, Federal and State and local authorities have worked together. Worked with training. Worked on contingency plans. Worked on mutual assistance agreements. Worked as partners. As we should. Building on our Nation's fine records, as the ranking member of the Transportation, Infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, I look forward to working with the various Federal agencies to ensure the proper federal role in providing security for nuclear waste shipments. As a former mayor of Tulsa, I will also keep in mind the critical role that State and local governments must play in this process. In an attempt to misinform and frighten the public, extreme environmentalists have been saying that the shipment of waste would be creating thousands of ``mobile Chernobyls.'' I have already discussed, our Nation's safety record with regard to the shipment of nuclear materials. However, I must mention that, until the Yucca Mountain project is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is about 10 years off, the Departments of Energy and Transportation will not designate shipping routes for nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. If anyone implies that they know the routes, they are not telling the truth because the decision makers of those routes will not consider routes for many years. As ranking member of the Transportation, Infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, I am looking forward to my key role in working with the various federal agencies to ensure the safe transportation of our commercial and military nuclear waste. Make no mistake. A vote against Yucca Mountain is a vote against nuclear power, and, thus, a vote to hurt our energy, economic, and national security. I thank the Senator from Alaska for giving me a few minutes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I am in complete agreement with my colleague. Should we let this authority lapse, it will jeopardize national security programs. Therefore, we must act in this bill with the provisions that cover the private DOE contracts. However, we must try to get the entire act renewed as recommended by the administration and the agencies that have help to develop, modify and oversee its activities over the past nearly half century that have served us so well. I strongly believe that it vital to pass full and comprehensive reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act. The law has worked well and has been considered a model in other countries. It insures against terrorism against the plants and has been studied in an attempt to help fashion the terrorism insurance recently passed in this body. I would urge that we do what we can in this body to get Price-Anderson renewed in the most expeditious fashion. I want to thank my colleagues on both the Armed Services Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am the ranking member of the Nuclear Subcommittee, and I look forward to working with them so that we may pass comprehensive Price-Anderson reauthorization during the 107th Congress.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been listening to the Senator from Kansas. He makes eminent sense. He demonstrates a frustration that we have been living through now for certainly the last 10 years. He mentioned the Missile Defense Act of 1999. There was an act that was passed. It was passed by a huge margin, and certainly was a veto- proof margin, so the President did sign it. But then, after that, we did not comply with the act. We have been living since--that was signed in 1999--outside the law in terms of taking the action to deploy ``as soon as technologically possible.'' I think the excuse that was used at that time was the ABM Treaty. I am very thankful that finally we have crossed that bridge and we have gotten that behind us. I have often looked back to 1972--and of course that was a Republican administration, and I am a Republican--when we had Henry Kissinger. And at that time they said: There are two superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States of America. The whole thrust of that was mutually assured destruction. You won't protect yourself; we won't protect ourselves. You shoot us, we will shoot you, and everybody dies, and everybody is happy. That was a philosophy that everybody believed at that time. That was not the world of today. Sometimes I look wistfully back to the cold war. We had two superpowers. At least there was predictability. We knew what they thought and what their capabilities were. That is not true today. We have a totally different world. Even Henry Kissinger, who was the architect of that plan, in 1996, said it is nuts to make a virtue out of our vulnerability. That is exactly what we have been doing. I regretted each time President Clinton vetoed the Defense authorization bill. I remember the veto message. It said: I will continue to veto any authorization bill or any bill that has money in it for a threat that does not exist--implying, of course, that the threat did not exist: A nuclear weapon, a warhead being carried by missile, hitting the United States of America. That was in 1995, his first veto. Yet when we tried to get our intelligence to come up with some accuracy as to when the threat would exist, the National Intelligence Estimate of 1995 was highly politicized and said we were not going to have this threat for another 15 years. At that very time our American cities were targeted by Chinese missiles. At that time, of course, that was classified. It is not classified anymore. The threat, nonetheless, was there. I share the frustration of my friend from Kansas. I have 4 kids and 11 grandkids. I look at the threat that is out there. I was very pleased when the Rumsfeld commission established, in 1997, that the threat was very real, the threat was imminent, and the long-range threat could emerge without warning. I was, as the years went by, trying to get some information to shock this institution and other institutions into the reality that the threat was imminent. I recall writing a letter to General Henry Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and asking him if he agreed with the Rumsfeld recommendations. He said the rogue state threat was unlikely, and he was confident the intelligence would give us at least 3 years' warning. This was at a time when we also included in this letter: Would you tell us when you think North Korea would have the capability of having a multiple-stage rocket? He said that that would be in the years to come. That was August 24, 1998. Seven days later, on August 31, 1998, North Korea launched a three-stage rocket that had the capability of reaching the United States of America. So all of that is going on right now. All of that has been happening. We are finally at the point where we are going to vote on something-- the missile defense capability was taken out of the Defense authorization bill, and now we have an opportunity to put it back. Singularly, this is the most important vote of this entire year, giving us this capability to meet this threat that is out there. When I talk to groups, I quite often say--particularly when there are young people in the audience--I would like to see a show of hands as to how many of you saw the movie ``Thirteen Days.'' Of course, most of them saw it. I saw it. It was about the Cuban missile crisis in the early 1960s, how the Kennedy administration was able to get us out of that mess. All of a sudden we woke up one morning and found out cities were targeted by missiles, and we had no missile defense. In a way, the threat that faces us today is far greater than it was back in the 1960s because at least that was all from one island that you could take out, I believe, in 22 minutes. Now we are talking about missiles that are halfway around the world that, if deployed, would take some 35 minutes to get here. And we do not have anything in our arsenal--we are naked--to knock them down. That is the threat we are faced with today. It is out there, and it is a very real threat. I often think about September 11 and the tragedy of the skyline of New York City when the planes came into the World Trade Center. It was a very sad day in our country's history. But I thought, what if that had been, instead of two airplanes in New York City, the weapon of choice of terrorists--in other words, a nuclear warhead on a missile. If that had been the case, then there would be nothing left in that picture of the skyline but a piece of charcoal, and we would not be talking about 2,000 lives; we would be talking about 2 million lives. It sounds extreme to talk this way, but that is the situation we are faced with right now. When you say, well, of course China is not going to do this, North Korea is not going to do this, and Russia is not going to do this--they are the ones that have a missile that can reach us--let's stop and realize--and it is not even classified--that China today is trading technology and trading systems with countries such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, so it does not have to be indigenous to be a threat. The threat is there whether they buy a system from someone else or whether they make it themselves. After the Persian Gulf war, Saddam Hussein said: If we had waited 10 years to go into Kuwait, the Americans would not have come to their aid because we would have had a missile to reach the United States of America. I suggest to you here it is, 10 years later. The threat is imminent. We are way past due in doing something about it. Today is a significant day when we can set out to do that, something that would defend America. That is the primary function of what Government is supposed to be doing. We have an opportunity to do that today. So I encourage all my colleagues, for the sake of all of their people whom they represent back home, and for the sake of my 4 kids and my 11 grandkids, let's get this thing started and pass the Warner amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I yield.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I inquire, I believe the Senator from Pennsylvania lost the floor to Senator Levin, in which case, if the Senator stays in the Chamber for a moment, I will not be long. I wish to respond.

Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield, first, yes, that would be acceptable to me. Quite frankly, I would like the Levin amendment without the second degree. It gives the administration and our committees more authority than without the amendment. However, I certainly would accept that and would want to agree to the votes. My senior Senator from Oklahoma is here now and mentioned he wanted to be heard.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was given by Senator Dayton a list which I believe should be printed into the Record. This is a list of 28 retired four-star generals who have very strong support for the Crusader program. Each one has done op-ed pieces. I ask unanimous consent the list and several letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me comment in response to some of the statements made by my distinguished and very close personal friend with whom I came to the Senate from the other body in 1994. Mr. President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania stay here? I was going to respond to some of the comments he made. First, I state in the strongest possible terms that there is no person I think more of than Secretary Rumsfeld. There has been a problem in this whole debate, and that is that he is busy managing a war right now. He has other things on his mind other than what our Future Combat System is going to be. Consequently, while they said, yes, we want to cancel the program, whatever the immediate motivation was, the Secretary made that decision, and, quite frankly, I do not believe--in fact, I am certain of it--at the time the decision was made he did not take into consideration the termination costs. As recently as last night in the office of the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, General Armbruster made the statement it would cost about $290 million without a bridge. So we are talking about a very large amount of money. I am concerned about $1 million today, $.5 million, $1.5 million, depending on how one wants to calculate the delay. I do not want to delay it. Let's keep in mind, the Senator from Michigan is correct when he said the Army has been preparing to do this for a long time. The Army has downsized in anticipation of having the capability that would come with the Crusader. In a minute I will say it could be the Crusader or something that would give us a capability that would certainly satisfy me as just one member of the Armed Services Committee. There are a couple other issues I want to clarify for the record. The Senator from Pennsylvania made the statement that with something that has three times the firepower, why don't they lower the expectations as to how many platforms they need. I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, at one time they were talking about 1,200 Crusaders. It is now down to 480 Crusaders. That is the most recent. I also say at the same time that the firepower, the rate of fire, is not just 3 times greater, it is 10 times greater in terms of sustained fire. That is critical. We have already downsized the request to 480 from 1,200. The cancellation of the Crusader most likely is going to happen. That is what the Senator has been saying, and I agree with the Senator from Michigan that the Secretary of Defense is not going to do that on his own. If he had strong opposition in both the House and the Senate, then there is a process whereby he would have a difficult time doing that unilaterally, and I believe that is very proper. In this case, when you are talking about an alternative system that might accomplish the same thing, this has been the compromise we have been talking about now. The House was not talking about this. They want to go full bore ahead with the Crusader. We have said if what we want to accomplish is to have an artillery capability by 2008, the same year the Crusader would have come on board, it can be done in other ways. I have suggested another way would be to say: Administration, you are right, but we need to get it down from 40 tons to 20 tons. We need to have something that is going to be faster and lighter, that will still give us some superiority on the battlefield and do it by the same year, 2008. That is a reasonable expectation. I think most of the Senators on the committee would say that would be a good alternative if that were done. In order to do it by 2008--this is something nobody disagrees with-- it is going to have to be done by using the same people who gave us the technology we have today, and we are going to have to use the same technology. To use that, it can be done, but we are going to have to construct something to allow that to be done. If we do not, and if we say, all right, we are going to open it up for bids at the end of milestone B, for example, then that is going to delay the process for a long time, and most likely that team that gave us the technology of the future would be dispersed and working elsewhere. So it would be very difficult. The last thing I want to mention is the disagreement I have with the statement of the Senator concerning the dumb bombs. Yes, we need the Excalibur, we need to have the MLRS, we need to have all the rocket technology that goes with it so we can be pinpoint accurate, but when it comes to cover, every general and every person in uniform coming before our committee has said, you have to have that, but you also have to have dumb bombs. If Excalibur were fired right now, the cost of that would be $200,000 for a round. It has to be fired out of something. We do not have anything to fire it out of right now. We would with the Crusader. We would if we had this alternative we are suggesting so we would be able to use it. If we use MLRS, each round is $36,000. That has to be considered on the battlefield. But if you want to send a bunch of dumb bombs to give cover to our troops who are otherwise naked, that can be done for $200 a round. I contend--and I have heard such testimony from those in uniform-- that we have to have that capability. If we have to have that capability, we are going to have to have all that capability in one unit. That is where FCS comes in. There are about five major components of FCS. Sure, the way I want to go would make sure we get the first component, the artillery capability, by 2008. To do that, we would have to give it some degree of priority; $173 million additional would do that. We have heard that testimony. At the same time, I want the other components, too. I will stand here and say, whatever influence I have on this committee, I am going to use that influence to get the rest of these components to reach the Future Combat System that everybody is in agreement we want. The only disagreement we have is there are some who say only the Crusader is going to be able to do this. I do not believe that. I think we can do that if we keep the technology and the team together and do it in another vehicle. Those are the areas I wanted to address. I have to say to my friend from Pennsylvania, I really believe we want the same thing. We want that capability by 2008, and we have ways of getting there. We may have to do it in conference. I think the Levin amendment is going to be important at this point to go ahead and get us in the right posture in conference, and I commit to everyone that I will work to achieve that goal that both of us want. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Who has the floor?

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do at some point want to be recognized on the second-degree amendment, the Warner amendment to the underlying amendment. But not until we have had a chance to evaluate it a little bit more. That is what we have been doing in the last few minutes. As the ranking member, Senator Warner knows this is something that came up fairly quickly. We need a chance to look it over. In the meantime, I see Senator Akaka, the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, is going to be seeking recognition. So if it is acceptable, I would like to talk a little bit about our Readiness Subcommittee, our feelings, and then maybe respond to a couple of comments concerning the Crusader. Then if there is time, perhaps Senator Akaka could follow me. First of all, I congratulate both Chairman Levin and Senator Warner for their leadership in the Senate Armed Services Committee. They have worked tirelessly in the past months to formulate a bill that for the most part provides for increased readiness for the Armed Forces and the security of our Nation. I also thank Senator Akaka, the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, for his bipartisan leadership of the subcommittee. As the former chairman of that subcommittee and now the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee, I believe the subcommittee took a balanced approach to address a number of the readiness management concerns affecting the armed services. In keeping with our bipartisan approach to readiness, this bill increased funding for identified shortfalls in the services' infrastructure, equipment, maintenance, and operating budgets. I especially want to highlight the increases in the ammunition procurement, depot level maintenance, base operations, and military construction. While I support many of the readiness items in this bill, a few lines cause me some concern. Foremost, I am concerned about the $850 million reduction for professional services contracts. This reduction would have significant impacts on the level of services provided to the Department. I had hoped the bill approved by the Armed Services Committee would be more supportive of the Department's proposed readiness range preservation initiative. Although the bill includes two of the provisions requested by the Department, the modifications relating to the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, are not on the mark. I believe they should have been on the mark. I do know the political reality was the support was not there. I hope, when we send this bill to the President for signature, it will include some of these provisions since they are essential to maintaining the training and readiness of our forces. We might remember it was not long ago that we determined that in several of our training installations we actually paid more money for some of the environmental provisions than we did for ammunition. That was at a time when we had severe budget constraints, which are less severe today. Although I support many of the provisions of the bill, especially those in the readiness accounts, I was among the eight Republican Senators who voted against reporting out the bill in its current form. My vote against the bill was based on the drastic reductions, over $800 million, from the President's request for missile defense programs. The reductions, according to General Kadish, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency: . . . would fundamentally undermine the administration's transformation of missile defense capabilities and eliminate the opportunity for the earliest possible contingency against medium range ballistic missiles abroad. I have been at the forefront when it comes to the development of missile defense to protect our Nation's citizens. I find it ironic, in light of what happened on the 11th of September, that we are not putting in the money necessary for a missile defense system. I have very serious concerns about that. I know the administration does. I fully support what the administration is trying to do with missile defense. Of course, we cut the authorization considerably for that. Let me just make a comment or two about the discussion that has taken place here concerning the Crusader. I have to agree, Chairman Levin is correct when he talks about the chain of events that led to the May 8 cancellation by the administration. It was something that we determined afterwards in committees that none of the military, none of the uniformed services were aware of. It was not right and I think everyone agrees that was not the proper procedure. I will say this. Let's not forget the real problem we have with artillery today. I will start by saying there are people in this Chamber and elsewhere who really do not believe we need artillery, we do not need a gun. But when you ask these same people if they are prepared to say we do not need ground troops in the future, there is not anyone who is going to say we do not need ground troops in the future. When we have troops on the ground, and we know we will have them on the ground--we had them in Anaconda and Afghanistan--you have to offer cover. Of course, if it is close to ships, you could do it that way, but that is highly unlikely. You could do it from the air or with artillery. If you do it from the air, as we depended on air in Afghanistan, then you have two problems. No. 1, according to the testimony of General Shinseki, it took an average of 25 minutes of response time to be able, from the air, to get the cover necessary. In other words, our troops were naked for a 25- minute period of time. That is unacceptable. Second, it was further testified--we had testimony that was very convincing--that in one-half of the cases the weather was such we could not get that cover from the air. So what is the alternative? The alternative is to do it with artillery. I have lots of quotes here--that I will probably put in the Record, but I will not bother quoting right now--from the top military uniformed people saying we really needed to have the artillery capability at that time. So let's look at where we are today. There has been a lot of talk about the Crusader. The Crusader is the system of the future. It is a system that will correct the problem, the deficiency we have right now. We in this Chamber have to make a determination: Are we willing to send our troops into combat with inferior equipment? I would say that is unacceptable. So let's look at where we are today. This is the Paladin. That is the best thing we have today. It was designed in 1963. I have spent many hours inside the Paladin, in the training areas. It is inconceivable to me that we would be expecting our troops to use such antiquated equipment, one where after every fire you have to take a pole and take the breach and then hand load it, put the shell in, put the charge in behind it, close it, cock it, take a rope and pull it. I can show you Civil War movies where they had to go through that same process. That is totally unacceptable. First of all, we determined if we are going to have ground troops we have to have artillery. There are two things you want in artillery: One is range, the other is rate of fire. This is the Paladin right down here. It is at the very low end of the spectrum. In here are four countries that make a system that is better than the Paladin. In other words, these countries--such as this one here, PZH2000. I took the effort to go to Germany and sat inside one when it was fired. It is far superior to the Paladin but not as good as the Crusader. Here is the Crusader. In terms of rate of fire, in terms of range, it would be superior, if we had that, to the rest of these. Before we had what happened on May 8, we thought we were going to be in a position to have that Crusader capability so our troops that go out there would have something superior to the rest of them. Now we see if we do not have that, we have the British, the Russians, South Africans, and the Germans, all making a system that is better than what we have here. It may be that we can get there. I think most people agree that if we are going to have a gun for the future, we need to have it by 2008. The Paladin Crusader would have been there by that time. It may be that later on we will find another alternative and have a gun that will be consistent with the requirements of the Future Combat System by 2008, even though it would be lighter. The complaint was that the Paladin Crusader was too heavy. They knocked it down from 60 tons to 39 tons. A lot of people legitimately believe it is too heavy. Now they are talking about some alternative of around 18 tons to 20 tons. That is fine. We need to be able to pursue that. But the bottom line is that we have to be able to give our troops the capability of a superior artillery system. That is where we are today. We have a couple of alternatives. We know the House has language fully funding the Crusader. It might be that when we go to conference, we will come out with something such as that. We don't know. It is very important for us to recognize today that we have that deficiency. We have to determine as Members of this body whether that is acceptable--that we are willing to send our troops into combat with an inferior system. I think we will find that it is not acceptable. I again thank my chairman, Senator Akaka, for the way we have worked together, and for the subcommittee support in what we have done, even though I still think it is deficient. In the overall budget we had to deal with, we were not able to do two major things: No. 1, improve on the problems we have right now, and not with inadequate systems; And, No. 2, there are a lot of military construction projects that are still not addressed. I am not saying this to criticize the President's budget. I am just saying they have a bottom line and they have to live within it. There are still deficiencies. I think we did the best we could in our committee. I commend Senator Akaka for the bipartisan way in which he and I have always worked together for the past 15 years.

Mr. INHOFE. I will yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania----

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Wason, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on S. 2514.