Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. If at some point I can get back in.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators Byrd, Stevens, Shelby, and Murray for their help in providing the necessary funding for the repair and reconstruction of the Arkansas River bridge on Interstate 40 which was hit by a barge on the morning of May 26. As my colleagues are aware, the accident caused a catastrophic failure of the bridge structure and resulted in several sections of the bridge collapsing. Tragically, 14 lives were lost before the traffic crossing the bridge was stopped. Interstate 40 is a major east-west route for personal vehicle traffic as well as commercial trucking. According to the American Trucking Association, approximately 40% of the traffic on I-40 each day is trucks. The estimated cost to just the trucks delayed by the detour is estamated by ATA to be $480,000 per day. That does not even consider the cost to passenger traffic as a result of the delay. Lengthy travel delays are exaggerated by the fact that the immediate area around the bridge is rural and alternate routes are only two lanes. According to transportation statistics, the chances of an accident occurring on a narrow two lane road is double when compared to a four lane divided highway. Complicating that of course is the added problem of the increased truck traffic. Mr. President, we are facing not only a major east-west traffic disruption and all the corresponding economic consequences, but the elements are in place for a serious safety hazard. The potential for further loss of life cannot be overstated. It is because of these reasons that I was happy to work with the Appropriation committee in securing the emergency spending for Oklahoma to reconstruct the bridge. This reconstruction is eligible for reimbursement under the Emergency Relief program with the Federal Highway Administration. Unfortunately, that program has a $108 million backlog which means that Oklahoma could not reasonably expect to be reimbursed in a timely manner. Because Oklahoma highway resources are fully committed, it would be impossible to get the repairs on the bridge done quickly if they could not on a quick reimbursement. This language addresses not only the Oklahoma emergency but also the backlog of existing needs in the Emergency Relief program. I see my Colleagues, Senator Nickles is also wanting to speak on this, so I yield the floor to him.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to briefly comment on an exceptional group of students from my State of Oklahoma. Recently, a group of students from Tahlequah High School in Tahlequah, OK, participated in the national finals of ``We The People . . . The Citizens and the Constitution.'' These students traveled here to Washington, DC for the final competition after excelling in the preliminary stages. This contest is held for students who have a remarkable knowledge of American history. The group includes Chris Augerhole, J.R. Baker, Chad Blish, Ryan Cannonie, Taylor Gibson, Carlton Heard, Cobin Heard, Zach Israel, Doug Kirk, Helena Loose, Lacie Newman, Tim Pace, Rebecca Walker, Derek Whaler, Brandon Zellner and their teacher Norma Boren. These young Oklahomans demonstrated their ability to articulate the ideals of American government while taking part in a simulated congressional hearing. I commend these students for their outstanding achievement.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. A few of the quotes that came from Senators, and I am only going to quote four Members of Congress, one House Member and three Senators. Although I could quote about 10 of them, I think my point is made by these four. One Senator said: I am gravely concerned about the information provided us just yesterday that the President received a warning in August about the threat of hijackers by Osama bin Laden and his organization. It clearly raises some very important questions that have to be asked and have to be answered. Another Senator said: We have learned something today that raises a number of serious questions. We have learned that President Bush had been informed last year before September 11 of a possible plot by those associated with Osama bin Laden to hijack a U.S. airline. Another Senator: I don't know, again, what he knew and what the White House knew and when they knew it and what they did about it . . . . . . but if prior information had been warnings were there . . . Another Member on the floor said: Yet we have had the gnawing question: was there something that could have been done to prevent the attacks on September 11? I am very proud of the Senator occupying the chair now because he refrained from trying to engage in this type of political activity. What do all four Members who made these statements on the floor of the House and Senate have in common? They are all four running for President of the United States. It is unconscionable that anyone would imply our God-fearing President, George W. Bush, might have known something about this and not done everything he could to prevent it. This is simply politics at its worst. Exhibit 1 Demagoguing September 11 Just a few days ago, Democrats on Capitol Hill seemed quite eager to make political hay out of news reports suggesting that President Bush might have known in advance about the September 11 attacks. Prominent Democrats like Sens. Tom Daschle, Hillary Rodham Clinton and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt have loudly demanded investigations into what the administration knew about the possibility that terrorists were preparing to attack the United States. By Sunday, however, some of the harshest Democratic critics were clearly having second thoughts about such a brazen attempt to use September 11 to score political points against Mr. Bush. ``I never, ever thought that anybody, including the president, did anything up to September 11 other than their best,'' Mr. Gephardt said. This is a politically prudent move on Mr. Gephardt's part. Given the abysmal performance of the Clinton administration in combatting terrorism during the 1990s, it would be a huge mistake for Democrats to attempt to gain political mileage by blaming September 11 on President Bush. Time and time again, the Clinton White House tried to avoid taking firm steps against Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and other terrorist groups that have targeted the United States. As David Horowitz noted on The Washington Times' op-ed page yesterday, the Clinton administration did nothing in response to al Qaeda's February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, in which six persons were killed and nearly 1,000 wounded. Moreover, President Clinton and his aides sought to play down the fact that the mastermind of the attack was Ramzi Youssef, an Iraqi intelligence agent. Journalist Andrew Sullivan quotes Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos as saying that the Clinton administration ignored the implications of the WTC attack because ``it wasn't a successful bombing.'' Nine months later in Somalia, Mohammed Farah Aideed's militiamen, who were trained by al Qaeda, killed 18 American soldiers and dragged their bodies through the streets of Mogadishu. Mr. Clinton's response was to end the U.S.-led humanitarian mission in Somalia and send veteran diplomat Robert Oakley to negotiate surrender terms. In June 1996, 19 American servicemen were killed when al Qaeda joined forces with the Iranian- and Syrian-backed Hezbollah to bomb the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis refused to cooperate with FBI agents sent to investigate the matter, so Washington just forgot about it. Mr. Sullivan notes that in October, a former Clinton administration official told The Washington Post that, had Mr. Clinton made a serious effort to rein in al Qaeda then, ``We probably would have never seen a September 11.'' In 1998, as Mr. Clinton was preparing to inform the nation of his affair with Monica Lewinsky, al Qaeda killed 224 persons in bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. So Mr. Clinton responded by firing 75 missiles at suspected bin Laden training camps in Afghanistan (bin Laden escaped unharmed) and to mistakenly destroy a ``nerve gas factory'' in Khartoum which was actually making pharmaceutical products. Two years later, the United States did nothing of consequence in response to the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, in which 17 Americans died. ``Clearly, not enough was done'' to combat terrorism during the Clinton years, former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick acknowledged shortly after the September 11 attacks. Mrs. Gorelick added that even though President Clinton doubled the size of the FBI's counterterrorism budget, the bureau was so slow to hire agents that the money was never used. As for Mrs. Clinton, investigative journalist Steven Emerson notes that she and her husband ``repeatedly wined and dined at the White House'' members of the American Muslim Council (AMC), including Abdulrahman Alamoudi, an apologist for Hamas, which has repeatedly denied it is a terrorist group. The AMC, Mr. Emerson adds, provided talking points for Mrs. Clinton's syndicated newspaper column and speeches and was even permitted to organize a reception for itself at the White House. In short, the Democrats are in no position to smear Mr. Bush on September 11 or terrorist in general.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I take a moment to add my voice to those who were outraged and offended last week at these idle attempts by some Members of Congress to impugn the integrity of our President, George W. Bush. Sure, they all now will deny that was their intent because they have been home and they have heard from their people, and the people do not believe it. They know it is cheap politics. Let's not kid ourselves. The statements some of our colleagues made on this floor, in the other body, and in the press had one clear inference and insinuation: They were suggesting, even charging, that President Bush had prior knowledge about what was going to happen on September 11, that he could have done something to prevent the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, and he did not do anything about it. While they were making these accusations based on leaks from classified intelligence briefings, they were clearly questioning the competence, the truthfulness, and the integrity of our President. As Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday, these charges made through these kinds of statements were outrageous and beyond the pale. Anyone who has the slightest understanding of intelligence briefings knows that raw scraps of information, of which there are hundreds and thousands at any given time, cannot be equated with knowing the details of a specific plot. I have served on the Senate Intelligence Committee since 1994. We get briefings, and the briefings come in sometimes daily, sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly, where they have an assessment of accusations, a threat assessment, and there is kind of a summary page on top for people who do not want to wade through all of that material. In any given report, there are sometimes over a thousand threats, and the threats having to do with this never made it to the executive summary. While these people were making these accusations based on leaks about classified intelligence briefings, they were clearly questioning the competency of this President. I am heartened that the American people have so resoundingly repudiated the suggestion that President Bush is somehow culpable for what happened on September 11. Let's also be clear that any truly thorough investigation of what happened on September 11 must extend back into the actions and inactions of the previous administration and what it did and did not do in addressing terrorism on its watch. Today's editorial in the Washington Times spells out a few things we need to remember in order to put September 11 in context. In the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing, six people were killed, a thousand wounded; Ramsey Youseff, attack mastermind, connected to Iraq intelligence. In October 1993, during the Somalia firefight, we remember so well the 18 American Rangers who were killed in Mogadishu, their naked bodies dragged through the streets. Militia were trained at that time by the al-Qaida. We know that today. June 1996, Khobar Towers bombing: 19 U.S. soldiers killed in Saudi Arabia, al-Qaida terrorists among those involved. August of 1998, two U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa: 224 people were killed. Al-Qaida terrorists were involved again. Then-President Clinton launched 75 cruise missiles at an empty Afghan camp and a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory. October 2000, the U.S.S. Cole bombing: 17 U.S. sailors were killed. Again, al-Qaida was involved. All evidence points to the fact that they were involved. In each case, the Clinton administration sought to avoid taking firm steps against Osama bin Laden and other terrorist groups that have targeted U.S. interests, U.S. soldiers, and U.S. citizens. Certainly, any investigation of failures in the war on terrorism will take these issues into careful consideration. As the Washington Times editorial says today: Given the abysmal performance of the Clinton administration in combating terrorism during the 1990s, it would be a huge mistake for Democrats to attempt to gain political mileage by blaming September 11 on President Bush. I ask unanimous consent that the entire editorial be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to honor a group of men who bravely served this country. I am proud to recognize the Choctaw and Comanche Code Talkers who joined the United States Armed Forces on foreign soil in the fight for freedom in two world wars. During World War I, the Germans began tapping American lines, creating the need to provide secure communications. Despite the fact that American Indians were not citizens, 18 members of the Choctaw Nation enlisted to become the first American Indian soldiers to use their native language to transmit messages between the Allied forces. At least one Choctaw man was placed in each field company headquarters. He would translate radio messages into the Choctaw language and then write field orders to be carried by messengers between different companies on the battle line. Fortunately, because Choctaw was an unwritten language only understood by those who spoke it, the Germans were never able to break the code. The 18 Choctaw Code Talkers who served in the 142nd Infantry Company of the 36th Division were: Albert Billy, Victor Brown, Mitchell Bobb, Ben Carterby, George Davenport, Joe Davenport, James Edwards, Tobias Frazier, Ben Hampton, Noel Johnson, Otis Leader, Soloman Louis, Pete Maytubby, Jeff Nelson, Joseph Oklahombi, Robert Taylor, Walter Veach, and Calvin Wilson. Similarly, the Comanche Code Talkers played an important role during World War II. Once again, the enemy began tapping American lines. In order to establish the secure transmission of messages, the United States enlisted fourteen Comanche Code Talkers who served overseas in the 4th Signal Company of the 4th Infantry Division. They were: Charles Chibitty, Haddon Codynah, Robert Holder, Forrest Kassanavoid, Wellington Mihecoby, Albert Nahquaddy, Jr., Clifford Ototivo, Simmons Parker, Melvin Permansu, Elgin Red Elk, Roderick Red Elk, Larry Saupitty, Morris Tabbyetchy, and Willis Yackeshi. The Army chose the Comanches because their language was thought to be the least known to the Germans. Second Lieutenant Hugh Foster worked with them to develop their own unique code for military words. He gave the Indians a list of military words and then worked with them to develop a Comanche word or phrase for those words. On June 6, 1944, just after landing in Normandy, a Comanche trained by Lt. Foster and serving as a driver and radio operator under Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt, Jr, sent one of the first messages from Utah Beach. These communications efforts, by the Comanches, helped the Allies win the war in Europe. It is time Congress officially recognizes these men. My bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to award the Choctaw and Comanche Code Talkers a gold medal as a result of their great commitment and service on behalf of the United States during World Wars I and II. I welcome my colleagues to join me in saluting this group of heroes for contributing to the fight for freedom for our country and around the world.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to honor a group of men who bravely served this country. I am proud to recognize the Choctaw and Comanche Code Talkers who joined the United States Armed Forces on foreign soil in the fight for freedom in two world wars. During World War I, the Germans began tapping American lines, creating the need to provide secure communications. Despite the fact that American Indians were not citizens, 18 members of the Choctaw Nation enlisted to become the first American Indian soldiers to use their native language to transmit messages between the Allied forces. At least one Choctaw man was placed in each field company headquarters. He would translate radio messages into the Choctaw language and then write field orders to be carried by messengers between different companies on the battle line. Fortunately, because Choctaw was an unwritten language only understood by those who spoke it, the Germans were never able to break the code. The 18 Choctaw Code Talkers who served in the 142nd Infantry Company of the 36th Division were: Albert Billy, Victor Brown, Mitchell Bobb, Ben Carterby, George Davenport, Joe Davenport, James Edwards, Tobias Frazier, Ben Hampton, Noel Johnson, Otis Leader, Soloman Louis, Pete Maytubby, Jeff Nelson, Joseph Oklahombi, Robert Taylor, Walter Veach, and Calvin Wilson. Similarly, the Comanche Code Talkers played an important role during World War II. Once again, the enemy began tapping American lines. In order to establish the secure transmission of messages, the United States enlisted fourteen Comanche Code Talkers who served overseas in the 4th Signal Company of the 4th Infantry Division. They were: Charles Chibitty, Haddon Codynah, Robert Holder, Forrest Kassanavoid, Wellington Mihecoby, Albert Nahquaddy, Jr., Clifford Ototivo, Simmons Parker, Melvin Permansu, Elgin Red Elk, Roderick Red Elk, Larry Saupitty, Morris Tabbyetchy, and Willis Yackeshi. The Army chose the Comanches because their language was thought to be the least known to the Germans. Second Lieutenant Hugh Foster worked with them to develop their own unique code for military words. He gave the Indians a list of military words and then worked with them to develop a Comanche word or phrase for those words. On June 6, 1944, just after landing in Normandy, a Comanche trained by Lt. Foster and serving as a driver and radio operator under Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt, Jr, sent one of the first messages from Utah Beach. These communications efforts, by the Comanches, helped the Allies win the war in Europe. It is time Congress officially recognizes these men. My bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to award the Choctaw and Comanche Code Talkers a gold medal as a result of their great commitment and service on behalf of the United States during World Wars I and II. I welcome my colleagues to join me in saluting this group of heroes for contributing to the fight for freedom for our country and around the world.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, quite often we are not together on legislation. In this case, we are. It was my wish we would have a stronger amendment. There was one in the House that mentioned Yasser Arafat. I think we should be mentioning Yasser Arafat. We are in a war on terrorism. He is a terrorist. Sometimes we forget that in 1973 he gunned down three of our diplomats, including our U.S. Ambassador. He fits every description, every definition of a terrorist. All of us need to rise up and fight our battles, including Israel. This amendment is not strong enough, but I do support it.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as in morning business and that the time I use come off the postcloture time.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, I have been a little disturbed recently--I am not mad at anybody--about all of this discussion about what we are doing here and why it is necessary to be here on Mondays and on Fridays when on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and Thursdays we are spending most of our time in quorum calls. I think there is this Washington, DC, mentality that floats around that somehow if we are not here in Washington, DC, we, as Senators, are not doing our work. Let me tell you, for those of us who go back to the district and are with our people--in my case, the people of Oklahoma, who make much more sense than anybody makes around this place--that time is more valuable, and it is harder. Our hours are longer. We work long hours when we are back there. Yet we see the bed check votes such as the one that brought us back last night. We come back, and we vote on something we could have been voting on anytime--on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Then you see the press corps around Washington. They all think everything that is worthwhile is happening in Washington. You read the Hill and you read Roll Call and they say it is perfectly reasonable for the majority leader to say everyone ought to be in Washington all the time. I can tell you one of the problems we have is people who are in Washington all the time lose sight of who real people are. It is so hard to explain to people around here, but people in my State of Oklahoma understand it very well. There aren't any real, normal people in Washington. Everyone is either a Member or they are a staffer or they are a lobbyist or somebody else. To be able to get what is needed for America, you need to get back into real America. Oklahoma is real America. I can cite some examples. I will be talking to the Duma this afternoon, the Russian Duma, about our new relationship with Russia. When I go back to Oklahoma, they will say: Wait a minute; why do we still have an ABM Treaty that was set up in 1972? Fortunately, we are going to get rid of that thing. But why did it take this long? It took this long because people around this town don't understand pure logic. The logic is that at one time there were two superpowers, the U.S.S.R. and the United States. And I have to admit, as a Republican, this was done in a Republican administration. Henry Kissinger, back in the Nixon administration, put together something that said: I will make you a deal, U.S.S.R. We won't defend ourselves against you, if you don't defend yourselves against us. And if you shoot us, we will shoot you, and everybody dies and everybody is happy. It is called mutual assured destruction. That might have made sense to some people back in 1972. It didn't to me, but it might have to some other people. Now we have a totally different world out there in Russia, which is a friend and ally of ours; yet we do have Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya, other countries harboring terrorists, developing weapons that will reach the United States, missiles that will reach us. Already China, North Korea, and Russia have such missiles. So how does it make sense in today's world that we don't defend ourselves? I don't get the answers, but I get the questions when I go back to Oklahoma. Then I have to try to explain to them. I was criticized the other day by some of my conservative friends as to why I voted on some of the amendments in the farm bill. I voted on those because I went back. I have town meetings, as I am sure the Chair is aware. I get around and have as many as five, six in a day. Oklahoma, particularly in the western part of the State, is agricultural. In Oklahoma, our farmers have three sources of income: Grain, livestock, and oil. They have this so-called marginal production. For a sustained period of time, all three of these were down, and they were really hurting. I sat down in places such as Shattuck, OK, and Gage, OK. I had farmers coming in and saying: For the first time in five generations, we will have to sell our farm. We can no longer stay in business. For that reason, I realized that we have to do something that is different than what we have done before in transitioning into a new farm policy. So we did. And some of the amendments I voted for were pretty expensive. Nonetheless, that came from going back to the State, being there and listening to them instead of staying around Washington on the weekends. On energy and ANWR, I can't believe we took all the time we did in trying to open ANWR for exploration. Here we are in a threatened position. Everyone is aware of it. After September 11, all of a sudden we find ourselves dependent upon other countries for 57 percent of our energy. We don't even pass something that will allow us to open up the Alaska Wildlife Refuge for exploration. I have yet to find one person to go up there to the ANWR on the North Slope of Alaska and come back here shaking their head, wondering why in the world we call that a pristine wilderness. It is nothing but a mud flat. It is a tiny area up there that would give us a great capacity of domestic crude. In my State of Oklahoma, if we had all of our marginal wells--a marginal well is one that produces 15 barrels or less a day--if we had them all opened, if we had those wells flowing that we have had closed over the last 10 years, that would have produced the same amount of oil as we are currently importing from Saudi Arabia. When you go back, you talk to real people. Last week, when we were having a town meeting, they were talking about this community planning bill that was going to come out, and now it has come out of the Environment and Public Works Committee. It will be considered on this floor. Do you know what that is all about? What that is about is a recognition that no good decisions are made unless they are made in Washington, DC. Many years ago when I was mayor of Tulsa, there was a guy named Dr. Robert Fryley. He had gone into San Diego. Pete Wilson was mayor at that time. I was mayor of Tulsa. He had drawn these concentric circles that said: This is the way you should plan your community. He came to Tulsa in the first 2 or 3 weeks that I was in office. He started talking about Tulsa. I said: Wait a minute. This property is owned by people. These people bought this property. You are going to change the value of the property to these people. They said: That is of no concern to us. That is what we now will be considering on the floor of the Senate--a bill that is going to allow us in Washington to decide what we in Tulsa, OK, do with our property. I see others seeking the floor. I was killing a little time. The other day I was at Eisenhower School. It is a school that has done some great things in the public school system that others are emulating. I received some letters. I will just read a couple. This one says: Thank you for my class. Your speech about rights and responsibilities was great and interesting. I really enjoyed you coming. It was fun. I learned a lot. Sincerely, Maggie. Here is another one: Thank you so much for your presentation today. Our class really enjoyed it. I liked it a lot. I liked the part where you answered my question. Once again I enjoyed it a lot. Sincerely, Lauren Smith. I ask unanimous consent that the rest of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. I wanted to stand in the Chamber and say if we ran this place the way it should be run, we could very easily handle all of the votes we need to handle on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and allow those of us who care about going back to our States, spending time with our people and sharing the wisdom we get from the States, as opposed to from Washington, I think we would be a lot better off. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that one vote suffice for both judges on the calendar.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I commend the Senators from Montana and Iowa for their vigorous support of the highway trust fund. Because of their efforts, the measure pending before us, the trust fund, will recoup an additional 2.5 cents per gallon of ethanol currently being deposited into general revenue. The Senator from Montana has also been very aggressive at trying to make the trust fund whole with respect to the current 5.3-cent per gallon ethanol subsidy. Although he and I do not agree on how to best address this issue, we are in agreement that the highway trust fund should not pay to subsidize any fuel source. Our surface transportation infrastructure needs are such that we cannot afford to forego any revenue source. Certainly one of the key factors in the economic engine that drives our economy is a safe, efficient transportation system. If our economic recovery is going to continue to expand we cannot ignore the immediate and critical infrastructure needs of highways, bridges, and State and local roadways systems. I believe this issue is best resolved through the reauthorization of the surface transportation program next year. Furthermore, it is my hope that the final result will be one that can be embraced by all sides in this debate. Thus, I will be pulling together a working group of the highway community, the renewable fuels community, the refiners and the agricultural community to begin discussions on how we can make the highway trust fund whole. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Renewable Fuels Association be printed in the Record. (See Exhibit 1.) Again, I thank my colleagues from Montana and Iowa for their leadership on this issue and look forward to working with them to devise a permanent solution to this drain on the highway trust fund.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, often when we think of Girl Scouts, we think of those delicious cookies that come to our door every year, delivered by smiling-faced girls. But we may not realize the positive impact Girl Scouts has had on so many women in our society. Established by Juliette Gordon Low in 1912, Girl Scouts has evolved from a group of 18 girls in Savannah, GA to a national membership of 3.8 million. This week Girl Scouts celebrates its 90th anniversary and I want to recognize these exceptional girls and women who work so hard to become leaders in our society. Currently, more than 50 million women are Girl Scout alumni, over two-thirds of which are doctors, lawyers, educators, and community leaders. Today, there is even a ``Troop Capitol Hill'' which is made up entirely of congresswomen who are honorary Girl Scouts. In a time when more positive role models are needed, Girls Scouts often become good citizens and strong leaders through learning self- confidence, responsibility, and the ability to think creatively and act with integrity. They also participate in activities that teach them about science and technology, money management, sports, health and fitness, the arts, global awareness, community service, and much more. In my State of Oklahoma, the Girl Scouts--Red Lands Council has launched an initiative to serve girls who have special financial and educational needs. This project has allowed many girls to become Girl Scouts who might not have otherwise had the opportunity. Please join me in recognizing this outstanding organization for its role in giving today's girls a chance to become tomorrow's leaders.

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. President, I want to take some time to explain to my friends the importance of the CAFE debate to the people of Oklahoma. Today most of the people in Oklahoma buy light trucks, sports utility vehicles, and minivans. They are what you see on the road in Oklahoma. In fact, they are what Americans all over the country are buying. Last year national sales of light trucks, sports utility vehicles and minivans outpaced cars for the first time, and since 9-11 there has been a spike in sales of these vehicles. We have hard data showing us that this increase is due to Americans' desire for safety, comfort, and utility. In the 2001 Customer Satisfaction Study, Maritz Marketing Research, Inc. surveyed 83,196 new vehicle buyers. When asked what vehicle attributes were ``Extremely Important'' in their purchase decision, gas mileage ranked 15th on car buyers' lists, behind such things are reliability, value for the money, durability, and safety features. 43 percent rated gas mileage as ``extremely important'' vs. 70.6 percent for reliability, 59.3 percent of value, 59.2 percent for durability, and 57.3 percent for safety features. When asked the same question, truck, SUV, and full-size van owners ranked gas mileage 32nd on their list of ``extremely important'' items, below safety features, interior roominess, passenger seating, and cargo space, among others. 29.8 percent rated gas mileage as ``extremely important'' vs. 51.4 percent for safety features, 41.9 percent for interior roominess, 38 percent for passenger seating, and 36.8 percent for cargo space. A governmental mandate flies in the face of Americans' desire for these very attributes: safety, utility, and comfort. A mandate against the will of the American people is not the way we do things in government of the people, by the people and for the people. As far as jobs and economics, a typical assessment comes from Dr. Robert W. Crandall, Senior Fellow in the economic study program at the Brookings Institution notes that the current proposal would cost the United States something like $17 or $18 billion a year in lost consumer surplus. This loss of jobs and damage to our economy is unacceptable when this mandate will also cost lives and fly in the face of Americans' free choice of vehicles. On safety, we have the scientific analyses of our National Academy of Science and our National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as well as numerous analysts. For example, in 1972, Ralph Nader and Clarence Ditlow published a book entitled Small on Safety. Page after page has such statements as, ``Small size and light weight impose inherent limitations on the degree of safety that can be built into a vehicle.'' After all is said and done, drivers and passengers are safer and do better in crashes about 98 percent of the time when vehicle weight is greater. A Federal Government mandate to cut the weight of vehicles is going to cost lives. I want safe Oklahomans and therefore oppose CAFE mandates. The following groups oppose the Kerry/McCain CAFE provisions because they are bad for safety, utility, performance, consumer choice, and jobs: United Auto Workers; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; National Automobile Dealers Associations; American Iron and Steel Institute; Association of American Railroads; National Association of Manufacturers; American Highway Users Alliance; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; American Farm Bureau Federation; Union Pacific. Competitive Enterprise Institute; American International Automobile Dealers Association; Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association; Original Equipment Suppliers Association; Delphi Automotive Systems; Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety; National Marine Manufacturers Association. Small Business Survival Committee; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; American Horse Council; American Recreation Coalition; Associated General Contractors of America; Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety; Coalitions for America; Coalition for Vehicle Choice; National Association of Plumbing, Heating and Cooling. General Motors; Ford Motor Company; Daimler Chrysler; Toyota; Nissan, Volkswagen; BMW; Mazda; Fiat; Isuzu; Mitsubishi Motors; Porsche; Volvo; National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds. National Grange; National Truck Equipment Association; Recreation Vehicle Industry Association; Specialty Equipment Market Association; National Four Wheel Drive Association; Business Round Table; AFL/CIO. Please join me in supporting the compromise crafted by Senators Levin and Bond.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Phil Ward be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Senate companion to HR 3347, the General Aviation Industry Reparations Act of 2002. This bill directs to the President to provide compensation to General Aviation for losses incurred as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Many have the misperception that the entire aviation industry was eligible for compensation under the Air Transportation Safety and Systems Stabilization Act, PL 107-42. However, that act dealt only with scheduled airline service. As a consequence General Aviation, a very important segment of the aviation industry, has yet to be made whole for actions taken by the federal government following the terrorist attacks of September 11th. The national airspace system re-opened to commercial aviation on September 13, 2001. General Aviation was allowed limited Instrument Flight Rules, IFR, flights, operating under guidance and direction from air traffic controllers, with restrictions on September 14th. The more common, Visual Flight Rules, VFR, flights (which cannot be done in inclement weather since pilots are not under the guidance of air traffic controllers) were grounded until September 19 and then only limited flights could operate outside of ``enhanced'' Class B airspace, the airspace surrounding the nation's 30 busiest airports. In fact, enhanced Class B airspace did not return to the pre-September 11th design until December 19th. Contrary to what some think, General Aviation is much more than weekend recreational pilots. It is made of a hundreds of small business people who make their living either servicing general aviation aircraft, instructing student pilots, using general aviation aircraft to transport people, products and materials or perform various services such as report on traffic conditions in congested metropolitan areas, check the condition of energy pipelines, crop dusting, banner towing and many other uses. The fact is that general aviation performs a very important function in our economy beyond recreational flying. Working closely with General Aviation groups such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, AOPA, which has worked hard to explain the scope of general aviation to members of Congress and how critical it is to the nation, I think we have a very balanced package. The General Aviation Industry Reparations Act of 2002 would compensate General Aviation and their employees for economic injuries caused by September 11. As defined by the bill ``general aviation'' includes ancillary businesses as well. Thus, parking garages, car rental companies or other aviation related business that were not covered by PL 107-42 would be eligible for compensation under this bill. In addition, the bill extends compensation to employees who were laid off due to the slow down of business following September 11 in the form of reimbursement for health care costs and it requires businesses who accept compensation to provide health care coverage for existing employees. The bill provides three forms of compensation. Loan Guarantees of $3 billion from the amount made available for the commercial airlines. Grants totaling $2.5 billion and like the commercial aviation industry the opportunity to purchase War Risk Insurance with the assistance of the Department of Transportation. Finally, spending in the bill would be designated as emergency spending for scoring purposes. Normally I would oppose such a designation but I believe in this instance we have successfully met the criteria for an emergency. These benefits are not open ended, compensation is only available for losses incurred between September 11 and December 31, 2001. Not all losses are eligible under the bill, only those that can be shown to be a direct result of the government actions following September 11. Businesses who choose to take advantage of the loan guarantees must demonstrate an ability to pay back the loans and the government has the right to benefit from profits made as a result of a government backed loan. In short, I believe this is a responsible bill and I hope that we will be able to fully debate the merits of the package on the floor and eventually have a vote on the bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Senate companion to HR 3347, the General Aviation Industry Reparations Act of 2002. This bill directs to the President to provide compensation to General Aviation for losses incurred as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Many have the misperception that the entire aviation industry was eligible for compensation under the Air Transportation Safety and Systems Stabilization Act, PL 107-42. However, that act dealt only with scheduled airline service. As a consequence General Aviation, a very important segment of the aviation industry, has yet to be made whole for actions taken by the federal government following the terrorist attacks of September 11th. The national airspace system re-opened to commercial aviation on September 13, 2001. General Aviation was allowed limited Instrument Flight Rules, IFR, flights, operating under guidance and direction from air traffic controllers, with restrictions on September 14th. The more common, Visual Flight Rules, VFR, flights (which cannot be done in inclement weather since pilots are not under the guidance of air traffic controllers) were grounded until September 19 and then only limited flights could operate outside of ``enhanced'' Class B airspace, the airspace surrounding the nation's 30 busiest airports. In fact, enhanced Class B airspace did not return to the pre-September 11th design until December 19th. Contrary to what some think, General Aviation is much more than weekend recreational pilots. It is made of a hundreds of small business people who make their living either servicing general aviation aircraft, instructing student pilots, using general aviation aircraft to transport people, products and materials or perform various services such as report on traffic conditions in congested metropolitan areas, check the condition of energy pipelines, crop dusting, banner towing and many other uses. The fact is that general aviation performs a very important function in our economy beyond recreational flying. Working closely with General Aviation groups such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, AOPA, which has worked hard to explain the scope of general aviation to members of Congress and how critical it is to the nation, I think we have a very balanced package. The General Aviation Industry Reparations Act of 2002 would compensate General Aviation and their employees for economic injuries caused by September 11. As defined by the bill ``general aviation'' includes ancillary businesses as well. Thus, parking garages, car rental companies or other aviation related business that were not covered by PL 107-42 would be eligible for compensation under this bill. In addition, the bill extends compensation to employees who were laid off due to the slow down of business following September 11 in the form of reimbursement for health care costs and it requires businesses who accept compensation to provide health care coverage for existing employees. The bill provides three forms of compensation. Loan Guarantees of $3 billion from the amount made available for the commercial airlines. Grants totaling $2.5 billion and like the commercial aviation industry the opportunity to purchase War Risk Insurance with the assistance of the Department of Transportation. Finally, spending in the bill would be designated as emergency spending for scoring purposes. Normally I would oppose such a designation but I believe in this instance we have successfully met the criteria for an emergency. These benefits are not open ended, compensation is only available for losses incurred between September 11 and December 31, 2001. Not all losses are eligible under the bill, only those that can be shown to be a direct result of the government actions following September 11. Businesses who choose to take advantage of the loan guarantees must demonstrate an ability to pay back the loans and the government has the right to benefit from profits made as a result of a government backed loan. In short, I believe this is a responsible bill and I hope that we will be able to fully debate the merits of the package on the floor and eventually have a vote on the bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama. We have been working on this for a long time. For 4 years, we have actually had an amendment that would accomplish this. The approach we are taking now is the right approach because it is letting scientists decide, not people who come to this Chamber and say hysterically there is going to be harm done to the environment. We can look at history, and, as we have said several times before, of the over 1 million of these processes that have taken place, there is not one bit of evidence of a problem to the environment. I have a letter from the Ground Water Protection Council. It is a group of EPAs throughout America. They strongly endorse this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my colleague from New Mexico. I am happy to join him in proposing this amendment. I think it is very important for a number of reasons. I just came from the Senate Armed Services Committee, where we had all four of the chiefs of the services. We were talking about this war that we are prosecuting right now. We were talking about the Nation's security. I can remember all the way back in the 1980s, when then-Secretary of the Interior Don Hodel and I went around the country and talked about the fact that an energy policy is something that is important to our Nation's security. It is a national security issue, not an energy issue. Consequently--and I said this a minute ago--this has not been a partisan thing. We tried to get President Reagan to come up with an energy policy. He would not do it. I thought George ``the first,'' coming from the oil fields, would have one, but he didn't do it either. The last administration didn't do it. A national energy policy is really necessary for national security reasons. Right now, we are dependent upon foreign countries for 57 percent of our energy supply--something that is not acceptable, particularly right now in a time of war. Where does this issue of hydraulic fracturing come in? I am from Oklahoma, and I understand we have a tremendous reserve down there in terms of marginal production. I started many years ago--probably before many fellow Members were born--in the oil fields in cable tool rigs-- something they used before rotaries--the pounding method. I realized at that time how much this meant to the country and how much our shallow production meant. When we talk about energy policy, we talk about nuclear, as we did in the last amendment, and we talk about ANWR--and it is necessary to get into some of the deep stuff. In terms of marginal production--wells that have 15 barrels a day, or less, and a comparable amount for gas wells--this has a tremendous prospect to be an important ingredient in a national energy policy. If we had all of the gas wells that have been plugged in the last 10 years, or oil wells that have been plugged, producing today--marginal wells, producing 15 barrels or less--it would equal more than what we are currently importing from Saudi Arabia. So it is necessary to have these wells. How does hydraulic fracturing fit into this equation? This system has been used--I remember using it myself--since the 1940s. In the 1940s, we had a system of injection in order to get maximum production in both oil and gas wells. Not one time in that period of time--after over a million wells have used this process--has there been any kind of damage to the environment. In the last 15 years, there have been over 100,000 wells using this, with no damage to the environment. As the Senator from New Mexico points out, this is not a partisan thing. The Clinton administration supported this, the Bush administration supports this, and Carol Browner supported this when I served as chairman of one of the subcommittees of the Environment and Public Works Committee. This is necessary to have, and it does no harm to the environment. I am honored to join my colleague, Senator Bingaman, in supporting this amendment and in saying this is a necessary part of the national energy policy. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Carl Smith Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy, of the Department of Energy be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for giving me some of his time, particularly since we are not in agreement with each other on one of the two votes that will be taking place. I spent 30 years of my life in the insurance business. I know the Chair knows a little bit about this business--he spent some time there, too. I think the Price-Anderson program as an insurance program is a good deal for the public. For over 45 years, Price-Anderson has provided immediate and substantial private compensation to the public in the event of a nuclear accident. It has provided coverage for precautionary evacuations, out-of-pocket expenses, has reduced delays that are inherent in court cases, and has consolidated all cases into a single Federal court. I think it is also important to recognize it has never cost the Government any money. This is not a Government program. Going back to my third point, if we didn't have something like this, then we would be dependent upon the tort system in this country. We are going to hear about the delays and the cost. This is one of the programs that has been successful for 45 years. When it gets down to some of the people who are opposing the program, they are actually opposed to nuclear energy. I am old enough to remember back in the 1960s and 1970s, the hysteria that hit the streets when they were talking about nuclear energy and picketing and protesting. As the years went by, other problems came up with other forms of generation of energy. We went through a long period of time during the Clinton administration with the EPA coming up with some ambient air targets that were not realistic. It created great problems. So we started talking about all the pollutants, emission problems, refineries-- keeping in mind all during that discussion our refineries were at 100 percent capacity. Yet we were trying to add more and more problems to them with new source review and other programs, making it just a very expensive program. During that time, a lot of the people who 20 years before had been picketing because they were opposed to nuclear energy, realized that nuclear energy is safe now, it is clean, and it is abundant. The thing that I stress when we are talking about energy is we want all forms of energy--we want renewables, we want nuclear energy, we want fossil fuels, we want all the forms of energy because we do not want an energy crisis. As far as nuclear energy is concerned, we are only dependent on that for 20 percent of our energy needs. France is 80 percent dependent. I think we will see in the future that percentage is going to have to go up until some of the renewables and other experimental systems come into play where we can depend on them for an abundance of energy. Until then, we are going to have to be using some of the energy sources that we know work and work today. Certainly this is one of them. The assistant majority leader also mentioned we will have two votes starting at 2:15. The other is on hydraulic fracturing. I think it is important to talk about that in the same vein because there you are talking about natural gas. I am from Oklahoma. We know a little bit about natural gas. We know it is among the cleanest forms of energy out there. It is plentiful. It is inexpensive. But as far as being plentiful, one of the problems we are having is we have to be sure that we can maintain what we are doing right now in bringing natural gas out of the ground. Right now, and for the next couple of years, we will be able to do that. However, because of the court decision that has already been discussed on the floor by a number of the Senators, we could be having a problem. The system, the procedure of hydraulic fracturing where you are forcing the natural gas or the oil out of the rock formations, is one that has been proven and has been used since the 1940s. We are talking about 60 years we have been doing this. In 60 years and over 1 million wells where we have used this procedure, we have yet to have any environmental problem. So it kind of blows my mind there would be people, after 60 years of success, who would say there might be an environmental problem with it. There is no environmental problem with it. The only problem right now is a court case for which we are going to have to go ahead and complete a study. It is important for all my colleagues to realize on this vote today all we are talking about is completing the study that is underway right now. The EPA does not have to follow the guidelines of that study. They can authorize another study. But this amendment is to at least let science step in and say: Since there has not been a problem before, here are the risks of a problem in the future. If there is not a problem, we need to go ahead and eliminate that obstacle so we will be able to continue using that system. Mr. President, 80 percent of the wells right now--and it is a higher percentage when you go to my State of Oklahoma because most of those are marginal wells, wells with 15 barrels a day or less--but 80 percent of them are going to have to use hydraulic fracturing. That system is necessary in order to come up with the natural gas we need.