Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the Senator from Alabama 5 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Five minutes?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, again, we are saying let's not get emotional about this. Let's not come up with all kinds of accusations. Instead, let's let science decide. Right now, scientific studies subjected to an independent peer review is an appropriate way to determine if Federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing is necessary. The required National Academy of Sciences review of EPA's findings approves an independent verification of the study's results. When the study does come in, it does not necessarily mean EPA has to follow the dictates, the results of this study, but they can and they may decide to do another study. At least we are letting the scientists make a decision as to who is right. I cannot overemphasize, as the Senator from Alabama talked about how clean natural gas is, how clean it is. That is not even debatable. It is in such plentiful supply. We need this. Eighty percent of the wells that are done have to use this technique in order to produce the natural gas that is necessary to fully utilize that source. So I think this is a very balanced approach, and it is certainly bipartisan. I applaud our Senator from New Mexico, along with others who have joined us in supporting this amendment. I yield the floor.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I know our side is out of time. I would like to ask if I could have a couple minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. That is fine. Madam President, I respectfully disagree with what the Senator from Nevada said about the subsidy. The Federal Government does not use taxpayer money to pay claims in the event of a nuclear incident. There has been no subsidy in the 43 years of Price-Anderson protection. The nuclear insurance pool is not the Federal Government. It has paid a total of, I believe, $191 million in claims. The Price-Anderson Act ensures that full compensation will be available in the event of a nuclear attack. In the absence of the law, members of the public filing claims would need to overcome substantial obstacles of tort law for recovery. As we all know, that is very expensive and very time consuming. I think the key here is that no public funds have ever been paid out. For that reason, there is no way one can say this is a subsidized program. The Federal Government provides insurance mechanisms for losses associated with agricultural disasters, floods, banks, savings and loans; to pay for home mortgages, Social Security, Medicare, crime, and maritime accidents. It is not unusual for the Federal Government to do it. But under the current law, the limitation on liability exists for oil spills, bankruptcy, and workers compensation, but not in the case of nuclear accident. While it is very common for the Federal Government to expend moneys to underwrite and to be in the insurance business many times to compete with the insurance industry, in this case it isn't true. There is no subsidy involved. I am sure my time has expired. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2986, As Modified

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors: Senators Enzi, Murkowski, Sessions, and Nickles.

Mr. INHOFE. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I wish to add to the remarks of the Senator from New Mexico. This procedure is being used today. It has been used since the 1940s. Over 1 million wells have used hydraulic fracturing. There has never been any documented case of any environmental damage.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, I would like to ask the Senator from New Mexico, could I have maybe 2 minutes to say something about Price-Anderson? I am anxious to get to the next amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have been talking about a complete energy policy for America. This is a bipartisan effort. I tried to get the Reagan administration to do it, then the Bush administration, the Clinton administration. None of them had done it. Now we have an opportunity to do it. An essential part of that is going to be nuclear energy. Maybe it has been said before, but I only want to put into the Record that after going through this long arduous thing on ambient air and the problems of other forms of energy, each year the U.S. nuclear powerplants prevent 5.1 million tons of sulphur dioxide, 2.4 million tons of nitrogen oxide, and 164 million metric tons of carbon from entering the earth's surface. Consequently, there are many people who were out protesting against nuclear energy just 20 years ago who now realize this is an abundant and safe and cheap form of energy. It is necessary in order to do that to have the Price-Anderson Act reauthorized. I yield the floor Amendment No. 2986 To Amendment No. 2917

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I ask that Senator Tim Hutchinson and Senator Voinovich be added as cosponsors of this amendment and the Price-Anderson amendment.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Certainly.

Mr. INHOFE. I suggest to the Senator that he is one of the few Senators who know what I am talking about. When you picked up a cable tool--it weighed several hundred pounds--if you did not open up your hands in time, it went right down in there. I have a lot of friends who can't play the guitar anymore. Frankly, I almost ended up in this business. It is a very admirable business. When we talk about economic development and economic stimulus, I think often about the oil fields in Oklahoma. I was a very young child at that time. We are talking about 50 years ago. I remember going to get lunch. You had to stand in line and wait to pay your ticket. That was back in the days when we really had economic stimulus. It came from this energy. That is something we don't talk about very much, but it is a very real thing, and it is particularly real when you personally experience it. But I have to say that my major concern right now with our energy crisis with which we are faced--and it is a crisis--is how it affects our ability to defend America. I spent about 4 years chairing the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. I am now ranking member. I see what our readiness problems are and what our military problems are as they relate to our dependency on foreign countries for our ability to fight a war. Several Members mentioned--including the Senator from Montana-- that our dependency is directly related to our ability to be independent and to be strong. If we are dependent on Iraq for our ability to fight a war against Iraq, that is a crisis. That is a situation we are in right now. We are dependent upon foreign countries for our ability to fight a war. But here are the facts. I think it is important that we talk about this from a military perspective. First of all, the military is as dependent on foreign oil as the general public is. It takes eight times as much oil to meet the needs for each U.S. soldier as it did during World War II. In addition to that, the Department of Defense accounts for 80 percent of all Government energy use. For all practical purposes, we are talking about the defense ramifications of this use. It is not like it was in World War II. Now it takes eight times as much oil. It is a very serious problem. Iraq is the fastest growing contributor to our dependency. People do not understand that. They say: Wait a minute. Aren't we at war with Iraq? I guess by some definition you would have to say we are. They are shooting down our UAVs that are flying over some of the zones trying to protect us, as is required by U.N. resolution. Yet Iraq is the fastest growing source for United States oil imports. Shockingly, in the year 2000, $5 billion of American money went to Iraq to buy oil. There is a lot of talk about sanctions. I am a believer in sanctions, if sanctions are going to really accomplish something. But how can we have sanctions against a country when we are paying them $5 billion in America money to buy the oil, particularly when that is used to defend America? America's energy consumption is on the rise, but we are producing less domestic oil than at any time since World War II. Our dependency on foreign oil has dramatically increased since 1973, and it is projected to continue to increase--currently, about 60 percent. You hear 57 percent. You can justify some 60 percent, depending on how you calculate it. Sixty percent of U.S. oil needs are met by foreign sources. In the mid-1980s, I traveled around the country with Don Hodel. Don Hodel was Secretary of the Interior. He was also Secretary of Energy. This was back during the Reagan administration. At that time, we were about 38 percent dependent on foreign countries for our oil. Don Hodel and I went to States that are consumption States and not production States, and explained to them that our dependency on foreign countries for our ability to fight a war was a national security issue--not an energy issue. In fact, we had a little dog-and-pony show. We would go back to, and including, the First World War. And every war since then has been won by the country that had control of the energy supply. You can't name one country that wasn't. There were a lot of people who listened to us. We were in Illinois, in New York, in New Jersey, and in different States, trying to tell that story. It didn't sell too well then. After the Persian Gulf war, people started listening and realizing that there is a relationship between our ability to be energy sufficient and the danger that we are facing. In both 1995 and 1999, the Secretary of Commerce acknowledged, pursuant to a law requiring his assessment, that our oil dependency poses a threat to our national security. Keep in mind, this is before September 11. Additionally, in January of 1998, I elicited virtual consensus from all members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that energy security was a too-often overlooked aspect of our national security needs. After September 11, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said that U.S. dependency on foreign oil--now, this happened in a public hearing where we were; and I asked him the question about how it relates to our national security--he said that U.S. dependency on foreign oil ``is a serious strategic issue . . . My sense is that [our] dependency is projected to grow, not to decline . . . it's not only that we would, in a sense, be dependent on Iraqi oil, but the oil as a weapon. The possibility of taking that oil off the market and doing enormous economic damage with it is a serious problem.'' That is the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz. The President made energy a top national priority. He said it over and over again. Sometimes I wonder if people are listening. In an overwhelmingly bipartisan manner, the House of Representatives adopted a comprehensive energy policy which includes provisions to modernize conservation and infrastructure, increase domestic energy supplies, and accelerate the protection of the environment. But that is not all that H.R. 4 has. H.R. 4 is a comprehensive approach to meet our energy needs. We have nuclear in there; we have oil and gas production. Let's just take the marginal production I have been concerned about, because my State happens to be a major producer, or they used to be, of marginal wells. A marginal well is a well that produces 15 barrels of oil or less a day. If we had all the oil that would have come from margin wells that have been plugged in the last 10 years flowing again today, it would produce more oil than we are currently importing from Saudi Arabia. That is a huge source. That is part of H.R. 4. H.R. 4 also has renewables in it. People are talking about renewables. It has nuclear. Right now, to meet our energy needs to light our lights in America, we are only 20 percent dependent on nuclear energy. France is 80 percent dependent. Those very people who were marching and protesting back in the 1970s against nuclear plants now realize, after all the ambient air problems that have been coming up, that nuclear energy is among the safest, the cheapest, and the most abundant energy available, yet we are not using it. That is why I offered the energy bill as an amendment to last year's Defense authorization bill. Here I am on the Armed Services Committee. I had chaired the Subcommittee on Readiness. I offered the energy bill to the Defense authorization bill so people would somehow reprogram their thinking and realize we were talking about a defense issue. We are talking about a national security issue when we talk about our energy dependence. So I offered it, and I was glad I did. We, of course, are addressing energy legislation today. I am really highly troubled by the bizarre legislative path that this legislation has traveled. I know we have talked about this quite a bit. I hope the majority leader will allow fair up-and-down votes on issues such as ANWR. We need to vote on it. I wish it were required for everyone who is going to be voting on ANWR to take a trip up to the north slopes of Alaska to see what we are really talking about. It is not a pristine wilderness. We are only talking about a very small, a minuscule part of that area up there, and we are talking about an environment where the Eskimos, the local people, are begging us to come in and open it up. So we do not need just any bill; the Senate owes our country a strong energy bill, which should include hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is a system where water is forced in, in order to be able to produce the oil. Some 80 percent of the wells now use hydraulic fracturing. In the last 15 years, we have had 100,000 wells that have used that process. There has never been any environmental problem with it. Since 1940, when we started this process, there have been over 1 million wells that have used hydraulic fracturing. But some court came along and said they were going to have to look at the environmental concerns that go along with hydraulic fracturing. Wait a minute. If we have done a million wells, as we have, using that process, and there has never been a problem, why are we concerned about it? We need to have a strong energy bill that has the tax incentives for domestic oil production. I have talked about that. We have a tremendous opportunity there. But, you see, you cannot go after marginal wells because it costs 10 times as much to lift a barrel of oil that way than it does in Saudi Arabia. So you have to have some type of protection in there so that a person who is making an investment in a well today-- recognizing they are not going to have any production out of that well for a couple years--how do they know what the price is going to be when it escalates from $8 a barrel to $40 a barrel, and then goes back to $8 a barrel? There is no way they can afford to take that kind of a risk. Certainly, the Presiding Officer is someone who has been in the business world, and he understands that. You have to have an idea of what kind of investment return is going to be out there. H.R. 4 has that in it. We need to have that in our bill. It said, if the price goes down, and it starts going below $17 a barrel, as it approaches $14 a barrel, tax credits set in, so they know it is not going to go below that. It is a way of getting another large block of oil domestically. Corporate average fuel economy, the CAFE standards, while every single Senator has sworn an oath to uphold a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, some in this body seek to thwart the will of the people who drive vehicles and who express their will every day when they purchase vehicles at auto dealerships. It is called choice. This is America. We are supposed to have freedom of choice. In greater numbers than ever before, all across this country, and particularly in my State of Oklahoma, Americans are purchasing minivans, sport utility vehicles, light trucks, and roomy cars for their safety, comfort, and utility. I strongly support Americans' safety and ability to select whatever vehicle we deem fit for our purposes. We are not ``one size fits all.'' We are different people. I have 4 children and 11 grandchildren. I suggest to the Senator from Ohio, you try putting them in a compact car. They just don't fit. Our needs are different. I think the bill should exclude renewable portfolio standards, RPS. The left again seeks to encroach upon the free market and the business of America through attempts to limit the use of coal, oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear energy in an era when America is trying to ward off energy crises. We need all of the above. All of those things should be a part of this bill. But by shrinking the allowable percentage of power coming from these sources, we hamstring our ability to deliver needed energy and we weaken our Nation. Price-Anderson. This is going to be controversial. It should not be controversial. This is a way that will allow us to get and expand into nuclear energy. Currently, 103 U.S. nuclear units supply about 20 percent of the electricity produced in the United States. Going forward into the future, nuclear energy must be a key component of any national energy plan. As ranking member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, I believe the first step in that direction must be the reauthorization of Price-Anderson. Finally, I would like to address the impact of overly burdensome regulations on our energy supply. In a recent report entitled ``U.S. Downstream: The EPA Takes Another Bite Out of America's Fuel Supply,'' Merrill Lynch concluded that EPA's clean air regulations ``will clearly have the impact of reducing existing U.S. refining capacity.'' In other words, the United States will have a greater dependency on foreign refineries. When the price of gasoline goes through the roof, we all witness the incredibly irresponsible accusations that big oil companies ``were colluding.'' Price spikes occurred last summer because of the large number of poorly implemented environmental regulations. I have sat on that committee for 8 years now. We are at virtually 100 percent refinery capacity in this country. We started having new start reviews. We started having more and more regulations that really have nothing to do with the environment, and then we wonder why the price of fuel goes up. It is supply and demand. We should know something about that in this country. When we are at 100 percent, we have more regulations that cost more money, and then some of the refineries leave and go down to Mexico. Then we can't even meet the current needs. What is going to happen? The price is going to go up. The solution to high prices is not found in cheap political gimmicks such as releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Rather, the solution relies on a national energy policy and having a highly effective and streamlined environmental regulation. This is not a partisan notion. Going all the way back to the Carter administration, I tried to get them to have a national energy policy. Then Reagan came along. I thought we could get it in a Republican administration. I tried to get the Reagan administration to do it. They wouldn't do it. I tried along with Don Hodel, who worked in the Reagan administration. Then along came George the 1st from the oil patch. I thought, surely we will have a national energy policy at this time. He didn't have one. Of course, we haven't had one since. We have that opportunity now. This President is committed to having a national energy policy. When well thought out and reflecting consensus, environmental regulations can certainly provide benefits to the American people. But when regulations are rushed into effect without adequate thought, they are going to do more harm than good. I see the Senator from Ohio in the Chamber. I remember before he was in the Senate, I held a hearing in the State of Ohio on new source review. We had testimony from refiners that replacing a 12-inch pipe triggered a new source review which cost millions of dollars in that case. As a Senator and a grandfather, I want to ensure the cleanest environment in our Nation. However, I am convinced that environmental regulations can be harmonized with energy policy. Our current situation demands it. I know that the extremist environmental community opposes any of the provisions and reforms which I have discussed. However, the environmental community does not have to answer to the American people when energy prices go through the roof. Nor does the environmental community have to worry about the national security implications of greater dependency on foreign oil. My major concern, the reason I put this on H.R. 4 as an amendment to the defense authorization bill, is because I can't think of any single thing that plays a greater role in our future national security than becoming energy independent. Again, it is ludicrous that we should have to be dependent upon Iraq oil to fight a war against Iraq. It doesn't make sense. It is time we start making some sense. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, when the Senator from Montana referred to me as a producer, he was referring to the State of Oklahoma which is a production State. I don't think inadvertently he also referred to me as a producer. And I was. I started out at the age of 17 in the oil fields. At that time, I was a tool dresser. Not many people know what a cable tool rig is. I was a tool dresser on a cable tool rig. There is no harder work in the world than being a tool dresser on a cable tool rig. That was before rotaries. Mostly, they were marginal wells--shallow wells.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was interested the other day when I heard that the de facto ruler, Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah, made a statement which was received by many in this country as if it were a statement of fact, as if it were something new, a concept for peace in the Middle East that no one had ever heard of before. I was kind of shocked that it was so well received by many people who had been down this road before. I suggest to you that what Crown Prince Abdullah talked about a few days ago was not new at all. He talked about the fact that under the Abdullah plan, Arabs would normalize relations with Israel in exchange for the Jewish state surrendering the territory it received after the 1976 Six-Day War as if that were something new. He went on to talk about other land that had been acquired and had been taken by Israel. I remember so well on December 4 when we covered all of this and the fact that there isn't anything new about the prospect of giving up land that is rightfully Israel's land in order to have peace. When it gets right down to it, the land doesn't make that much difference because Yasser Arafat and others don't recognize Israel's right to any of the land. They do not recognize Israel's right to exist. I will discuss seven reasons, which I mentioned once before, why Israel is entitled to the land they have and that it should not be a part of the peace process. If this is something that Israel wants to do, it is their business to do it. But anyone who has tried to put the pressure on Israel to do this is wrong. We are going to be hit by skeptics who are going to say we will be attacked because of our support for Israel, and if we get out of the Middle East--that is us--all the problems will go away. That is just not true. If we withdraw, all of these problems will again come to our door. I have some observations to make about that. But I would like to reemphasize once again the seven reasons that Israel has the right to their land. The first reason is that Israel has the right to the land because of all of the archeological evidence. That is reason, No. 1. All the archeological evidence supports it. Every time there is a dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that Israelis have had a presence there for 3,000 years. They have been there for a long time. The coins, the cities, the pottery, the culture--there are other people, groups that are there, but there is no mistaking the fact that Israelis have been present in that land for 3,000 years. It predates any claims that other peoples in the regions may have. The ancient Philistines are extinct. Many other ancient peoples are extinct. They do not have the unbroken line to this date that the Israelis have. Even the Egyptians of today are not racial Egyptians of 2,000, 3,000 years ago. They are primarily an Arab people. The land is called Egypt, but they are not the same racial and ethnic stock as the old Egyptians of the ancient world. The first Israelis are in fact descended from the original Israelites. The first proof, then, is the archeology. The second proof of Israel's right to the land is the historic right. History supports it totally and completely. We know there has been an Israel up until the time of the Roman Empire. The Romans conquered the land. Israel had no homeland, although Jews were allowed to live there. They were driven from the land in two dispersions: One was in 70 A,.D. and the other was in 135 A.D. But there was always a Jewish presence in the land. The Turks, who took over about 700 years ago and ruled the land up until about World War I, had control. Then the land was conquered by the British. The Turks entered World War I on the side of Germany. The British knew they had to do something to punish Turkey, and also to break up that empire that was going to be a part of the whole effort of Germany in World War I. So the British sent troops against the Turks in the Holy Land. One of the generals who was leading the British armies was a man named Allenby. Allenby was a Bible-believing Christian. He carried a Bible with him everywhere he went and he knew the significance of Jerusalem. The night before the attack against Jerusalem to drive out the Turks, Allenby prayed that God would allow him to capture the city without doing damage to the holy places. That day, Allenby sent World War I biplanes over the city of Jerusalem to do a reconnaissance mission. You have to understand that the Turks had at that time never seen an airplane. So there they were, flying around. They looked in the sky and saw these fascinating inventions and did not know what they were, and they were terrified by them. Then they were told they were going to be opposed by a man named Allenby the next day, which means, in their language, ``man sent from God'' or ``prophet from God.'' They dared not fight against a prophet from God, so the next morning, when Allenby went to take Jerusalem, he went in and captured it without firing a single shot. The British Government was grateful to Jewish people around the world, particularly to one Jewish chemist who helped them manufacture niter. Niter is an ingredient that was used in nitroglycerin which was sent over from the New World. But they did not have a way of getting it to England. The German U-boats were shooting on the boats, so most of the niter they were trying to import to make nitroglycerin was at the bottom of the ocean. But a man named Weitzman, a Jewish chemist, discovered a way to make it from materials that existed in England. As a result, they were able to continue that supply. The British at that time said they were going to give the Jewish people a homeland. That is all a part of history. It is all written down in history. They were gratified that the Jewish people, the bankers, came through and helped finance the war. The homeland that Britain said it would set aside consisted of all of what is now Israel and all of what was then the nation of Jordan--the whole thing. That was what Britain promised to give the Jews in 1917. In the beginning, there was some Arab support for this action. There was not a huge Arab population in the land at that time, and there is a reason for that. The land was not able to sustain a large population of people. It just did not have the development it needed to handle those people, and the land was not really wanted by anybody. Nobody really wanted this land. It was considered to be worthless land. I want the Presiding Officer to hear what Mark Twain said. And, of course, you may have read ``Huckleberry Finn'' and ``Tom Sawyer.'' Mark Twain--Samuel Clemens--took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described that land. We are talking about Israel now. He said: A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country. Where was this great Palestinian nation? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at that time it was under the control of Turkey, and there was no large mass of people there because the land would not support them. This is the report that the Palestinian Royal Commission, created by the British, made. It quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea in 1913. This is the Palestinian Royal Commission. They said: The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the Yavnev village. Houses were mud. Schools did not exist. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants. That was 1913. The French author Voltaire described Palestine as ``a hopeless, dreary place.'' In short, under the Turks the land suffered from neglect and low population. That is a historic fact. The nation became populated by both Jews and Arabs because the land came to prosper when Jews came back and began to reclaim it. Historically, they began to reclaim it. If there had never been any archaeological evidence to support the rights of the Israelis to the territory, it is also important to recognize that other nations in the area have no longstanding claim to the country either. Did you know that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913, Lebanon until 1920? Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932, Syria until 1941; the borders of Jordan were established in 1946 and Kuwait in 1961. Any of these nations that would say Israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights as recent arrivals as well. They did not exist as countries. They were all under the control of the Turks. Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948. The third reason that land belongs to Israel is the practical value of the Israelis being there. Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture. Israel is able to bring more food out of a desert environment than any other country in the world. The Arab nations ought to make Israel their friend and import technology from Israel that would allow all the Middle East, not just Israel, to become an exporter of food. Israel has unarguable success in its agriculture. The fourth reason I believe Israel has the right to the land is on the grounds of humanitarian concern. You see, there were 6 million Jews slaughtered in Europe in World War II. The persecution against the Jews had been very strong in Russia since the advent of communism. It was against them even before then under the Czars. These people have a right to their homeland. If we are not going to allow them a homeland in the Middle East, then where? What other nation on Earth is going to cede territory, is going to give up land? They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel would fit into my home State of Oklahoma seven times. It would fit into the Presiding Officer's State of Georgia seven times. They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel is very small. It is a nation that, up until the time that claims started coming in, was not desired by anybody. The fifth reason Israel ought to have their land is that she is a strategic ally of the United States. Whether we realize it or not, Israel is a detriment, an impediment, to certain groups hostile to democracies and hostile to what we believe in, hostile to that which makes us the greatest nation in the history of the world. They have kept them from taking complete control of the Middle East. If it were not for Israel, they would overrun the region. They are our strategic ally. It is good to know we have a friend in the Middle East on whom we can count. They vote with us in the United Nations more than England, more than Canada, more than France, more than Germany--more than any other country in the world. The sixth reason is that Israel is a roadblock to terrorism. The war we are now facing is not against a sovereign nation; it is against a group of terrorists who are very fluid, moving from one country to another. They are almost invisible. That is whom we are fighting against today. We need every ally we can get. If we do not stop terrorism in the Middle East, it will be on our shores. We have said this again and again and again, and it is true. One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our Government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them. Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars: The war in 1948 and 1949--that was the war for independence--the war in 1956, the Sinai campaign; the Six-Day War in 1967; and in 1973, the Yom Kippur War, the holiest day of the year, and that was with Egypt and Syria. You have to understand that in all four cases, Israel was attacked. They were not the aggressor. Some people may argue that this was not true because they went in first in 1956, but they knew at that time that Egypt was building a huge military to become the aggressor. Israel, in fact, was not the aggressor and has not been the aggressor in any of the four wars. Also, they won all four wars against impossible odds. They are great warriors. They consider a level playing field being outnumbered 2 to 1. There were 39 Scud missiles that landed on Israeli soil during the gulf war. Our President asked Israel not to respond. In order to have the Arab nations on board, we asked Israel not to participate in the war. They showed tremendous restraint and did not. Now we have asked them to stand back and not do anything over these last several attacks. We have criticized them. We have criticized them in our media. Local people in television and radio often criticize Israel, not knowing the true facts. We need to be informed. I was so thrilled when I heard a reporter pose a question to our Secretary of State, Colin Powell. He said: Mr. Powell, the United States has advocated a policy of restraint in the Middle East. We have discouraged Israel from retaliation again and again and again because we've said it leads to continued escalation--that it escalates the violence. Are we going to follow that preaching ourselves? Mr. Powell indicated we would strike back. In other words, we can tell Israel not to do it, but when it hits us, we are going to do something. But all that changed in December when the Israelis went into the Gaza with gunships and into the West Bank with F-16s. With the exception of last May, the Israelis had not used F-16s since the 1967 6-Day War. And I am so proud of them because we have to stop terrorism. It is not going to go away. If Israel were driven into the sea tomorrow, if every Jew in the Middle East were killed, terrorism would not end. You know that in your heart. Terrorism would continue. It is not just a matter of Israel in the Middle East. It is the heart of the very people who are perpetrating this stuff. Should they be successful in overrunning Israel--which they won't be--but should they be, it would not be enough. They will never be satisfied. No. 7, I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so. As I said a minute ago, look it up in the book of Genesis. It is right up there on the desk. In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says: The Lord said to Abram, ``Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever. . . . Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee.'' That is God talking. The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, ``I am giving you this land,''--the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true. The seven reasons, I am convinced, clearly establish that Israel has a right to the land. Eight years ago on the lawn of the White House, Yitzhak Rabin shook hands with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. It was a historic occasion. It was a tragic occasion. At that time, the official policy of the Government of Israel began to be, ``Let us appease the terrorists. Let us begin to trade the land for peace.'' This process continued unabated up until last year. Here in our own Nation, at Camp David, in the summer of 2000, then Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak offered the most generous concessions to Yasser Arafat that had ever been laid on the table. He offered him more than 90 percent of all the West Bank territory, sovereign control of it. There were some parts he did not want to offer, but in exchange for that he said he would give up land in Israel proper that the PLO had not even asked for. And he also did the unthinkable. He even spoke of dividing Jerusalem and allowing the Palestinians to have their capital there in the East. Yasser Arafat stormed out of the meeting. Why did he storm out of the meeting? Everything he had said he wanted was offered there. It was put into his hands. Why did he storm out of the meeting? A couple of months later, there began to be riots, terrorism. The riots began when now Prime Minister Ariel Sharon went to the Temple Mount. And this was used as the thing that lit the fire and that caused the explosion. Did you know that Sharon did not go unannounced and that he contacted the Islamic authorities before he went and secured their permission and had permission to be there? It was no surprise. The response was very carefully calculated. They knew the world would not pay attention to the details. They would portray this in the Arab world as an attack upon the holy mosque. They would portray it as an attack upon that mosque and use it as an excuse to riot. Over the last 8 years, during this time of the peace process, where the Israeli public has pressured its leaders to give up land for peace because they are tired of fighting, there has been increased terror. In fact, it has been greater in the last 8 years than any other time in Israel's history. Showing restraint and giving in has not produced any kind of peace. It is so much so that today the leftist peace movement in Israel does not exist because the people feel they were deceived. They did offer a hand of peace, and it was not taken. That is why the politics of Israel have changed drastically over the past 12 months. The Israelis have come to see that, ``No matter what we do, these people do not want to deal with us. . . . They want to destroy us.'' That is why even yet today the stationery of the PLO still has upon it the map of the entire state of Israel, not just the tiny little part they call the West Bank that they want. They want it all. We have to get out of this mindset that somehow you can buy peace in the Middle East by giving little plots of land. It has not worked before when it has been offered. These seven reasons show why Israel is entitled to that land. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Since it is Valentine's Day, I would like to offer a few brief comments on the heart health status of our nation. It is a serious concern in my state of Oklahoma and all across the country. Today over two thousand Americans will die from some form of cardiovascular disease, and in my state of Oklahoma, almost 45 percent of all deaths this year will be from cardiovascular disease. Heart disease is the number one leading cause of death in Oklahoma and in America. This is a sad state of affairs. Although some children are born with heart conditions, and others may have a genetic tendency toward developing cardiovascular disease, there are many people suffering who could have prevented the onset of heart disease. A healthy diet and regular cardiovascular exercise can prevent high blood cholesterol levels, obesity, and high blood pressure, all of which are risk factors for heart disease. I appreciate the work of the American Heart Association and others in raising awareness of the risk factors, warning signs, and preventative lifestyle behaviors that are crucial in our fight against this type of disease. This year the focus of Heart Month, which we celebrate every February, is Being Prepared in a Cardiac Emergency. I encourage all of my fellow Americans to take a CPR class, and I urge parents to teach their children how to call 9-1-1 in an emergency. Taking just a few cautionary steps can save lives. Heart-shaped cards and candies inundate us this week and especially today. When we see these playful reminders of Valentine's Day, let us be reminded of how we must take care of our heart health and continue to fight the tragedy of heart disease in our Nation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I only have 3 minutes to get under the deadline to offer an amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2825 to S. 1731 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me explain the amendment very briefly. I apologize to the Senator from Georgia. All this does is take the peanut program, which is a dramatically changed program, and delay its implementation for a period of 1 year. Here is the problem we have. If we don't do that, we will have the farmers not knowing, when they go to the bank, what kind of program is going to be adopted right in the middle of their planting season. By doing this, I am sure you will be accommodating the farmers as well as saving some money in this particular year on this bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, every summer since 1968 the National Youth Sports Program, NYSP, has enabled thousands of children, ages ten to sixteen, the opportunity to develop their athletic, academic and leadership skills in a character-building environment. Utilizing both private and public resources, the NYSP successfully partners with the National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, and 200 institutions of higher learning across the country to provide an enriching summer experience for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds. Each participant in the National Youth Sports Program engages with a caring, dedicated adult volunteer while being exposed to the skills, discipline, and self-esteem that organized sports provide. Each student also receives academic enrichment in the classroom, instruction on healthy living and drug and alcohol abuse prevention, leadership training, and a comprehensive medical exam. Collegiate athletes and others from the community volunteer for the five-week program to nurture kids and promote their development of body and mind. The improvement of physical fitness through a variety of daily activities from swimming to soccer is a key component of the program. Using the vehicle of high-energy sports, each student is able to learn valuable life lessons. The academic portion of the National Youth Sports Program has evolved since its beginnings to include special enrichment for math and science and useful computer training. To encourage life-long health and physical fitness, substance abuse prevention training is incorporated at several program sites, and every child receives a thorough medical exam by a local doctor. Quality medical attention is a luxury that many of these children do not otherwise have. President Bush has encouraged our Nation to come together to build communities of character. The National Youth Sports Program is truly a nation-wide community effort. In forty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, volunteers give their time to help young people strive for their best, develop body and mind, and build strong character. In support of the continued success and vision of the National Youth Sports Program, today I am introducing the K.I.D.S. Act: Keeping Inspiration and Development Strong. This bill amends the Community Services Block Grant Act to reauthorize appropriations for the National Youth Sports Program at $20 million for Fiscal Year 2003 and provides for its authorization through Fiscal Year 2008. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation and to make the development of our Nation's greatest resource, children, a national priority. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record. Their being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: