Jim Inhofe

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:

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to stand before the Senate today to wholeheartedly endorse the nomination of Mike Smith to be the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy. Mike is a red-white-and-blue American. He has an outstanding pedigree including the good common sense to come from the great State of Oklahoma. In fact, in his own words, ``I was born and raised in the middle of the Oklahoma City Field and attended the only high school in the Nation with a producing oil well in the middle of the front sidewalk.'' Mike then proudly donned the crimson and cream of the University of Oklahoma for 7 years while earning his undergraduate and law degrees. Immediately thereafter, he patriotically donned Army green during the Vietnam war. As an attorney he has represented oil and gas workers, drilling contractors, service companies, exploration firms, independents, and, ultimately, larger operators. He knows business, too, having run a small, independent oil and gas company in central and western Oklahoma. He has served on the board of directors of the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association and been its president. Moreover, Mike Smith brings to the Department of Energy an excellent background in government service. He served on the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board, a State agency, providing environmental cleanup and public education, voluntarily funded by our State's producers and royalty owners. Mike served under the sky blue and buckskin tan flag of Oklahoma when Gov. Frank Keating appointed him to be Oklahoma's Secretary of Energy. In that capacity Mike served my State as its official representative to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, the Southern States Energy Board, and the Governors' Ethanol Coalition. President Bush has assembled a banner group to assist him in running the Department of Energy, beginning with my friend and former colleague, Secretary Spence Abraham. Mike Smith is of the highest caliber and another true-blue selection by President Bush. I am proud of my fellow Oklahoman. I am excited to work closely with him to develop our national energy policy, particularly to ensure adequate supplies of affordable and clean energy. America's energy strengths derive from the rich natural bounty of our coal, our natural gas, and our oil, as well as from our blessed human ingenuity fostered by America's free market. I am proud to testify to my fellow Americans that America's energy strengths will be handled with flying colors by the ingenuity of Oklahoman Mike Smith.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I heard the other Senator from Illinois talking about all of the people and the officials in Illinois who wanted this. I wanted to give another perspective on this issue. I was elected in 1986, the same time Denny Hastert, now Speaker of the House, was elected. All I have heard from Denny Hastert and from my colleagues on the House side all these years was they wanted to have a third airport. I have to admit I prefer the provisions of Senator Durbin's bill. On a freestanding bill, I am a cosponsor. I think it is a good idea. This also affects something no one has talked about, and that is Meigs Field. So I have some selfish reasons I would like to see that, but not on a Defense appropriations bill. I think it is the wrong place for it, and I will oppose it, even though I agree with the provisions of the bill. I have talked to House Members since 1986, and as near as I can tell they are split down the middle, so there is no unanimity in the delegation that I can see.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I say to Senator Stevens that I appreciate all his hard work on the Defense appropriations bill. I would like to discuss pending actions on the Crusader Program. Crusader is a critical transformation system, which is already a generation ahead of the existing Paladin system. When fielded, Crusader will have unparalleled rate of fire, range of fire and lethality unmatched by any system in the world. We must continue to fund this program in its entirety. To do this we must put $80,972,000 into the Defense appropriations bill. Again, I thank the Senate and the committee for their hard work.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair. First, I say to the leadership how much I appreciate the fact you are allowing me to bust in on a different subject. I think it is very significant at this time because something happened yesterday that I think makes it worthwhile to talk about this and maybe to do so at some length. Willie George was right. Lest some of you do not know who Willie George is, some people consider Willie George a preacher, but he is also a very able historian. As I listened to him and added some perspectives on what the attack on America was all about, I realized the inside-Washington mentality is sometimes and often flawed and that mentality that comes from Oklahoma reflects more of real America. The Apostle Paul gave us our marching orders in Ephesians 6, verses 10, 11, and 12. He said: Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the rulers of this darkness-- About which we are talking-- against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in high places. Make no mistake about it. This war is first and foremost a spiritual war. It is not a political war. It has never been a political war. It is not about politics. It is a spiritual war. It has its roots in spiritual conflict. It is a war to be fought to destroy the very fabric of our society and the very things for which we stand. Many of the wars in history have been fought because of human desire or greed, to have that of a neighboring country--to have mineral deposits, to have what some other country has. But this war is of a different nature. It is not just simple greed that motivated these people to kill. This war has been launched against the United States of America. It is a spiritual attack. It is an attack that was created in the mind and heart of Satan. It is a demonically inspired attack. It is not just the selfish ambitions of an egotistical leader. It is not just someone wanting to hold on to power. This is nothing more than a satanically inspired attack against America created by demonic powers through the perverted minds of terrorists. One may ask: What is it about our Nation that makes them hate us so much? Three things. First, in our country, we have the freedom and the right to choose the kind of worship we want. I am a born-again Christian. I have accepted Jesus Christ as my virtual Lord and Savior. I believe it is through Him that we will reach the Father. I believe every American has a right to choose whether or not to believe that. Some people have the notion that if you are a Christian who believes in the Bible, you are totally intolerant; you do not allow other people to have a choice. Nothing could be further from the truth. In nations of this world where Christianity is the dominant way of worship, we also find Jewish synagogues, Islamic mosques; we find freedom of worship. But we will not find the same kinds of freedom in the militant Islamic nations of this world. They do not allow Christian churches and Jewish synagogues to operate freely. They do not allow people the freedom of choice. In Sudan, they sell Christians into slavery. So one of the reasons America is hated so much is that we have allowed people through the years to choose what they are going to do. It is choice. The second reason we are hated is that we have opened the door for people to achieve their God-given place on this Earth. We have not restrained people. We have allowed people freedom of expression, the freedom to pursue dreams, the freedom to pursue goals. This is not true around the world. Freedom did not come cheap. One of my memories that I consider an advantage for me and that I hold over many others is when I first started my education in first grade, it was in a country schoolhouse. Not many people here know what they are. They are eight grades in one room out in the country. It was called Hazel Dell. In fact, I remember three brothers who rode on a workhorse to school every morning. We had a different sense of history at that time. I remember so well reading and learning history as a very young child in that environment. Keep in mind, that was the environment at the beginning of World War II when we had a sense of patriotism that is comparable to today. I remember my teacher said the Pilgrims did not come to this country for adventure; they did not come for excitement; they were not adventurous people. They came to this country to escape tyranny, to pursue freedoms--freedom of religion and economic freedom. Half of them died the first year. They knew it was going to happen. It was worth it to get these freedoms. They had freedom of religion and economic freedom. Each was given a piece of property to do with as they wanted, and he could work his land and reap the benefits of this property. And he prospered mightily, so mightily that in one of his letters back to England, Smith said: Now one farmer can grow 10 times as much corn as the previous farmers could. They were prospering so mightily. I normally tell young people when you have a good thing going, quite often someone is going to try to take it away from you. That is exactly what happened. The British came across the sea. They wanted in on this prosperity, and they started imposing laws, rules, and regulations so that the trapper on the frontier could not make a hat of the pelt he caught. He had to sell it to British merchants at British prices to be shipped to Great Britain on English ships to be made into a hat by English laborers to be shipped back and sold to the trapper, who caught it in the first place, at English prices. Guess what happened. God bless him, the trapper kept right on making his own hats. That was treason in those days. So they sent this great army to this country, the greatest army in the world at that time, to stop these things from occurring. They started marching up toward Lexington and Concord. I remember so well sitting in that little one-room schoolhouse and having this vision of what it was really like. Farmers and trappers and frontiersmen were up there. They were not well educated, but they were ready to stop this resistance, the greatest army on the face of this Earth. Most of them could not read or write. As the saying goes, they did not know their right foot from their left foot, so they would put a tuft of hay in one boot and a tuft of straw in the other boot and marched to the cadence of ``hay foot, straw foot.'' While they were not greatly educated, they knew freedom, and they were going to keep that freedom. As they stood there knowing they were signing their death warrants, those soldiers, listening to the thundering cadence of the largest army in the world going towards Lexington and Concord, waited until they saw the whites of their eyes and fired the shot heard round the world, not knowing at that very moment a tall redhead stood in the House of Burgess and made a speech for them, made a speech for us today: They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. This is critical. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles with us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave . . . Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace . . . Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God . . . but as for me, give me liberty or give me death. He got both. These freedoms are not found in every nation. America is a great nation because we have magnified the rights of individuals, protected the rights of individuals in our culture. We are careful to allow people to have expression in our society, and we are hated for it. The third reason we are hated is because we are a nation of laws. We are a people ruled by laws. Lest one thinks that is common, do a careful study of the history of the world. Most of the world's countries do not have a 200-year-old Constitution. They are ruled by dictators. They are ruled by the whims of those leaders or by political parties as they change. The rule of law is what makes civilization possible. The rule of law is what makes an orderly society work. If there is no rule of law, the strongest, toughest bully is the one who runs the country. America is a country of law and order because of the philosophies of the people who founded this Nation. They believed in the rule of law because of what they knew from the Bible. Our Constitution and the constitutions of most of the governments in the world are similar and are indeed based upon the Ten Commandments. Our fathers knew that the Ten Commandments and the laws of God were a basis for all laws. They understood the concepts of absolute right and absolute wrong. There were not many who believed in what we today call situational ethics where things change according to our needs. They believed in absolute right and absolute wrong. America was founded on those principles. That is a reason we are hated so much as a nation. We are hated because of the fact we are a beacon of light, a beacon of freedom all the way around the world. We know contemporarily what this means. One of the greatest speeches of all times was ``A Rendezvous with Destiny'' made by Ronald Reagan before he was into politics. He talked about the atrocities committed in Castro's Communist Cuba and about the little boat that escaped and washed up on the southern shores of Florida. When the boat came up, a man who escaped talked about what was happening in Communist Cuba. When he was through talking about the atrocities, a woman said: I guess we in this country don't know how lucky we are. He said: No, no. It is how lucky we are because we had a place to escape to. What he was saying was, we were that beacon of freedom. Many, including the Senator sitting to my right, will remember 15 years ago when the Communists, then the Soviet Union, were trying to get a foothold in Nicaragua and the freedom fighters were fighting for their freedom. I remember going down there, watching them fight against impossible odds. There is no way they could win, by normal concept. They were fighting. There was a hospital tent in Nicaragua. It was half the size of this Senate Chamber. I remember so well, this is where the freedom fighters from Nicaragua would come in and get taken care of medically. There was an operating table in the middle of this giant tent. All they did was amputations. The problem was, of course, the mines. They had the beds of all the patients around the perimeter of this hospital tent. I went around and talked to the individuals. The average age of the fighter in Nicaragua at that time was 19 years old. All the older ones were either maimed or killed. I used to be a pilot in Mexico and I communicate well. I asked each one: Why is it you are doing this against impossible odds? Why are you doing this? Why are you fighting? I got to the last bed. Her name was Maria Gonzalez. I asked her that question. She was 18 years old, weighed 90 pounds, and this was her third trip back to the hospital tent. They amputated her leg that morning. Blood was coming through the bandages. That little girl said: We are fighting because they have taken everything we have, our farms, our houses, all that we have. Surely you in the United States don't have to ask that question because you had to fight for your freedoms against the same odds that we are doing today. And with God's help, we will win, as you, with God's help, won. That little girl didn't know whether our Revolution was fought 25 years ago or 150 years ago. But she was brilliant in her knowledge of freedom. We were the beacon of hope. We were the beacon of freedom. Do you know the outcome? We are hated because we are the beacon of freedom for the rest of the world. We are hated because in America we have freedom of choice and freedom of worship, we have freedom of expression, and we are a nation of laws. Now, why was America attacked on September 11? Why did they single us out? America was attacked because of our system of values. It is a spiritual war. It is not just because we are Israel's best friend. We are Israel's best friend in the world because of the character we have as a nation. We came under attack and we are Israel's best friend. One of the reasons God has blessed our country is because we have honored his people. Genesis 12:3 says: I will bless them who bless you. I will curse him who curses you. This is God talking about Israel. Madam President, on the table where you sit is a Bible. You can look it up. He said: I will bless them who bless you. I will curse him who curses you. God is talking about Israel. One of the reasons America has been blessed abundantly over the years is because we as a society have opened our doors to Jewish people. Jewish people have been blessed in the United States of America. When the tiny State of Israel was founded in 1948, we stood in the beginning with Israel. We were the first country to stand up for Israel. Because we took a stand, other nations in the world followed after very quickly. The United States made it possible for there to be an Israel. We stood with Israel again and again and again in its fight to survive. Make no mistake. It is not just because of our support of Israel. It is what we believe as a nation that caused us to come under attack. Recently in the city of Durban, South Africa, there was a conference called the World Conference on Racism. African Christians are being slaughtered by the thousands today by Islamic fundamentalists in Sudan. You didn't hear a lot about that in the reports of this conference; you didn't hear about racism in South Africa. I have a mission in west Africa and have become pretty familiar with some of the atrocities and the ethnic cleansing going on in the world today. I can remember standing at this podium when we were under a different President. He was trying to get us to send troops into Kosovo, and used in his arguments in Kosovo all the ethnic cleansing and the difficulty going on. I said at that time, for every one person who is killed, who is ethnically cleansed in Kosovo, on any given day there are over 100 who are killed and ethnically cleansed in west Africa alone. Do we hear about that? No, we didn't hear about that at the Conference on Racism. What you heard was how the nations of the world came together and decided all the attention should be focused on the tensions in the Middle East. They were appeasing the terrorists. Israel is under attack in the Middle East because it is the only true democracy that exists in the Middle East. There are more than 20 Arab nations in north Africa and in the Middle East. Virtually every Arab nation is run by either a king or a dictator. Israel is the only true democracy that exists in the Middle East. Madam President, did you know if you are an Arab and have an Israeli citizenship, you can vote in the country of Israel? Did you know the Arabs have parties in the Knesset, the Congress of Israel? Israel is the only true democracy that exists in the Middle East. It has a Western form of government based on the laws we see in the Bible. The laws of God that our country is based on are the same laws from which Israel gets its law. It represents the laws of God. That is the reason it is under attack. We ought to be Israel's best friend. If we cannot stand for Israel today, can we ever again be counted on as a beacon of hope, a beacon of freedom for oppressed nations? You may ask what does this have to do with the attack on America? We are under attack because of our character and because we have supported the tiny little nation in the Middle East. That is why we are under attack. If we don't stand for this tiny country today, when do we start standing for tiny little countries in the world that are right? Yasser Arafat and others do not recognize Israel's right to the land. They don't recognize Israel's right to exist. I will discuss seven things I consider to be indisputable and incontrovertible evidence and grounds to Israel's right to the land. You have heard this before, but it has never been in the Record. Most know this. We are going to be hit by skeptics who are going to say we are being attacked all because of our support for Israel, and if we get out of the Middle East all of the problems will go away. That is not so. It is not true. If we withdraw, it will come to our door and will not go away. I have some observations to make about that in just a minute, but first the seven reasons that Israel has the right to the land. Israel has a right to the land because of all the archeological evidence. This is reason No. 1. It all 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 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 that they were being opposed by a man named Allenby the next day, which in their language means ``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 and particularly to one Jewish chemist who helped them with the manufacture of niter. Niter is an ingredient which goes into nitroglycerin, necessary to the war effort. They were getting dangerously low of niter in England at that time, so the chemist, who was called Weitzman, discovered a way to make it from materials that existed in England. It was coming from the new world over there, the niter was. But the German U-boats were shooting them down so it was all at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. When Weitzman discovered a way to make it from materials that existed in England, it saved the British war effort. Out of gratitude to this Jew and out of gratitude to Jewish bankers and financiers and others who lent financial support, England said we are going to set aside a homeland in the Middle East for the Jewish people. And that is history. 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. 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 didn't have the development it needed to handle all those people, and the land wasn't really wanted by anybody. I want you to listen to Mark Twain. Have you ever read ``Huckleberry Finn'' or ``Tom Sawyer''? Mark Twain--Samuel Clemens--took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described it. We are talking about Israel. 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 didn't exist. It wasn't there. The Palestinians weren't there. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at the 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 of the Palestinian Royal Commission, created by the British. 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. The French author Voltaire described Palestine as: A hopeless, dreary place. In short, under the Turks the land suffered from neglect and low population, and that is a historical fact. The nation became populated with 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 archeological evidence at all 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. Madam President, did you know that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913? Lebanon until 1920? Iraq didn't 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 who would say that 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. So, historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948. The third reason I believe the land belongs to Israel is because of 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 has 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? To give up land? They are not asking for a great deal. You know the whole nation of Israel would fit into my State of Oklahoma seven times. So on humanitarian grounds alone, Israel ought to have the land. The fifth reason Israel ought to have the land is because she is a strategic ally to the United States. Whether we realize it or not, Israel is a detriment, an impediment to certain groups hostile to democracies and hostile to those things that we believe in, hostile to the very things that make 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. Madam President, it is good to know that we have a friend in the Middle East that we can count on. They vote with us in the United Nations more than England. They vote with us 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 a group of terrorists who are very fluid, moving from one country to another. They are almost invisible. That is who we are fighting against. 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 and said this and said this. One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is because the policy of our Government has been to ask Israelis and demand with pressure that they not retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them, the most recent one just 2 days ago. Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars: the war in 1948-1949; 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, with Egypt and Syria. You have to understand that in all four cases, Israel was attacked. Some people may argue that wasn't true because they went in first in the war of 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 two to one. 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 even to participate in the war. They showed tremendous restraint and did not. And now we've 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 offer criticisms of Israel not knowing the true issues. 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.'' He said, ``Are we going to follow that preaching ourselves?'' Mr. Powell indicated that 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. That is one of the reasons I believe the door was opened. Because we have held back our tiny little friend. We have not allowed them to go to the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem--that is where we are going now. But all that changed yesterday 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 7-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--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. 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 here, 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 has 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 was not asking 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 has said he has wanted all of these years was put into his hand. 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 eight years, during this time of the peace process, where the Israeli public has pressured its leaders to give up land for peace because they're tired of fighting, there has been increased terror. In fact, it has been greater in the last eight 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. The unwavering loyalty we have received from our only consistent friend in the Middle East has got to be respected and appreciated by us. No longer should foreign policy in the Middle East be one of appeasement. As Hiram Mann said, ``No man survives when freedom fails. The best men rot in filthy jails and those who cried `appease, appease' are hanged by those they tried to please.'' Islamic fundamentalist terrorism has now come to America. We have to use all of our friends, all of our assets, and all of our resources to defeat the satanic evil. When Patrick Henry said, ``We will not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who reigns over the destiny of nations who will raise up friends who will fight our battles with us,'' he was talking about all our friends, including Israel. And that is what is happening, as of yesterday and I thank God for that. Israel is now in the battle by our side. That is what is happening. As of yesterday, Israel is now in the battle by our side, and I thank God for that. It is time for our policy of appeasement in the Middle East and appeasement to the terrorists to be over. With our partners, our victory must and will be absolute victory. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise to address the problems we are having getting energy legislation to the Senate floor. I strongly believe we need to have a comprehensive energy package brought to the Chamber. My colleagues may remember that a short while ago, I offered an amendment on the Defense authorization bill that would have included a comprehensive energy policy--H.R. 4, the House-passed bill, the bill the administration wants, the bill the majority of people in this Chamber want to pass--in the legislation. I was criticized for that. Yet there is no stronger supporter of the military than I. Having been chairman of the defense authorization readiness subcommittee for some 5 years, I see energy as a major national security issue. Frankly, it was a wrong decision for the Parliamentarian to say it was not germane. Let's look at where we are today. Today we are 56.6 percent dependent upon foreign countries for our oil supply. That means we are 56 percent dependent upon foreign countries for our ability to fight a war. What is alarming is that 50 percent of what we have to import is coming from the Middle East. The fastest growing contributor to that amount upon which we are dependent is none other than Iraq. You can say in one- sentence form: It is ludicrous that we should be considered to be dependent upon Iraq for our ability to fight a war against Iraq. We have a new figure I would like to share with the Senate. In the year 2000 alone, the United States bought $5 billion worth of oil from Iraq. Let's look at where we are today. For all practical purposes, not only are we at war in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq. They have shot down three of our Predators. We have no-fly zones. We have our troops who should be better trained when they arrive in the Persian Gulf. Yet we are dependent upon Iraq and the Middle East for our ability to carry out a war. If something should happen, an accident of a tanker coming in, any number of things, it would be an absolute disaster. I will cite for my colleagues some recent statements that I didn't have at the time to share when I brought up my amendment. One is from Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense. In response to my question, he said: [It] is a serious strategic issue. . . . My sense is that [our] dependency is projected to grow, not to decline. . . . I think you're right to point out that it's not only that we would, in a sense, be dependent upon 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 very serious problem. Senator Carper, the other day, was in a colloquy and statements were going back and forth, and quoting Mr. Greenspan responding to one of Senator Carper's questions--this is Greenspan, and we are getting ready for an economic stimulus: At the moment, the demand for power is pretty soft because the economy is soft. That is going to change. And when it changes, unless we have a long-term focus on how we put our infrastructure together, how we set incentives and rules to, one, maintain energy security while protecting the environment, we are going to run into trouble. And I think unless we give it very considerable thought now--projecting five, six, seven years out in the future--we are going to get sub-optimal solutions. This is not a new issue. I started on this issue back in the Reagan administration. Nor is this a partisan issue because the Reagan administration, while he was President, refused to have a comprehensive energy policy. Then along came George ``the first.'' He came out of the oil patch, so we thought surely this man would be able to successfully have a national energy policy. And he would not do it. This was at a time when we were nearing a war. This is a national security issue, not an energy issue. During the Clinton administration, he would not do it either. Now we have an agreement where the leadership on both sides says we need a comprehensive energy policy. We need to have a vote this year to accomplish two things: One, our national security, to get out of this quagmire in the Middle East and to be able to fight a war; two, an economic stimulus. I can't think of anything that would be more positive to stimulate the economy than a national energy policy. It involves some controversial things, yes. ANWR is one small part of this. People keep saying this is an ANWR bill. It is not. We are talking about H.R. 4 over in the House. It has 300 pages. Only 2 pages are ANWR. It includes a comprehensive approach, including nuclear; some of our marginal production in this country that is virtually cut off because of the unpredictability of prices. If you get a marginal operator drilling a well for 15 barrels or less and he is not going to be able to know the price of oil 15 months down the road, he is not going to do it. Consequently, we are not doing it. If we had all of the marginal production that we have ceased to have over the last 10 years in production today, it would equal the total amount we are importing from Saudi Arabia. Consequently, I see this as a critical issue that has to be dealt with this year. Just recently, I notice almost on a daily basis President Bush expresses the administration's position. This is from the 17th in Sacramento: I ask Congress to now act on an energy bill that the House of Representatives passed back in August. . . . Too much of our energy comes from the Middle East. The plan I sent up to Congress promotes conservation, expands energy supplies, and improves the efficiency of our energy network. Our country needs greater energy independence. The issue is a matter of national security, and I hope the Senate acts quickly. We have many other quotes. I will mention a last one from the Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, the other day: The President has said very clearly this is a priority. This situation-- Referring to September 11-- has made it more urgent, and we need to begin moving the process. We have always said that national security is part of the reason we need to get the energy program in place, and we certainly have not backed away from that position now that September 11 has occurred. So I think there is nothing more important to deal with between now and the end of the session than a comprehensive energy bill. Let's at least bring it up for a vote. That is what this is supposed to be about, so we can debate this issue. We can't really debate this issue, other than the way I am doing it now, in anticipation of a vote, unless we have an opportunity to have a vote. So I think you are going to see this offered again as an amendment. The logical place should be on the economic stimulus package, because this is an economic stimulus issue, as well as a national security issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. That is correct.

Mr. INHOFE. On this point, I have looked at the Kyl amendment, and his language affects a different section. Mine is just found in the section dealing with impact aid under ``basic support.'' Now, the change in funding came from the construction portion of that section, which is a different section. That is my understanding, and it would not make the conference report.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, with that agreement.

Mr. INHOFE. That would be fine. I will accept it.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this is an issue we have addressed many times. We addressed it first during the budget consideration when we were going to increase impact aid by $300 million. Unfortunately, the appropriators have brought it down to an amount a little less than half that. Democrats and Republicans have set a goal so we will have impact aid fully funded sometime in the next 4 or 5 years. This will bring the amount of basic support for impact aid equal to the House figure. That is essentially the amendment.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2018 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. INHOFE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have an amendment I will be offering having to do with impact aid. That is a very significant issue. One of the best programs Congress put together was way back in the 1950s. That was when they made a determination that if the Federal Government came in and federalized land, either for military purposes, Indian schools, or any other purpose, and took the land off the tax rolls, they would still have to educate the kids. Slowly over the years, politicians--none in this Chamber, I am sure--have been taking money out of the impact aid account, so it has gone down to about 25 percent of what it really should be. I will be offering that amendment and wanting to discuss it. (The further remarks of Mr. Inhofe are located in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Today I rise to introduce the Medicare Regulatory and Contracting Reform Act of 2001. I do so at this time because, within the past month, I have received two letters from Medicare Contractors who are withdrawing their services from some Oklahoma counties and other markets across the country. One letter reads, ``. . .over-regulation will force health plans to make the difficult decision to withdraw from some markets. . .''. Nearly half a million seniors will lose their Medicare+Choice health coverage this year. This is unacceptable. Over-regulation and reimbursement issues plague many Medicare contractors and providers. If we do not act to alleviate the ills of this system, more and more Americans will suffer the consequence. This legislation will substantially alter the current system to reduce the regulatory burden on Medicare providers, carriers, fiscal intermediaries and beneficiaries, and it will improve the efficiency and quality of the contracting system by which Medicare operates on a daily basis. In order to help providers, carriers, and beneficiaries understand and implement Medicare regulations, this legislation consolidates the rule-making process for the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. It also provides for the education and training of all parties involved. Should this bill become law, the Secretary of HHS will be required to utilize the mechanisms of competition and incentives in the Medicare contracting process. Both competition and incentives increase performance and quality of service. Streamlining the claims-appeals process to expedite reviews and amending the process of payment recovery will further benefit providers. This legislation enhances the technical support for small rural providers that currently do not have the resources to comply with electronic billing requirements. Finally, to directly assist Medicare recipients, this bill establishes a resource person to answer questions and work through obstacles that arise in the health care process. Passage of this legislation is necessary to stabilize and strengthen a Medicare system that is disintegrating. I am confident that we can bring about beneficial change for millions of Americans who depend on Medicare. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Today I rise to introduce the Medicare Regulatory and Contracting Reform Act of 2001. I do so at this time because, within the past month, I have received two letters from Medicare Contractors who are withdrawing their services from some Oklahoma counties and other markets across the country. One letter reads, ``. . .over-regulation will force health plans to make the difficult decision to withdraw from some markets. . .''. Nearly half a million seniors will lose their Medicare+Choice health coverage this year. This is unacceptable. Over-regulation and reimbursement issues plague many Medicare contractors and providers. If we do not act to alleviate the ills of this system, more and more Americans will suffer the consequence. This legislation will substantially alter the current system to reduce the regulatory burden on Medicare providers, carriers, fiscal intermediaries and beneficiaries, and it will improve the efficiency and quality of the contracting system by which Medicare operates on a daily basis. In order to help providers, carriers, and beneficiaries understand and implement Medicare regulations, this legislation consolidates the rule-making process for the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. It also provides for the education and training of all parties involved. Should this bill become law, the Secretary of HHS will be required to utilize the mechanisms of competition and incentives in the Medicare contracting process. Both competition and incentives increase performance and quality of service. Streamlining the claims-appeals process to expedite reviews and amending the process of payment recovery will further benefit providers. This legislation enhances the technical support for small rural providers that currently do not have the resources to comply with electronic billing requirements. Finally, to directly assist Medicare recipients, this bill establishes a resource person to answer questions and work through obstacles that arise in the health care process. Passage of this legislation is necessary to stabilize and strengthen a Medicare system that is disintegrating. I am confident that we can bring about beneficial change for millions of Americans who depend on Medicare. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Vision 2020 World Sight Day 2001 is observed today, Thursday October 11, 2001, in cooperation with the World Health Organization, WHO, the 2020 Foundation of Tulsa, Oklahoma, Christian Blind Mission International, CBMI, and a partnership of 26 international organizations concerned with world blindness working together to eliminate avoidable blindness by the year 2020. Forty-five million people living in our world today are totally blind. Eighty percent of this blindness could be prevented or cured with simple cost-effective nutrition, medicines and medical care. A child in our world goes blind every minute, most often due to a simple lack of Vitamin A. More than half of these precious children will die within 2 years of losing their sight. The primary causes of blindness, malnutrition, disease, lack of medicines and medical care, are always linked to the grinding poverty so characteristic of developing nations around the globe. Millions of men, women and children needlessly live in a prison of darkness 24 hours a day. They desperately need the help of privileged nations to be set free. The Vision 2020 program plans to eliminate most of the world's blindness by the year 2020. But with no intervention, the number of blind in this world will reach an estimated 100 million by the year 2020. World Sight Day 2001 raises awareness that most blindness, associated misery, and several billion dollars in related costs can be prevented if we as a nation and a world intervene in time. I commend the 2020 Foundation, Christian Blind Mission International and the other members of the 2020 Task Force for helping bring the gift of sight to the less fortunate around the world.