Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been listening intently to our chairman, our ranking member, as well as the Senator from Colorado. I find myself in agreement with virtually everything that has been said. I think it is important for us to realize something that really has not been said, which is that on Friday, September 7, we met--the Senate Armed Services Committee. We passed out of the Armed Services Committee our Defense authorization bill. Four days later, we find ourselves at war. So there are some things that have changed; the dynamics have changed--those things which we know are urgent to our Nation's defense and to our national security. They weren't there back on September 7 when we passed our authorization bill. I have around 14 amendments at the desk. It is not my intention to offer any of them now or call for a resolution to those. But I will be doing it when we get into the bill on Monday. One is to give the President the authority to waive sanctions against allies in our war on global terrorism. This was something we didn't really anticipate on September 7. It was just a matter of weeks ago that we passed sanctions against both India and Pakistan, which receive both military and economic aid. There are some conditions under which the President can waive these sanctions, but they are not too well defined. They put him in a position, when negotiating with countries, where he doesn't have that authority firmly planted within his powers to do it. So I am going to propose in an amendment, No. 1593, that we provide for notification in a 30-day period of time to Congress. But the President can say, if you do this, we are going to lift sanctions. You might argue that there are vehicles in place to lift sanctions right now. But if it happens that we are in recess at that time, if it happens that there is some ambiguity as to whether or not Congress would go along with it, this way he can say, yes, we are going to lift these sanctions or waive these sanctions. I don't think there will be a lot of opposition to this. It is something that would give power to the President, who last night, I believe, gave the defining speech of his career. Second, it deals with something more technical, but I think we need to look at it differently now, and that is depot maintenance. Depot maintenance refers to the type of maintenance of our military fighting equipment that has to be done in a publicly owned depot. The idea behind it, which has always been our policy, was we should have the capability of doing core maintenance--maintenance that would help us in times of war--so that we don't take the risk of being held hostage by a single supplier or contractor. So what I am going to be suggesting is to change our waiver policy. What we have done over the past several years is say, well, we do want the depots to have the capability of maintaining our vehicles. Take, for example, aircraft, the air logistics centers; there are three. There used to be five; now there are three. They are operating with equipment put in place back during World War II. It is outdated. We still have on the books a law that says 50 percent of the core maintenance has to be done in a public depot. So we have been operating on waivers now for several years. The waivers are put in there by the Secretary of the Air Force, in this case, or the Secretaries. This power should be changed so that there is a new accountability. We have gone waiver after waiver after waiver, with no hope that in the following year we would be able to do it without a national security waiver. I will suggest it be written into the bill that we give the President of the United States the authority to waive the performance of depot level maintenance instead of the Secretary of the Air Force. If the President signs the waiver, he must deliver a report that lists why the waiver is necessary and what will be done to prevent the waiver from being required in the future. The President, under the amendment I will be offering, may delegate this to another party. The President has that responsibility. This is what is missing because right now it goes from administration to administration without any interest in really resolving the problem or saying what we are doing to increase the capability of our public depots in order to make the maintenance that is prescribed by law. There are several others. I want to say that even though I am hoping that the amendment I have filed--I have two, 1597 and 1596, that would attach to the Defense authorization bill an energy policy for America. Let me be critical not of Democrats, not of Republicans, but of both, going all the way back to the early eighties because then, when President Reagan was President of the United States, we tried to get him to have an energy policy. In fact, Don Hodel was Secretary of the Interior at that time, or in that timeframe. Mr. President, we had this dog and pony show where we went all around the United States--to the consumption States, not the production States--demonstrating clearly that the outcome of every war, back to and including the First World War, has been determined by who has control of the energy. That is still true today. Nobody believed it then. Since then we have gone through the Persian Gulf war. We realize we have enemies in the Middle East, and yet to a great extent we are reliant on the Middle East for our ability to fight a war. It is insane we should continue that policy. I know there are a lot of Members who are asking why it is an issue right now. It is an issue now because this is a readiness issue. I spent 5 years as chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee. It is now chaired by my distinguished colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, and I am his ranking member. I can tell you right now that we are not ready in many areas to fight the war we are looking at right now. One of those areas is our dependency on foreign oil. Let me put up a chart. My amendment is not a partisan attack. I hope my colleagues do not take it as such. I have been urging Democrats and Republicans to deal with this for years, and they have refused to do it. Even George Sr., coming from an oil patch, said: Yes, we have to have an energy policy, the cornerstone of which would be the maximum percentage of the energy we need to fight a war. In the year 2000, 19.6 million barrels a day was used for the consumers of America. I guess what I am trying to say is, our need for petroleum consumption has been going up for a long time. From the year 2000 to 2001, it is up to 19.7 million barrels of oil a day. That is on the rise. The second chart shows our domestic oil production has sharply decreased over the last 10 years. We have produced less domestic oil since World War II. In January of 1991, we produced 17.6 million barrels a day, and that has dropped down to 6 million barrels a day during this timeframe. On chart No. 3, we can see that our domestic oil production continues to decrease while our consumption continues to increase. This was not true in the days when we started calling this to the public's attention, but it is true today. That means we are getting oil from foreign sources, and that is what this chart shows. It shows our imports in that same year, January of 1991, were 4.6 million barrels a day, and they went up to 8 million barrels a day. It has almost doubled since that period of time. Our dependence on foreign oil has dramatically increased since 1973 and is projected to increase in the future. Currently, 56.6 percent of U.S. oil needs are met by foreign sources. This presents a real energy and national security problem. The military is equally dependent on foreign oil, as is the general public. We must seek to drastically increase a domestically produced, diverse energy supply, including nuclear, coal, oil, gas, and renewables. All these sources of energy are addressed in the House bill, and I have one amendment that would merely adopt the language in the House bill and also the language in the bill from the Senate Energy Committee. Looking at our dependence on foreign oil imports and how it has escalated, we are today at 56 percent. We were at 36 percent when I talked about going around the country alerting people to the seriousness of the problem. In the same progression, we are going to be up to 66-percent dependent upon foreign sources in our ability to fight a war. What is most startling is that we depend on nations in the Middle East, such as Iraq, to supply our oil needs. The Middle East supplies about 25 percent of our oil needs. What shocks an awful lot of people is that of that amount, we are importing 862,000 barrels a day from Iraq, a country we just defeated in a war 10 years ago, a country whose President made the statement that: If we had waited 10 years to march into Kuwait, the Americans would not have come to their aid because we would have the capability of lobbing a missile at them. That is the dilemma in which we find ourselves today. That is why I say this is a national defense issue. Iraq is the fastest growing source of United States oil imports. That is the same nation that we took military action against seven times last month, the same nation we know has links to bin Laden, who is the prime suspect in the horrible attacks in New York and Washington, as well as the U.S.S. Cole and both Embassy bombings in East Africa. This is a major national security problem. Energy will be critical if and when America engages in military action. Operating a modern war machine requires a lot more oil than it used to. A contemporary 17,500-soldier U.S. Army division uses twice as much oil daily than did an entire 200,000-soldier field army during World War II. The 450,000 barrels of petroleum products consumed daily by the 582,000 soldiers in the Persian Gulf was four times the daily amount used by the 2 million allied soldiers who liberated Europe from the Nazis. Today it takes eight times as much oil to meet the needs of each soldier as it did during World War II, and the Department of Defense accounts for nearly 80 percent of all U.S. Government energy use. What I am saying is this is a very serious issue, and this is an issue that directly relates to our readiness, relates to our ability to defend America, and relates to our ability to carry on the war which we are in right now. It is very important that we pass an energy package. I don't care if it is the House wording, I don't care if it is the wording that came out of the Senate Energy Committee, but it directly relates to our ability to fight a war. It will be perfectly acceptable to me if we make an arrangement whereby we agree to passing a comprehensive energy policy by the end of this year and not having it as a part of the Defense authorization bill because it would complicate things. It is very important we pass our Defense authorization bill and get it into conference and signed into law in a very short period of time. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair. And he said: You are absolutely right. So this is the Director of Central Intelligence. Now it comes in three forms. First of all, our conventional capabilities are one-half of what they were in terms of force strength today. And the President pro tempore knows this in terms of the number of Army divisions, tactical air wings, ships dropping from 600 down to 300. No. 2, we have had all these deployments that have taken these rare assets and put them in the position where they are no longer usable. No. 3--this is what I am getting to right now--we were on schedule to have deployed a limited national missile defense system by fiscal year 1998. We would have done that except for the vetoes of President Clinton. I carry with me his veto message of the 1993 Defense authorization bill when, I say to Senator Stevens, he said: I will continue to veto any bill that has money in it for a national missile defense system because the threat isn't there. What people do not understand is, when you take down our military, you are taking down our intelligence at the same time because the intelligence budget is tied to the Defense budget. So our quality of intelligence has deteriorated to the extent that in 1998, on August 24, when I had been asking for a response to a question--how many years will it be when North Korea has a multiple-stage rocket capability?-- the answer came in a letter from General Shelton. It was dated August 24, 1998. It said it will be between 5 and 10 years. A week later, on August 30, 1998, they deployed from North Korea a multiple-stage rocket. I say that not to criticize General Shelton, but the quality of our intelligence is not good. What is the ultimate weapon of a terrorist? The ultimate weapon of a terrorist is a missile with a nuclear warhead. I really appreciated the editorial in this morning's Wall Street Journal. I will read one paragraph out of it in just a minute. But I want to say this: We have an opportunity now to take advantage of the fact that the No. 1 priority of America should be to defend ourselves against an incoming missile. Now they might argue, they might say: Only China and Russia and North Korea have a missile that will reach the United States of America from halfway around the world. I think that may be true. On the other hand, we do know that Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Pakistan--all these countries--have weapons of mass destruction and have at least intermediate-range missiles. So that threat is there today. So I only say that we need to get this done and get it done today. I am going to read just the first paragraph and one of the last sentences of an editorial in this morning's Wall Street Journal: Can anyone doubt that if the terrorists behind Tuesday's attacks had had access to a ballistic missile, they would have used it? Why settle for toppling the World Trade Center if you can destroy all of New York in an instant, without having to go to the trouble of sneaking a crew over the border and arranging for pilot training in Florida? . . . The President's plan for missile defense ought to go forward with all speed. I would say this, and ask it in a different way: Is there any doubt in anyone's mind in America that if an individual is willing to fly a 767 into the towers in New York City, he would not be willing to deploy a missile at the United States of America? When I remember that screen, Mr. President--and you saw it, too--of New York City, the skyline, and those two buildings imploding, if that had been a nuclear warhead, there would be nothing but a cinder, and it would not be 10,000 or 20,000 deaths; it would be millions. I think this is an opportunity for us to make America strong again. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, I be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will identify myself with the remarks of the previous speaker, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. He is a very wise man. He has thought this through. We have heard a lot of wisdom in the last few days in this Chamber. Sometimes a child has an innocent wisdom that is more wisdom than anything we hear in this Chamber. My wife and I have four children and nine grandchildren. I can recall when my No. 2 son, who is now a hand surgeon, was very small, I was teaching him how to ride a bicycle. We have all had this experience, running beside them, and finally they are balanced and they make the first trip around the block. He came up the hill panting away. He looked at me and said: Daddy, I wish the whole world was downhill. We know the whole world is not downhill. We think about these things. I had a phone call from my daughter, Molly, on Tuesday after this tragedy happened. She is a professor at the University of Arkansas, and a very accomplished one. She has four children--three boys and a little girl. In fact, the little girl she just adopted from Ethiopia. Her older boys are Jason, age 5; the next one is Luke, who is 3 years old. She was taking him to kindergarten. On the way to kindergarten, they were listening to the radio. It is Ed Koch speaking from New York. He said--I believe she told me--three times in a row: We need to kill bin Laden. We need to kill bin Laden. We need to kill bin Laden. Little 5-year old Jason looked at up and said: Mommy, who is bin Laden? She said: bin Laden is a very evil, bad man. He said this. He said: Instead of killing Mr. bin Laden, why don't we do a powerful prayer, and we will build a powerful shield around him so that he cannot hear the voices of the devil. He will only hear the voice of God, and God will be in his heart. I thought, that is the real intellect in America. I believe that God is in the hearts of more Americans today than perhaps ever before. People realize that there is something bigger than what has been happening here on Earth. I think because of four reasons I probably had more opportunities to respond to this disaster than others. Those four reasons are: No. 1, I am on the Intelligence Committee; No. 2, I am on the Senate Armed Services Committee; No. 3, I am a licensed pilot; and No. 4, I am from Oklahoma. As far as being a pilot is concerned, I believe that since the retirement of John Glenn, Senator Glenn of Ohio, that leaves me as the last active commercial pilot in the Senate. I have been called by a lot of people in the media to talk about those issues. For example, most of my pilot friends would have thought the same as I did on Tuesday afternoon before any of the details came in, that virtually anyone who knew the basics of flying could take over an airplane that is already in the air and apply those basics to go hit a target--until I heard some of the details--for example, the 757 that I believe we now know, after picking up these fragmented details--we came to the conclusion, which may or may not be right, and we have expressed them here on the floor--the 757 was headed for the White House and for some reason made a diversion, for reasons which we don't know. Maybe that was the original plan. Maybe it was something that was there that made him believe he could not make that target and he made an alternative target, which was the Pentagon. He made a very steep 207-degree turn with the 757 at a low attitude, knowing there is such a thing as a high-speed stall with a high bank. This guy knew what he was doing. He was an accomplished pilot, and he went ahead and hit, I believe, what was the second target in his very well executed terrorist act. Second, as far as flying is concerned, one of my closest friends is-- this goes way back from the time we were in the House of Representatives together--Norman Mineta, a Democrat from California. Both of us were on the Transportation Committee. He was chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee and then the Transportation Committee. We became very close friends. In fact, when he was appointed by President Bush, I called him up. I said: Norm, who was the only Republican who openly supported you even over your Republican opponents during the years that you served in the House. He said: This must be Jim Inhofe. We have had a chance to visit about this. I consider him a very close friend. There are some obvious things that can and will happen. One, I think we all know that we need to have secured doors for the cockpit. That goes without saying. It is very elementary and something that should probably have been done before. Second, sky marshals: It is very important that we adopt a program so that we have sky marshals. Third--and this has come about recently. Someone was very critical of me recently--yesterday, I believe--because I have a hold on one of our President's nominations. He nominated someone to be the Customs Commissioner. I have to share a frustration with you. When I was in the House in 1988, when they had the Pan Am 103 disaster, Jim Oberstar, a Democrat, came with me as a Republican to Europe to test certain types of detection technologies out there that were better than what we had been thinking about. We have to do something to have better detection technology used to protect American travelers and the American people. We found several. We came back, and we were unable to get anything approved, accepted, or even tried by Customs. They were locked into old technology. They weren't going to move from that technology. I didn't do anything until 1995 and Oklahoma City, which is the site of the worst domestic, devastating attack by a terrorist in the history of this country--until this past week. I decided, again, after that, let's see what we can do to try to get some new technology. We discovered a technology called pulsed fast nutron analysis. It is called PFNA. This is a technology that not only shows through something, but for a sealed container, it has a three-dimensional view of what is inside. They can detect what substances are inside. They can detect the chemical composition from within. This is a possibility. I am not saying there is a great likelihood that if we had this technology on Tuesday the tragedy might not have happened because we would have been able to detect things we could not otherwise detect. We thought that this was worthwhile; let's go ahead and authorize it and ask the Director of Customs to have a side-by-side competition or technology competition. So we put that in some report language. Nothing happened. They didn't do it. I spoke to the previous--I will not mention by name--Customs Commissioner in my office. I said: Will you commit to having this competition that we have directed? He said: Absolutely. I will. And he didn't do it. I couldn't figure out why. It wasn't until this happened Tuesday that I thought we couldn't wait any longer. That is when I put a hold on this man because I wanted a commitment that this person who would be the Commissioner of Customs would obey the law and have the competition. In fact, we actually put it in. It is in the appropriations bill over in the House. It has $3 million for the conduct of this competition down in El Paso, TX, and directs them to do it. The language is very clear. I have talked to Senator Dorgan and others over here. They agree that this should be a part of it. I think Senator Stevens would agree with that, as well as the President. I will leave that as the commitment that we are going to try that. As technology advances, we have to advance with it. Getting back to Oklahoma, Senator Biden said something a few minutes ago. He said that I am probably the only one here--prior to Tuesday-- who really understands the pain that goes with a disaster like that. Me pointed towards me. This is because in 1995 we had that terrible, tragic blowing up of the Murrah Office Building. I have to say that even though a detection device would not have precluded that from happening, it reminded me of the need for detection devices. I wouldn't expect that the next terrorist attack on America--there will be more--would come in the form of a 767 or 757. I don't think that is going to happen. But we can still have that technology in place. I can remember at that time--I was reminded of this last night. Last night, I went to the Pentagon. There are 194--I believe at the last count--lives lost at the Pentagon, and 168 in Oklahoma in 1995. It is very analogous. I stood there. I had tears in my eyes remembering 1995. I happened to be there right after it happened and hearing the thundering march of the volunteer firemen going into the Murrah Federal Office Building before it was secure and coming out with bits of body parts; there were hands stuck in the wall; there was a lady, a doctor went in and heroically amputated her leg so she could be pulled from the rubbish. She is alive today. I talked to Cindy Rice yesterday who lives in Oklahoma City. Her son, David, who we assume is dead today, called her. He was on the 104th floor of one of the two towers. I am not sure which one. She wasn't sure which one. He called his mother. She said to me: David has always been a very spiritual boy. Right then I detected from this story that he knew the Lord, and that he knew what was going to happen to him. And he called, really in a sense of joy, saying: ``Mother, don't worry about this. I'm going to be well taken care of.'' Here is a guy calling, knowing he is about to die in the implosion of that building. So these stories are out there, and we have heard so many of them. I think we all have such a seriousness in our hearts for what happened, but I would like to say this: People ask the question, Should we declare war? There is all this talk about war. On whom do you declare war? I think we need to stand back and look and see. Yes, we think we know that Osama bin Laden was involved in this. It is not clear cut. I remember so well, as I am sure the President pro tempore remembers, back in 1986 when, in a discotheque in Germany, there was a terrorist attack that ended up injuring many American soldiers and killing another. At that time President Reagan was the President of the United States, and we determined that Muammar Qadhafi did it. In a matter of hours after that took place, he dispatched, in addition to other planes, the first real use of our first stealth plane, the F-111, to Libya. And they took them out. They bombed them. We have not heard from Qadhafi since then. That was 15 years ago. This is not that easy. We do not have the target out there. But we need to act just as decisively when that time comes. It would be a disservice to the American people and to our system and to America to do that before we know. But lastly, and this is the most significant thing I want to visit with--I do not say this critically of the previous administration--I am saying that during the Clinton administration the priorities were different than they were during the Reagan administration and the Bush administration before him. He did not have the emphasis on defending America and building a strong defense. Now, as evidence of that, I have a couple of charts I have made for this purpose. If you took the fiscal year 1993 budget, and you took all of the money that was appropriated in that budget for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, then that would be right at this point shown on the chart. Eight years after that, if you took the normal CPI, or any inflation figure you want to use--this is the index we use--and added for inflation, then what he would have appropriated for Labor, HHS, and Education would be this red line shown on the chart. However, this is what he did as shown on the green line. So at the end of 8 years he ended up successfully asking for the appropriation of $150 billion above the inflation rate. If you took Defense and you used that same model, and you started with fiscal year 1993, and took the amount that was appropriated at that time, if you added for inflation, this is where it would be today shown on the chart with the red line. However, the green line shows us the actual budget. So in that 8-year period, his request for appropriations, I say to Senator Stevens, was $375 billion below the inflation rate. Those were his priorities, and he was elected President. I do not have a problem with that. But I can tell you, we were saying all along we were getting into a very serious problem. I began to end every speech in 1995 with this phrase. I said: We, in America, are in the most impaired and threatened position today than we have ever been in the history of America. It was not until 1998, when the Director of Central Intelligence happened to be present, that I said this same thing in a meeting that was broadcast live on C-SPAN, when I was chairing the Readiness Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. I said: Mr. Director, I have been saying we are in the most threatened position today that we have ever been in in the history of America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes. I know that we are talking about 5-minute intervals. I will make that request now and then we will worry about in what order we go.

Mr. INHOFE. I am glad to wait until approximately 11:30, if necessary.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings for considering this amendment. For purposes of clarification, it is my understanding that this amendment will decrease funding from the National Oceanic and Atomospheric Agency (NOAA) Procurement, Acquisition and Construction account by $500,000, specifically from the ``Norman Consolidation Project,'' and add the same amount, $500,000, to the International Trade Administration, Trade Development account for International Trade Processing Center Programs in McCain County, Oklahoma. Is that how the Senator from New Hampshire understands this amendment?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have heard so many sincere speeches by Members of the House and Members of the Senate, and I have heard a lot of redundancy. We certainly have the resolve to do all we can to go after those who were responsible. The one question I have heard over and over again is: Did we receive a warning? Were we warned this was going to happen? I look at this in a little different context in that this should serve as a warning to us. It is time to get something on the record in the Senate as to what this means and what it really could mean in the future. Ironically, at the time this happened I was on the ninth floor of the Hart Building in the Nation's Capitol complex, and I was looking out the window as I was speaking to a group. The last phrase of my speech was the same as it has been since 1995, and that is: We in the United States are in the most vulnerable and threatened position now as a nation than we have ever been in this Nation's history. As I said that, it happened to be right at 9:30 and I saw this billowing smoke come up from the area of the Pentagon, to find out later the tragedy really took place. We are vulnerable, and we are vulnerable in three areas, certainly in conventional forces being one-half the force strength we were in 1991. We have to understand this; the American people have to understand this: We deployed our very rare resources to places where we should never have sent an American, such as Bosnia or such as Kosovo. More than any other reason our vulnerability is that we had the opportunity to have a missile defense system in place by fiscal year 1998, and I say this criticizing the previous administration because they did not realize the threat was out there, the threat was real. We have veto messages from President Clinton that said: I will veto any bill that has money in it for a national missile defense system because the threat is not there. In fact, a threat is there. So in looking back at what happened yesterday, I think we should have that as a warning to us of what could be even more devastating than what we witnessed yesterday. I mention what I consider to be six incontrovertible facts. First of all, we are facing enemies who have the weapons and the skills and the mentality to strike without warning. We know that. No. 2, they are willing and able to target innocent civilians within our borders. No. 3, virtually all countries have weapons of mass destruction today, biological or chemical or nuclear. No. 4, at least three countries--I say at least because we know North Korea, Russia, and China have ICBMs that will reach the United States from anyplace in the world but we do not know for sure that they are the only three countries because we do know China has been trading systems and technology with countries such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Pakistan. So we do not really know how many there are, but we know at least they exist out there. No. 5, we have absolutely no defense. I hope Americans understand that if a missile came over from anyplace in the world, we would be totally naked. We have no defense against an incoming ICBM. No. 6, the will is out there. No one can question that the will is there. We can remember even China saying back during the Taiwan Straits demonstration: We are not concerned about America coming to the aid of Taipei because they would rather defend Los Angeles than Taipei. Then we remember what Saddam Hussein said in 1991: If we had waited just 10 years to go into Kuwait, the Americans would not have come because we would have had the ability to launch a missile. And here it is, 10 years later. I hope no one has any doubt, there should not be one Member of the Senate that has any doubt--of the fact that if someone is willing to drive an airplane into those towers, they would deploy a missile to the United States of America. I, like everybody else, watched TV. I watched that skyline and the devastation in New York. I saw the skyline of New York City and the two towers imploding. If that weapon had been, instead of an airplane, a nuclear warhead, we would be looking at a cinder. It would not be 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000 people who lost their lives; it would be everybody in that area. We would be talking millions. It is a very real threat. The ultimate weapon of a terrorist is a missile with a nuclear warhead. We now know that. We have been warned. We should make our No. 1 priority not just to go to our intelligence system and our conventional forces but to immediately get busy on being able to deploy a system at least to defend America against a limited missile attack. This should be our No. 1 priority. We are now warned. The ultimate weapon of a terrorist could become a reality very soon.

Mr. INHOFE

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

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on the bill before the Senate, it is my understanding some people are trying to work out an agreement, but I rise in opposition to the Export Administration Act. A lot of people state the purpose of this bill is to protect the national security. We are kidding ourselves. The real objective of those who wrote this bill and who actively support it is to promote trade and transfers of the very dual-use high technologies which, in the wrong hands, pose a serious threat to national security. Their emphasis is such liberalized trade will be good for the economy, but we have to ask: At what price? This debate does not occur in a vacuum. We have the record of the last 8 years when we had an administration which deliberately ignored and undermined our Nation's cold war system of export controls designed to protect national security. Their attitude was that the cold war was over so there was no real threat out there. Why worry about technology transfers? Why worry about rogue state missile systems and weapons programs? This flies in the face of everything that is logical. We have had very serious problems in hearing things taking place in China. During the elections in Taiwan when there was a notion we might go in there and try to intervene, they were trying to intimidate the elections by firing missiles in the Taiwan Straits. Later on the second highest ranking Chinese military officer said: We are not concerned about America coming to the aid of Taipei because they would rather defend Los Angeles. Then we had the Defense Minister of China saying, war with America is inevitable, which he has repeated 3 times, once in the last 8 months. We have a serious problem out there and we have to recognize that. My fear is a lot of this technology is going to go to countries such as China, and specifically China. I will review the actions of the Clinton administration. The first thing they did in 1994, shortly after taking office, they ended COCOM, the Coordinating Committee on Multinational Export Controls. This was put together so we and our allies could all agree not to export high technology that could get in the hands of the wrong people. That system was set in place, and in 1994 the administration ended that. The administration, shortly after that in 1996, took control of the authority on export licenses out of the hands of the State Department and put it in the Commerce Department. Later they recognized it was wrong, the public recognized it, and after the Cox report they moved it back to the State Department. The granting of waivers for missile defense technologies--we all remember the significant problem we had when the administration signed a waiver to allow China to have the guidance technology produced by the Loral Corporation, owned by the Hughes Corporation, that allow the Chinese to have the guided-missile technology that gave them more control over where the missiles might go, even if one might be coming toward the United States. They allowed transfer of high-performance computers, which ended up helping improve Chinese military systems. The theft of our nuclear secrets, at that time we had 16 nuclear compromises. Eight were before the last administration; eight were during the Clinton administration. We discovered that of the eight before the Clinton administration, one went back as far as the Carter administration, which was discovered by this country when a walk-in informant came to a CIA office with the documentation that China had that information from those other compromises from the previous administration. Yet it was covered up until the Cox report came out 4 years later and we realized China had virtually everything. The main thing that concerns me is we have a threat out there today. We have been guilty of allowing our nuclear secrets to get into the hands of the wrong people. Until this is under control, I think it would be premature, in my opinion, to pass, to implement those changes recommended in the Export Administration Act under consideration today. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as we are waiting for some things to happen right now, I am very distressed about some of the things we are hearing about a concerted effort to stop our missile defense language we have proposed for this year that the President has been very outspoken on, a recognition that we are in a very threatened position. I think it is kind of a shock to many American people when they find out, and I say find out, not hear but find out, that we are in the most threatened position we have been in as a nation perhaps in the history of this country. I can remember saying this back in 1995, and finally we had the Director of Central Intelligence about 2 years ago say that, in fact, we are in the most threatened position we have been in as a nation. There is a current movie that people have gone to. I happened to see it on an airplane the other day. It is called ``Thirteen Days.'' It is a story about the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, and some of us are old enough to remember the hysteria that hit the streets in the United States. People were going to the supermarkets and stocking up on things. They were digging storm shelters and telling their friends: Do not come to our house because we are digging a storm shelter. It was panic, and it was panic because they woke up one morning and found out there were Soviet missiles on the island of Cuba aimed at American cities, and that we had no defense against those incoming missiles. Those were medium-range missiles that could have hit any American city in the continental America other than Seattle. So it is understandable people were panicked about it. Yet if you saw this movie, one of the alternatives was to take 20 minutes and go down and wipe out the island of Cuba. That was one alternative, and that is why we say and I say that the threat facing America is greater today than it was then, because of those missiles that are currently targeting American cities. And this is not something that is up for debate, it is not something that anyone is going to challenge, because it was classified material until one of the newspapers was able to get some information here about 2 years ago, and, yes, at that time they said at least 18 American cities were targeted by missiles from China. It goes without saying and everybody knows that virtually every country has weapons of mass destruction, either biological, chemical, or nuclear. The thing they do not have, at least up until recently, is a missile to deliver those weapons. Now it is a different story. We know for a fact that North Korea, Russia, and China have missiles that will reach the United States of America. Let me be real specific. If the Chinese were to deploy a missile from somewhere around Beijing, it would take 35 minutes to get here, and during that 35 minutes we have absolutely nothing in our arsenal to knock down that missile, zero. We are naked. It is hard to explain the devastation that can take place by an incoming nuclear missile. I come from the State of Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, we had the most devastating domestic terrorist attack in the history of this country. That was when the Murrah Federal Office Building explosion occurred. That was devastating, and 168 people lost their lives. I was there just a few minutes after it happened, and I can remember the parts of the bodies that were stuck to the walls of the building that was still smoking. It was still insecure when all of these firemen who had volunteered came all the way from as far away as Maryland to help to try to go in and secure the building, to try to find the bodies. Many bodies were never found. That was a terrible explosion, and yet the smallest nuclear warhead known to man is 1,000 times that explosive power. So think about what that could do relative to the disaster that took place in Oklahoma a few years ago. Now we are faced with this threat. I would like to think that is the only problem, but there are other problems. We are at one-half the force strength of 1991. How many people know that? Is that debatable? I am talking one-half Army divisions, one-half tactical air wings, one- half of the ships--down from 600 to 300 ships. It is usually reassuring to people, thinking that although we are at one-half strength, we have the best military personnel, we have the best of equipment, the most modern equipment. That is not true anymore. We had a hearing the other day before all the Chiefs. There was a friend of mine in the audience named Charles Sublett, a hero in Vietnam, flying F-4s and F-100s while the Navy was flying A-6s and A- 4s. I identified him as a hero. He stood up. I said: Let me ask you this question--and a lot of people differ as to the war in Vietnam; there is a difference of opinion Americans have--was it true every piece of equipment you had was better than that which any potential adversary had? He said: Absolutely. Today that is not true. The best air-to-air missile we have is the F- 14. It is not as good as the SU-27 now manufactured on the open market and bought by the Russians and Chinese, and the best we have for air- to-ground capability is the F-16 and still their SU-30 is better. I asked the same question of the generals testifying. They said that is true in terms of the range and the maneuverability. Our pilots are better, but the equipment is not as good. The same is true with artillery capability. The Paladin is outgunned in terms of range and fire by almost everything our potential adversaries have. It is not just that we do not have a missile defense in this country when the threat is every bit as real as 1962 when everybody panicked. We have a real job in trying to do an adequate job defending this country with the defense authorization bill that will be forthcoming. Tonight we have our first meeting. We had subcommittee meetings today, and tonight we have our first meeting. I hope this does not end up being a partisan bill. People recognize defending America has to be the No. 1 priority.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, as many people may be aware, my state of Oklahoma has well over a quarter of a million American Indians. Even Oklahoma derives its name from the Choctaw words, ``okla'' meaning people and ``humma'' meaning red. Today, I am pleased to introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Nickles, a bill that will provide a grant to help fund the construction and development of the Native American Cultural Center and Museum, which will be centrally located along the North Canadian River at the southeast corner of Interstate 35 and Interstate 40, in Oklahoma City. This project marks the culmination of years of dreaming and planning by many people, including state Senator Kelly Haney, who is recognized world-wide for his Indian art. The Native American Cultural Center will provide people from all over the world with an extensive picture of American Indians from the earliest civilization in North America, to their current role in today's society. Through art, music and dance, visitors will be able to see the wide array of lifestyles, customs and language of American Indians come alive as they walk through the various displays. The Center will include a 300-seat theater, a museum store, a 40,000 square-foot amphitheater, a festival market place, and artist and dance exhibits. As an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, it will share and showcase artifacts from one of the world's most renowned museums. An internationally acclaimed team of architects, planners, engineers, and technical consultants, who have participated in projects from the National Holocaust Museum to films such as Jurassic Park, have come together to create a complex that features the distinct characteristics of all of Oklahoma's tribes. By bringing economic development and cultural diversity to Oklahoma, the Native American Cultural Center and Museum will not only benefit the people of Oklahoma, but the nation as a whole. This important project will serve as a reminder of the rich heritage of the first Americans as well as a symbol of hope and progress for the future.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I would like to add a similar resolution passed by the Oklahoma Transportation Commission also supports US 287 as the preferred route to Denver, CO. I think it should also be noted that the Texas Department of Transportation has indicated that it would defer to Colorado to negotiate the alignment of the northern section of the corridor. I share the concerns of the Senator from Colorado about a New Mexico feasibility study.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in a couple of days, July 27th to be exact, I will be going to Oshkosh, WI, to attend ``2001 Air Venture'' or the Oshkosh Fly-In for those of us who are involved in general aviation. This will be the 23rd consecutive year that I have gone and it is an event that I look forward to each July. As in years past, I will use the opportunity to catch up with old friends, watch a couple of air shows, and look over hundreds of planes. In addition, this year I will have the opportunity to meet a true American hero, Colonel Harold Dean Weekley, retired, who will be honored by the WAR BIRDS for his 30 years of service in the Army Air Corp and then the United States Air Force. During World War II, Colonel Weekley flew B17's where he had a great many close calls but in each instance heroically finished his mission and on several occasions put his own life on the line to protect his crew. I know all my colleagues will agree with me that we owe the men and women of the Armed Forces a tremendous debt of gratitude because they are the ones on the front lines protecting our liberty. Colonel Weekley and his generation went above and beyond the call of duty when they put their lives and careers on hold to fight in a conflict a half a world away which many at the time did not believe should involve the United States. Certainly in hindsight, American involvement in World War II was not only the right thing to do but critical to our own security. It was courageous individuals like Colonel Weekley that won the war. Therefore, I think it very fitting that the WAR BIRDS honor Colonel Weekley for his service and urge my colleagues to join me in thanking the Colonel for the sacrifices he has made for us.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to bring attention to an issue that affects all Americans, government waste. As we all know, the Federal Government is infamous for its profligate programs and approaches to problem solving. In the last decade, we have seen inefficiency of mammoth proportions within the government. As a result, I have introduced legislation that would establish a national commission to eliminate government waste. This act would resurrect President Reagan's work to find an equitable way to enact fiscal responsibility and accountability within the government. During the Reagan Administration, a private sector study of government was commissioned to dispose of Federal waste, mismanagement, and abuse. Led by industrialist J. Peter Grace, the Grace Commission produced 47 reports with 2,478 recommendations. As a result of this study, President Reagan issued executive orders that saved the Federal Government more than $110 billion. Today, many Federal agencies still use cumbersome bureaucratic procedures. The National Commission to Eliminate Waste in Government Act would establish a commission to conduct a private sector survey on management and cost control within the government. It would also provide an opportunity for the commission to review existing reports on government waste. Because the commission would be funded, staffed, and equipped by the private sector, it would not cost the government one dime. I urge my colleagues to support this end to government waste and the beginning of discipline and efficiency within our government.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to bring attention to an issue that affects all Americans, government waste. As we all know, the Federal Government is infamous for its profligate programs and approaches to problem solving. In the last decade, we have seen inefficiency of mammoth proportions within the government. As a result, I have introduced legislation that would establish a national commission to eliminate government waste. This act would resurrect President Reagan's work to find an equitable way to enact fiscal responsibility and accountability within the government. During the Reagan Administration, a private sector study of government was commissioned to dispose of Federal waste, mismanagement, and abuse. Led by industrialist J. Peter Grace, the Grace Commission produced 47 reports with 2,478 recommendations. As a result of this study, President Reagan issued executive orders that saved the Federal Government more than $110 billion. Today, many Federal agencies still use cumbersome bureaucratic procedures. The National Commission to Eliminate Waste in Government Act would establish a commission to conduct a private sector survey on management and cost control within the government. It would also provide an opportunity for the commission to review existing reports on government waste. Because the commission would be funded, staffed, and equipped by the private sector, it would not cost the government one dime. I urge my colleagues to support this end to government waste and the beginning of discipline and efficiency within our government.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. That would be fine.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do want to be heard on this issue. But in fairness to the other side, I would like to defer so long as I can follow the Senator, in this order, because of a timing problem.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from Washington is very sincere in her remarks, but I believe there is a problem in insisting that we are legislating on a situation that doesn't exist. I will point out examples of that. When Senator Helms first started, his microphone wasn't quite on high enough and we were not able to hear his remarks. I will repeat the first couple of things he said. He talked about the Boy Scout movement in our Nation as being part of the largest voluntary youth movement in the world, with U.S. membership totaling over 6 million. He also mentioned the three basic fundamental principles. The fundamental principles of the Boy Scouts include, one, a duty to God and respect for individual beliefs; two, loyalty to country and respect for the laws of the land, service to others, and a spirit of voluntarism; and, three, the training of youth in responsible citizenship, physical and mental development, and character advancement. As a private organization, the Boy Scouts of America has the right to select persons it believes will provide the leadership that measures up to the high caliber of standards of this fine institution. Boy Scouts and other similar groups have a constitutional right to associate freely, and our publicly funded schools should not inhibit that right of access to public school facilities. Not only is this my opinion; it has been found to be the law of the land by the Supreme Court. In June of last year--this has been alluded to--in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Supreme Court ruled that Boy Scouts have the constitutional right to specifically exclude homosexual members and leaders. The Helms amendment was prompted by the denial of public school access to groups such as the Boy Scouts even after this Supreme Court decision. For example, the Broward County school board voted to keep Boy Scouts from using public schools to hold meetings, in direct violation of the Supreme Court's decision. Luckily, in the Boy Scouts v. School Board of Broward County, in March of this year, the U.S. district court in Florida issued an injunction to block the county's attempt to evict the Scouts from public school property. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. This is why I make the point that there is a problem out there. The Congressional Research Service, which Senator Helms alluded to, has reported that at least nine school districts have publicly attacked Boy Scouts, which is in direct contradiction of the ruling of the Supreme Court. Let me give a couple examples of this. In Chapel Hill, NC, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school board voted, on January 11, 2001, to give Scouts until June to either go against the rules of their organization or lose their sponsorship and meeting places in schools. In New York City, the New York City school chancellor, Harold Levy, said the school system would not enter into any new contracts with the Boy Scouts of America. This is something that happened after that Supreme Court decision. The Los Angeles City Council has ``directed all of the city's departments to review contracts with Boy Scouts and order an audit of those contracts to ensure compliance with a nondiscrimination clause.'' In Madison, WI, it is the same thing. It goes on and on--quite a lengthy list. The repetitive, hostile actions taken against the Boy Scouts are inexcusable and against the law and should be stopped immediately. The Helms amendment reinforces the constitutional rights of Boy Scouts and the Supreme Court decision upholding those rights. This amendment states that if a public school has designated ``open forum,'' then the school cannot discriminate against Boy Scouts of America or any youth group on the basis of its membership or leadership criteria or on the basis of its oath of allegiance to God and country. The oversight provisions of the amendment ensure that the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education will protect the Boy Scouts as it protects other groups that have been or are discriminated against. We are talking about antidiscrimination in this amendment. The amendment proposes that any public school receiving Federal funding from the Department of Education must allow the Boy Scouts or other similar youth groups equivalent access to school facilities and must not discriminate against these groups by requiring them to admit homosexuals as members or leaders or any other individuals who reject the Boy Scout oath of allegiance to God and country. So I just submit that I disagree, and it is an honest disagreement with the Senator from Washington. There is a problem, and it is necessary to legislate against this problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask if the impact aid amendment is in this group.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to make a couple of comments about the amendment to which I alluded with the Senator from Massachusetts just a moment ago. It has to do with impact aid. I think that is a very misunderstood issue. Back in the 1950s when various Government programs and military installations and other land operations came in and took land off the tax rolls, that had a negative impact on our schools. I know in my State of Oklahoma we have five major military installations. While the amount of money that would be generated from the taxes is taken off the tax rolls, we still have to educate the children. For that reason, back in the 1950s a program was set up to replenish the money that otherwise would have gone to schools. This is something everyone supports. However, since the 1950s, there has been this insatiable appetite for politicians to take money out of the system, and they have done this, so impact aid has dropped down to about 25 percent of funding. Starting 3 years ago, I had an amendment to incrementally build that up. Hopefully, 4 or 5 years from now, we will reach the point where it will be 100 percent funded. This is the right thing to do. It is not partisan, liberal or conservative. It is something that has to be done. We have an amendment, and, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts as well as the Senator from New Hampshire, I appreciate their cooperation and willingness to include this in the managers' amendment. As I say, we have passed this now for 2 consecutive years. We are slowly getting up to where we can properly take care of school districts that have been unfavorably impacted by the reduction in the tax rolls. I thank them for that and for their assurance this will be in a managers' amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. However, there is a pretty clear understanding it will be included? I understand it has been agreed to on both sides. I will not object.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.