Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I was going to request a few minutes, instead of going into a quorum call.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I seek recognition.

Mr. INHOFE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, while I was presiding, something occurred to me. I felt compelled to share it. Right now, something very significant is taking place. There is a conference committee that is looking at the bill that we passed and the bill that was passed in the House of Representatives. They are going to come out with a product and decide just how to change it because the bills are not exactly the same. It is a piece of legislation that will do something very significant. It is going to provide tax relief for the American people. It occurred to me--I will use the words ``liberal'' and ``conservative'' in a very friendly way, but all too often, people do not know what you are talking about when you call someone a liberal or a moderate or a conservative. A liberal believes that Government should have a greater involvement in his or her life and really believes that there are more things in which the Government should be involved. I suggest to you that the more things Government gets involved in, the more individual freedoms we lose. I happen to be a conservative. I agree that Government is involved in too many things. I think that other than national defense, which we need to be more involved in right now, there are many activities taking place in this country that our Founding Fathers really did not think were the role of the Federal Government. We are in a very strange time right now. We are in a time when we have surpluses. We are all very gratified for that. But the whole idea of tax relief is offensive to people who fall into the definition I just referred to of a liberal. They want to use that money. They want to start new programs. Now we have this time of surplus. I want to applaud the President of the United States, George W. Bush, because what he said he wanted to do was, first of all, take everything that could be used to spend down the deficit for the next 10 years and use it. I have a lot of town meetings in my State of Oklahoma with very wise people, but they are too busy going out to make a living and paying for all this fun we are having in Washington, that they do not really understand that when you have such surpluses that once you use those surpluses to start new Government programs, then the Government programs might work, and the problems that they are addressing might go away but the Government program goes on. I can remember that one of the greatest speeches made during my career was one that was made many years ago by Ronald Reagan before he even ran for Governor of California. The speech was called ``Rendezvous With Destiny.'' He said: There's nothing closer to immortality on the face of this Earth than a Government agency, once formed. So if you don't want to increase the size and scope of Government, then you need to address what the President is addressing now. President Bush said: Let's start off by taking all the money to pay down the debt. Most people think, if you had $5 billion, you go up there and drop it someplace and the debt would be gone. That is not true because you can't pay off something until it comes due. So what this President has suggested to us is, let's pay off everything for the next 10 years that can be paid off on the national debt. Then let's look at Social Security. Let's make sure the fund is actuarially sound and the money is going to be there for the people when they reach the age that they can draw it out. Incidentally, Social Security reform doesn't mean that is going to change. That program would continue; the money will be there; but it will give some of the new people who come into the program an option as to what they do with the money they pay into the system. Then the President said: Let's take Medicare and do the same thing with that. So he proposed actually increasing it by $153 billion over a period of 6 years--that would take care of that problem--and after that, to put some money in so we can take care of a very serious problem, the most serious problem the Nation is facing right now, and that is the demise of the military over the last 8 years. Let's build that back up. After that has been done, all of that is behind us, then let's take this surplus that remains and return it to the American people as an overpayment because they paid too much. It is like buying a car and you find out when you get back home, you read the sticker price and think, wait a minute, I paid too much. You go back to the dealer and you expect to get the money back. He would say: I gave it to my mother-in- law. That is kind of what happens in this case. So we have the opportunity to return to those who paid it an amount of money. We should be looking at a much larger tax reduction than they are negotiating right now. What they are negotiating right now, if you put it in as a percentage of GDP, would be about 1 percent. Yet our other two major reductions in this century were far greater than that. The liberals are missing a bet. If they really want to get more money into the system, they should be supporting larger tax cuts because history has shown us, when you reduce the marginal rates, it has the effect of increasing revenues. Going back to World War I, the President, after World War I, said: The war effort is behind us now so we will go ahead and reduce these marginal income tax rates. And they did. To their shock, they found out that it didn't reduce revenues. It massively increased revenues. I am a conservative Republican. I look back wistfully at the days when we had a President, a Democrat, who realized that this concept works every time. It was President Kennedy in the 1960s who said, we need to expand the role of Government and get into a lot of programs-- perhaps such as the dental program the Presiding Officer discussed--and the best way to do this--this is a direct quote from President Kennedy--to increase revenues, is ``to reduce the marginal rates so that the economy will expand.'' For each 1-percent expansion in the economy, that produces about $46 billion in new revenue. Sure enough, it happened. In fact, it almost doubled the revenue in the 6 years after that massive cut. Remember how big that cut was? It went from 91 percent down to 78 percent. It was a huge cut, much greater than we are talking about doing today. So that worked and some of these programs were funded. Then along came Ronald Reagan. The decade of the 1980s, from 1980 to 1990, saw the largest tax reduction in the history of this Nation. President Reagan was elected and the first thing he did was sign the tax reduction. He took that 78-percent rate and brought it all the way down to, I think, 28 percent. The result was great increases, massive increases in revenues. To document that, the total amount of revenue that came in from all marginal rates in 1980 was $244 billion. In 1990, it was $466 billion after all the reductions that had taken place, the largest reductions in any 10-year period in the Nation's history. You hear the liberals saying: Look at all the deficits that came about during that 10-year period. That wasn't a result of the President. That was a result of a very liberal, big-spending, Democrat- controlled House and Senate that increased the spending. You cannot blame that on the President because he was the one who reduced the taxes and was responsible for doubling the revenues at that time. We should stand back and look at this. We had one of the financial advisers to President Clinton, when he was President when he first came in, who made the statement that there was no relationship between the level of taxes the Nation pays and its productivity. Theoretically, that means if you pay 100-percent taxes, you will be just as motivated to work hard and to expand the economy as if you were paying no taxes. Obviously, that doesn't make sense. It is time the American people realize what we are trying to do and what this President is trying to do and that we get the best conference report out and that this can be a very historic time because sometime, maybe today, that conference report will come out. It will incorporate some tax reduction, not great tax reduction--the top rate may be going down from 39 to 35 percent--and actually eliminating some taxes down at the lower income level. I think we have an opportunity to pass this thing out today. This will go down as probably a great legacy, not just for the President of the United States but for the House and the Senate which are working on this. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize a group of people who are often overlooked--the unborn. Recently, the House has passed legislation that would protect this defenseless group from violent attacks. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 would make it a crime to assault or murder an unborn child. Recently, I have come across several compelling stories that show the importance of this legislation. One such story is of Tracy Marcinlak of Wisconsin. On February 8, 1992, Tracy was pregnant with her son, Zachariah, who was due to be born in four days. That night, Tracy's husband, Glendale Black, brutally beat her and refused to let her get help. Eventually relenting, her husband let her call an ambulance and Tracy was rushed to the hospital. Little Zachariah was delivered by an emergency Caesarean section. It was too late. He had bled to death from blunt-force trauma. Unfortunately, in 1992, Wisconsin did not have an unborn victims law and state prosecutors were unable to convict Tracy's husband under a law that required them to prove that he intended to kill Zachariah. He was only convicted of assaulting Tracy. Glendale Black, who murdered his own son, is already eligible for parole. In response to violent acts such as this, the Wisconsin legislature passed one of the nation's strongest unborn victims laws in 1998. However, even today, there is no federal law to prosecute criminals who kill unborn children. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 would correct this injustice. Under this law, people like Glendale Black, who kill their unborn children, will be prosecuted in the same manner as if they had murdered someone who is already born. I applaud my colleagues in the House for passing this important legislation as it will give unborn children a fundamental right--the right to live. Many of our forefathers fought and died to make this a basic right for all Americans. Today, the fight continues. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join me in this fight and vote yes to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill that will help many truck-drivers across the country. As we all know, the trucking industry has incurred an incredible cost increase in recent years due to higher fuel prices and other taxes. One of my constituents, Phillip Parks, has felt this tremendous financial burden and, as a result, sold his truck and got out of the business altogether. The heavy vehicle use tax is one tax many truck drivers, like Mr. Parks, are required to pay each year. Under the current IRS code, when a vehicle over 75,000 pounds is purchased and driven over 5,000 miles, the owner must pay a $550 heavy-use tax. However, if the owner sells the vehicle in the same year, he or she is unable to receive a refund on this tax, while the person buying the vehicle does not have to pay the tax during that year since it has already been paid. This is what happened to Mr. Parks. My bill will not only make this tax more fair, but will provide some much-needed relief for people who wish to sell their trucks within the same year they bought them. The Heavy Vehicle Use Tax Equity Act will require the purchaser to pay a prorated tax on the vehicle, while the person selling it will receive a refund for the portion of the tax relative to the time in which they owned it. I am pleased to introduce this bill that will help make our complex tax code more equitable while putting money back into the hands of hard-working Americans, like Phillip Parks of Stillwell, OK.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill that will help many truck-drivers across the country. As we all know, the trucking industry has incurred an incredible cost increase in recent years due to higher fuel prices and other taxes. One of my constituents, Phillip Parks, has felt this tremendous financial burden and, as a result, sold his truck and got out of the business altogether. The heavy vehicle use tax is one tax many truck drivers, like Mr. Parks, are required to pay each year. Under the current IRS code, when a vehicle over 75,000 pounds is purchased and driven over 5,000 miles, the owner must pay a $550 heavy-use tax. However, if the owner sells the vehicle in the same year, he or she is unable to receive a refund on this tax, while the person buying the vehicle does not have to pay the tax during that year since it has already been paid. This is what happened to Mr. Parks. My bill will not only make this tax more fair, but will provide some much-needed relief for people who wish to sell their trucks within the same year they bought them. The Heavy Vehicle Use Tax Equity Act will require the purchaser to pay a prorated tax on the vehicle, while the person selling it will receive a refund for the portion of the tax relative to the time in which they owned it. I am pleased to introduce this bill that will help make our complex tax code more equitable while putting money back into the hands of hard-working Americans, like Phillip Parks of Stillwell, OK.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for yielding. Let me be the first to say, I am not on the Education Committee. I am not on the committees dealing with this resolution. But I have been listening to some of this debate. I feel compelled to at least share some thoughts that I have as someone who does not serve on all these committees. First, I want to respond to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, who was talking about the tax cuts for the wealthy. I just wish that President Kennedy were still around so he could hear this debate because I can remember so well back in the 1960s when we had new programs. I say to Senator Wellstone, they had decided that they were going to expand into areas, expand into the Great Society. I remember the exact quote, just from memory, of President Kennedy. He said: We have a desperate need for more revenue. We have to have more revenue to take care of some of the needs that we have. He said: The best way to increase revenue is to reduce marginal rates. And he did it. In fact, the tax reduction during the Kennedy administration was twice the reduction that is being advocated by President Bush right now. And it worked. At the end of that period of time, the increase almost doubled over the next 5 years as a result of cutting marginal rates. Let's remember some of those rates. They were cutting down the highest rate from 91 percent down to 70 percent. It did stimulate the economy. And it did increase the revenues that came from that. But that is not supposed to be the discussion today. The discussion is supposed to be on education. The budget resolution that we are talking about provides a total of $661 billion in discretionary spending. It provides an additional $6.2 billion above the President's request for nondefense programs. This $6.2 billion can be used for additional spending on our domestic priorities. Everyone agrees that education is one of these priorities. Certainly we have heard the President say this over and over again, both during the campaign and currently. At the bare minimum, this resolution will fully fund the President's request for education, which is an 11.5-percent increase over last year, the largest of all Federal agencies. Just so Senators understand the minimum in education spending they will be voting for if they vote for this resolution, the President's request will support the highest ever level of funding for the education of disabled children; a $460 million increase for title I, including a 78-percent increase in the assistance to low-performing schools; a $1 billion increase in Pell grants for low-income college students; $1 billion for new reading programs, a tripling of current funding; $320 million to ensure accountability with State assessments; $2.6 billion for quality teachers, a $400 million increase; a 14-percent increase in Impact Aid; doubling funds for charters schools; $472 million to encourage school choice and innovation; a down payment on increasing aid to black and Hispanic- serving colleges and universities by 30 percent by 2005; $6.3 billion to serve 916,000 children under Head Start; and under the National Science Foundation, $200 million for new K-12 math and science partnerships. In addition to all of the above, we have up to $6.2 billion for further increases to high-priority education programs, such as IDEA, title I, class size, school construction, assessments, and reading-- whatever priorities emerge from the current debate on ESEA reauthorization. For example, the conference report has singled out IDEA as a particular priority, so we say that an additional $250 million should be added to the President's request of $1 billion for grants to States to educate disabled children. I listened to the statements in this Chamber where Senators were saying: We have cut every penny of money to strengthen these programs. That is just not true. We are increasing funding. One of the increases, as I have listed, is a 14-percent increase for impact aid. That happens to be what my amendment did. In looking at impact aid, I think it is very important that we realize this is a part of this program. Back in the 1950s, we established impact aid. This is a program with which I heartily agree. It said simply that if the Federal Government comes along with either a military base or Indian lands, something that the Federal Government has required to be taken off of the tax rolls, that impact aid should replenish that portion of the money that would go to education. There is not a Senator who would disagree with that. However, because we are all kind of sneaky, and have been over the years, different politicians have gone down, since the 1950s, and taken money out of impact aid. So it dropped down to about a 20-percent funding level. In my State of Oklahoma, I have five major military installations. We have a lot of Indian land there. It is something where we should live up to the obligation that we said we would live up to back in the 1950s and fully fund impact aid. I started lasted year, with the help of some Democrats, and virtually all the Republicans, saying: Let's go ahead and fully fund impact aid over a period of time. I want to do it over 4 years, but it looks as if it is going to be closer to 7 years. I had the amendment last year. I have the amendment this year. It has been very popular. I have some letters that I pulled out of a long stack of letters coming from the various States. I know the Senator from North Dakota has been in this Chamber talking about it. I have a letter from the superintendent of Garrison Public School district in Garrison, ND, saying: Again, thank you for taking on the challenge of putting Impact Aid on a time line that hopefully will get it to a point where the federal obligation of full funding is realized. That is from Garrison Public School district in North Dakota. Here is one from the Minot public school system in North Dakota: The amendment you offered on the Senate floor to the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Resolution is appreciated by federally connected school districts all across the country. We have another one from Cass School District 63. They are in Illinois. I know that the Senator from Illinois has been talking about this. The superintendent writes: Thank you for doing this. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those three letters be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. INHOFE. I guess what I am saying is, we have letters from every State saying this is something that should be done. This budget resolution stays on line to ultimately fully fund the impact aid. I want to share an experience that I am going to abbreviate because I know we are short on time. I do not have that much time. I was having a townhall meeting in Frederick, OK. Frederick, OK, is in the southern part of the State. At the meeting, I noticed on the sign-in sheet--I know the Senator from North Dakota and Senators from all the other States have townhall meetings. People sign in so we know where they are from. There were two ladies there in Frederick, OK, who were from Texas. I said: I am glad to have you ladies here. You are certainly welcome to stay; however, I am a Senator from Oklahoma. I don't have a lot of say about what goes on in the State of Texas. They said: No, we want to be here because we want to give a testimonial. These two ladies stood up and they said: We are Democrats. We are very strong supporters of the NEA. When Governor Bush came out with some new programs we were violently opposed to them because they deviated from the programs we have been used to. The values have been increased. And we decided, since we were leading the opposition to what Governor Bush was trying to do in Texas, we would now come up here and say to you, in every place we can, that we were wrong, because essentially what we have been doing--and what I hear a lot of these Democrats over here talking about--is taking a failed system, a system that has not worked, and just pouring more and more money into it. The criticism I hear on this budget is that we are trying to pour on more and more money without making major changes. I think we ought to have vouchers. We ought to do a lot of things we are not doing. At least we are trying some things that are new and different. That is what President Bush was doing when he was Governor Bush in the State of Texas. These two ladies, these Democrats came up to make their testimonial at my public hearing in Frederick, OK. They said: What he has done is try new things. It is having a huge, positive impact on the quality of education, on testing in the State of Texas. We need to try something new and innovative, and we are. I will share an experience. Some of these things that are new and innovative really go back and latch on to things that have been discarded over a period of time. I happen to have four children and eight grandchildren. Back when my kids were young, I can remember coming home after I had been out of town. My older son at that time, Jimmy, who is now in his forties, was 7 years old or something like that. He came up to me and he had a smile across his face. I said: Jimmy, you look like something good happened. He said: Yes, you know, daddy, I am in the fourth grade. I said: Yes, Jimmy, I know that. He said: Did you know that in reading and in arithmetic I am in the fifth grade? I said: No, how does that work? He said: Well, it is something that is brand new and innovative. What they do is, if you excel in one particular area, they move you up a grade so you can compete with those who are at your level, and you are not down there competing with someone who is at a lower level. He said: It is brand new and innovative. I said: That is really great, Jimmy. Then I remembered back. I always remember the timeframe of this because it was during the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I happened to be going to a country school. It was called Hazel Dell. And in this school there were eight grades in one room. There was a big potbellied, wood- burning stove. The school master's name was Harvey Bean, a giant of a man, I thought. Probably he wasn't all that big after all, if I were to meet him again today, if he were still alive. But I remember that they had eight grades in one room. The first row was for the first grade; second row for the second grade, on up. So my brother was in the second row. I was in the first row. My sister was in the eighth row at this country schoolhouse called Hazel Dell. Every time you missed a spelling word, you would have to go up in front of the class and Harvey Bean and you would have to bend over. He had a big wooden paddle and he would swat you. I tell my colleagues, I was the best speller in the first row. And so I was moved up to the second row so I could spell with the second graders, with my brother and some of the rest of them. So that program that my son called brand new and innovative was alive and well back in the early 1940s. I understand in the State of Texas some of these things that they have tried that deviate from what we are trying to do now is just going back and getting things that worked in the past. I have to say that this President is going to do things that are new and innovative. He is going to try things that haven't been tried before. Our system has not worked. Our test scores have not gone up. Rather than just pour more money on a failed system, we need to try these things that worked in Texas. I think they are going to work in our Nation. It is high time we try something new and that we get in a position where we can actually compete now with some of these other industrial nations. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Garrison Public School, Garrison, ND, April 23, 2001. Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Inhofe: On behalf of the Garrison School District including the students and the community we serve, I want to thank you for your leadership and support for the Impact Aid Program. The amendment you offered on the Senate floor to the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Resolution is appreciated by federally connected school districts all across the country. You have consistently been there for the Impact Aid Program, but the leadership you have brought to the Senate floor the past two years has put Impact Aid on the list of priority education programs among your Senate colleagues. Although the program does enjoy a broad base of bi-partisan support in the Senate, because of your role Impact Aid has been taken to a new level. All of us working with Impact Aid realize that much work still remains if the $1.293 billion figure you placed in the Senate Budget Resolution is to become reality. Please know you can count on our school district and the community it serves to do whatever it takes to help make that happen. You have been there for us and now is the time for the Impact Aid community to be there for you. Again, thank you for taking on the challenge of putting Impact Aid on a timeline that hopefully will get it to a point where the federal obligation of full funding is realized. Not since the late 1960's has the program been fully funded, but due to your efforts we find ourselves at the threshold of a new era for Impact Aid. Sincerely, Mike Klabo Superintendent.

Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield, particularly in western Oklahoma, when I have my townhall meetings, these farmers out there, they work 7 days a week. They are not wealthy people. For 13 townhall meetings in a row in western Oklahoma, at least one person stood up and said: Our family farm has been in our family now for three generations. We won't be able to do it anymore because maybe on paper, maybe on the IRS evaluation it is worth $1 million but not to us. Then when all the corporate farms are buying up this land, 25 cents on the dollar, that is the greatest thing we could do for the farmers. It is not just in Oklahoma. I am sure it is in New Mexico and North Dakota, too. Lastly, I hope you didn't miss the point, it was not a Republican but a Democrat who observed that the best way to increase revenues is to have marginal tax reductions. That was President Kennedy.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize a family that has dedicated much time and energy into preserving its Cherokee heritage. Dr. Charles Rogers of Brownsville, TX, his wife Sheron, his son, George Charles Sherson, and his mother, Mary Layton Rogers, have traveled to Mexico in search of the grave of the famous Cherokee, Sequoyah. Sequoyah is credited with inventing a writing system for the Cherokees by making symbols which form words. As a result of this syllabary, thousands of Cherokees became literate. In recognition of his monumental contribution, the Cherokee Nation awarded him a silver medal, along with a lifetime literary pension. Sequoyah was born in Tennessee, in 1776, to Nathaniel Gist, a Virginia fur trader, and Wut-teh, the daughter of a Cherokee Chief. He also lived in Georgia, Alabama and Arkansas before moving to Oklahoma, where he lived until 1842. He then set out to find the Chickamauga Cherokees, who had moved to Mexico. He died the following year in Mexico, but the exact location of his grave has remained unknown. Dr. Rogers and his family, who come from a long line of Cherokees themselves, have searched extensively for Sequoyah's grave. Their efforts may have paid-off as they believe they have found the burial site in a rock-covered cave near the ``lost-village'' of Sequoyah. Epic and Gloria Rodriguez of Mexico, whose ancestors helped Sequoyah and other Cherokees, directed the Rogers to the location. The Rogers' intent is not to return the remains of Sequoyah to Oklahoma, but to recognize his grave in order to preserve the richness of the Cherokee heritage. I hope you will join me today in honoring Sequoyah, for his contribution to the Cherokee people, as well as the Rogers family, for their work to preserve the legacy of this Cherokee hero.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would create a new era in charitable giving across America. My bill, the Neighbor to Neighbor Act, includes provisions that would allow tax- free distribution of IRA accounts for charitable purposes, and give nonitemizers the same deduction that itemizers enjoy. It would also allow the deduction for charitable gifts of long-term capital gain property to be subject to an annual limit of 50 percent of adjusted gross income instead of the current 30 percent limitation. It would increase the carryover period for charitable deductions from five years to ten years; and it would exclude a charitable deduction from the three percent reduction rule. My bill would allow a taxpayer to deduct charitable contributions up until April 15th, and finally, the Neighbor to Neighbor Act would repeal the current two percent excise tax on private foundations. My bill would greatly simplify one of the most complex provisions in the tax code. The tax code should reward the generosity of good-hearted Americans, it should not penalize those who choose to give to those in need. IRA account owners would be permitted to make distributions from their IRAs directly to charities, either outright, or in exchange for a charitable gift annuity, a charitable reminder trust, or pooled income fund in the Neighbor to Neighbor Act. According to the Employer Benefit Research Institute, there are currently more than one trillion dollars in IRA accounts and five trillion dollars in defined contribution accounts, which can be rolled into IRA accounts. I have numerous examples, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, from people who have wanted to donate their excess IRA assets to charity, but were unable to because of the current tax penalties For example, the ability to rollover an IRA to charity would mean literally millions of dollars for Boston College. Syracuse University lost a 1.5 million-dollar gift because the donor could not rollover his IRA into a charitable remainder trust. A 71-year-old male donor with a 1.3 million IRA wanted to make a life income gift to a major public university in Texas. He wanted to receive annual income payments that would help ensure the care of his wife, who is in the early stages of Alzheimer's. Given the tax consequences of such a gift under current law, the donor has not been able to make the charitable contribution. The husband of a hospital volunteer at a medical center in Tennessee would like to establish a charitable trust to benefit cancer research in honor of his last wife. He wants to use retirement plan assets of 1.8 million to establish this cancer research fund, to provide himself with annual payments for retirement income, and to reduce the tax burden on his heirs, would be greater for IRA assets than other appreciated securities. He has been advised against such a gift because of tax disincentives under current law. These are just a few examples of how the current law levies significant taxes and presents serious disincentives to charitable gifts of these assets. Under current, law, any IRA withdrawal is fully taxable as ordinary income in the year in which it occurs. A donor who withdraws IRA assets in order to make a charitable gift is subject to tax on the entire amount withdrawn. Under very best of circumstances, this amount might be offset by a charitable deduction, but even then there are significant limitations. My bill, which allows the tax-free distribution of individual IRA accounts for charitable purposes, is good public policy. Although IRA assets were originally intended as a supplement to retirement income, withdrawal is now allowed, under certain circumstances, to assist in financing a home or a college education. It is equally appropriate for public policy to allow financially successful individuals, who have reached a point where IRA and other tax-deferred retirement assets are not needed for retirement, to use those assets, not for personal benefit, but to support charities that better the lives of others. The Neighbor to Neighbor Act would also allow donors who make charitable contributions, but do not itemize their federal income tax deductions, to be entitled to a ``direct'' charitable contribution deduction. Since three out of four taxpayers do not itemize, the charitable deduction is not available to most taxpayers. A report by Price Waterhouse Coopers estimates that the deduction for nonitemizers would translate into 11 million more donors, and could increase giving by as much as 14.6 billion dollars in one year. The deduction also does not provide an equal treatment for all donors, and it encourages fundraising efforts to focus on a small group of potential donors. By expanding the charitable contribution deduction for nonitemizers, the playing field would be level for all donors, and would lessen the role of government and the political process in charitable giving. People should not face disincentives that burden charitable giving. My bill would allow the deduction for gifts of long-term capital gain property to public charities to be subject to an annual limit of 50 percent of adjusted gross income instead of the current 30 percent limitation. In addition, the carryover period for charitable deductions that cannot be fully used in a given tax year, due to the applicable percentage limitation, would be increased from the current five year to 10 years. The current percentage limitations on the deductibility of charitable contributions of long-term capital gain property to public charities, coupled with the reduction in the tax rates applicable to realized, long-term capital gains, are having a chilling effect on immediate charitable giving, the former reduces the incentive to make relatively large gifts of capital assets in the current year if the donor's contribution base is relatively small, compared to the value of the gift that could be made. For example, just since last June, at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, four individuals have indicated an interest in giving amounts ranging from one to three million dollars. These individuals have not yet given because of the tax disincentives of the 30 percent rule; they can only deduct charitable contributions up to 30 percent of their adjusted gross income. By increasing the income tax charitable deduction reduction percentage for contributions of long-term capital gain property to public charities from 30 percent to 50 percent of the donor's contribution base, gifts of highly-appreciated assets will be put on par with gifts of cash, and the tax law will again boost private philanthropy in America. The Neighbor to Neighbor Act would also allow a taxpayer to deduct, for the current year, charitable contributions made up to the time for filing the taxpayer's federal income tax return for that tax year. Currently, taxpayers may contribute to their IRAs up until April 15th and still receive a deduction. Charitable donations should have the same tax treatment. Finally, this bill would repeal the excise tax imposed on the investment income of private foundations. Private foundations are section 501(c)(3) charities that fund the work of a full range of charitable activities across the country. They are often founded by individuals or families, and their income stream comes primarily, if not entirely, from earnings on their investments. Repeal of the excise tax would have the effect of increasing charitable contributions by hundreds of millions of dollars every year. This is because private foundations are required, annually, to pay out five percent of their assets in charitable distributions, and since the excise tax counts as a credit toward the distribution requirement, repeal would require an increase in charitable distributions by an equal amount. The excise tax was originally enacted in 1969 as an ``audit fee,'' intended to offset the cost of IRS oversight of private foundations. But today, the tax collects far more than the IRS needs to conduct audits. In 1999, the excise tax produced 500 million dollars in revenue. And this year, the budget of all exempt-organization activities at the IRS is only 59 million dollars. Moreover, audits of private foundations fell from 1,200 in 1990 to 191 in 1999. This ``audit fee'' is not being used for its intended purpose. The wayward use of these revenues is a good reason to repeal the tax, but not as important as the work we increasingly call on charities to perform. With the focus of the President and the Congress on charitable giving, I believe passage of the Neighbor to Neighbor Act would be one of the most effective steps we could take. If we hope that charities will join state and federal government efforts to provide services for disadvantaged people and otherwise address important societal needs, then Congress should enhance the tax incentives that encourage voluntary philanthropy. Private foundations, like public charities, are publicly supported to the extent that they receive tax preferences. The provisions of the Neighbor to Neighbor Act are reasonable, efficient steps that will help charities address our common challenges; challenges we increasingly call on individuals and the private sector to take. In an article for The Journal of Gift Planning, President Bush stated, ``I believe that the government's highest calling is often simply to do no harm--to instead be an enabler, a catalyst that creates a climate that allows America's nonprofits to flourish. A government that serves those who are serving their brothers and sisters. A government that rallies the armies of compassion to heal our nation's ills, one heart and one act of kindness at a time.'' I believe that the Neighbor to Neighbor Act does just that, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would create a new era in charitable giving across America. My bill, the Neighbor to Neighbor Act, includes provisions that would allow tax- free distribution of IRA accounts for charitable purposes, and give nonitemizers the same deduction that itemizers enjoy. It would also allow the deduction for charitable gifts of long-term capital gain property to be subject to an annual limit of 50 percent of adjusted gross income instead of the current 30 percent limitation. It would increase the carryover period for charitable deductions from five years to ten years; and it would exclude a charitable deduction from the three percent reduction rule. My bill would allow a taxpayer to deduct charitable contributions up until April 15th, and finally, the Neighbor to Neighbor Act would repeal the current two percent excise tax on private foundations. My bill would greatly simplify one of the most complex provisions in the tax code. The tax code should reward the generosity of good-hearted Americans, it should not penalize those who choose to give to those in need. IRA account owners would be permitted to make distributions from their IRAs directly to charities, either outright, or in exchange for a charitable gift annuity, a charitable reminder trust, or pooled income fund in the Neighbor to Neighbor Act. According to the Employer Benefit Research Institute, there are currently more than one trillion dollars in IRA accounts and five trillion dollars in defined contribution accounts, which can be rolled into IRA accounts. I have numerous examples, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, from people who have wanted to donate their excess IRA assets to charity, but were unable to because of the current tax penalties For example, the ability to rollover an IRA to charity would mean literally millions of dollars for Boston College. Syracuse University lost a 1.5 million-dollar gift because the donor could not rollover his IRA into a charitable remainder trust. A 71-year-old male donor with a 1.3 million IRA wanted to make a life income gift to a major public university in Texas. He wanted to receive annual income payments that would help ensure the care of his wife, who is in the early stages of Alzheimer's. Given the tax consequences of such a gift under current law, the donor has not been able to make the charitable contribution. The husband of a hospital volunteer at a medical center in Tennessee would like to establish a charitable trust to benefit cancer research in honor of his last wife. He wants to use retirement plan assets of 1.8 million to establish this cancer research fund, to provide himself with annual payments for retirement income, and to reduce the tax burden on his heirs, would be greater for IRA assets than other appreciated securities. He has been advised against such a gift because of tax disincentives under current law. These are just a few examples of how the current law levies significant taxes and presents serious disincentives to charitable gifts of these assets. Under current, law, any IRA withdrawal is fully taxable as ordinary income in the year in which it occurs. A donor who withdraws IRA assets in order to make a charitable gift is subject to tax on the entire amount withdrawn. Under very best of circumstances, this amount might be offset by a charitable deduction, but even then there are significant limitations. My bill, which allows the tax-free distribution of individual IRA accounts for charitable purposes, is good public policy. Although IRA assets were originally intended as a supplement to retirement income, withdrawal is now allowed, under certain circumstances, to assist in financing a home or a college education. It is equally appropriate for public policy to allow financially successful individuals, who have reached a point where IRA and other tax-deferred retirement assets are not needed for retirement, to use those assets, not for personal benefit, but to support charities that better the lives of others. The Neighbor to Neighbor Act would also allow donors who make charitable contributions, but do not itemize their federal income tax deductions, to be entitled to a ``direct'' charitable contribution deduction. Since three out of four taxpayers do not itemize, the charitable deduction is not available to most taxpayers. A report by Price Waterhouse Coopers estimates that the deduction for nonitemizers would translate into 11 million more donors, and could increase giving by as much as 14.6 billion dollars in one year. The deduction also does not provide an equal treatment for all donors, and it encourages fundraising efforts to focus on a small group of potential donors. By expanding the charitable contribution deduction for nonitemizers, the playing field would be level for all donors, and would lessen the role of government and the political process in charitable giving. People should not face disincentives that burden charitable giving. My bill would allow the deduction for gifts of long-term capital gain property to public charities to be subject to an annual limit of 50 percent of adjusted gross income instead of the current 30 percent limitation. In addition, the carryover period for charitable deductions that cannot be fully used in a given tax year, due to the applicable percentage limitation, would be increased from the current five year to 10 years. The current percentage limitations on the deductibility of charitable contributions of long-term capital gain property to public charities, coupled with the reduction in the tax rates applicable to realized, long-term capital gains, are having a chilling effect on immediate charitable giving, the former reduces the incentive to make relatively large gifts of capital assets in the current year if the donor's contribution base is relatively small, compared to the value of the gift that could be made. For example, just since last June, at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, four individuals have indicated an interest in giving amounts ranging from one to three million dollars. These individuals have not yet given because of the tax disincentives of the 30 percent rule; they can only deduct charitable contributions up to 30 percent of their adjusted gross income. By increasing the income tax charitable deduction reduction percentage for contributions of long-term capital gain property to public charities from 30 percent to 50 percent of the donor's contribution base, gifts of highly-appreciated assets will be put on par with gifts of cash, and the tax law will again boost private philanthropy in America. The Neighbor to Neighbor Act would also allow a taxpayer to deduct, for the current year, charitable contributions made up to the time for filing the taxpayer's federal income tax return for that tax year. Currently, taxpayers may contribute to their IRAs up until April 15th and still receive a deduction. Charitable donations should have the same tax treatment. Finally, this bill would repeal the excise tax imposed on the investment income of private foundations. Private foundations are section 501(c)(3) charities that fund the work of a full range of charitable activities across the country. They are often founded by individuals or families, and their income stream comes primarily, if not entirely, from earnings on their investments. Repeal of the excise tax would have the effect of increasing charitable contributions by hundreds of millions of dollars every year. This is because private foundations are required, annually, to pay out five percent of their assets in charitable distributions, and since the excise tax counts as a credit toward the distribution requirement, repeal would require an increase in charitable distributions by an equal amount. The excise tax was originally enacted in 1969 as an ``audit fee,'' intended to offset the cost of IRS oversight of private foundations. But today, the tax collects far more than the IRS needs to conduct audits. In 1999, the excise tax produced 500 million dollars in revenue. And this year, the budget of all exempt-organization activities at the IRS is only 59 million dollars. Moreover, audits of private foundations fell from 1,200 in 1990 to 191 in 1999. This ``audit fee'' is not being used for its intended purpose. The wayward use of these revenues is a good reason to repeal the tax, but not as important as the work we increasingly call on charities to perform. With the focus of the President and the Congress on charitable giving, I believe passage of the Neighbor to Neighbor Act would be one of the most effective steps we could take. If we hope that charities will join state and federal government efforts to provide services for disadvantaged people and otherwise address important societal needs, then Congress should enhance the tax incentives that encourage voluntary philanthropy. Private foundations, like public charities, are publicly supported to the extent that they receive tax preferences. The provisions of the Neighbor to Neighbor Act are reasonable, efficient steps that will help charities address our common challenges; challenges we increasingly call on individuals and the private sector to take. In an article for The Journal of Gift Planning, President Bush stated, ``I believe that the government's highest calling is often simply to do no harm--to instead be an enabler, a catalyst that creates a climate that allows America's nonprofits to flourish. A government that serves those who are serving their brothers and sisters. A government that rallies the armies of compassion to heal our nation's ills, one heart and one act of kindness at a time.'' I believe that the Neighbor to Neighbor Act does just that, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reluctantly I rise to differ with my good friend from Wyoming. I come from the perspective of chairing the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I have looked carefully at some of the problems over the last 8 years in a couple of respects. First of all, we are dramatically and grossly underfunded in most of our accounts for our military relative to the threat that is out there. We have gone through a difficult time with China and hopefully it is coming to an end now. If we go back to 1995 when we started getting some of the very first comments made by the Chinese that have been very threatening to the United States, it was during the elections not long ago in Taiwan when the Chinese were demonstrating their missiles in the Taiwan Strait and the statement was made ``we are not concerned about the United States coming to the aid of Taipei because they would rather defend Los Angeles.'' That is at least an indirect threat. Most recently there have been statements made from more than one high Chinese official saying war with America is inevitable. Over the last 8 years, we found that half of our nuclear secrets--we had a total of 16--were compromised during the Clinton administration, 8 of them were compromised prior to the Clinton administration. We found out in 1999 that way back in 1995 the other 8 nuclear compromises took place. There was an informant who came in, in 1995, and informed us these compromises had taken place. This was covered up, I am sorry to say, by the administration until the Cox report discovered it and released it in 1999, 4 years later. We look at those things that have taken place, the transfer of technology to the Chinese, and we now see a massive military buildup by the Chinese. This is the same country that is saying war with America is inevitable. We know they made some purchases of SU27s and SU30s. They will have aircraft that is better and more modern air-to-air aircraft than anything we have in our arsenal, including the F-15. We are looking at a percentage of their budget that is going now to buildups. We also know they have virtually all--at least those 16-- of our nuclear secrets. We have been facing also, during the Clinton administration, the signing of waivers. In order to make it easier to transfer technology, they took the waiver process out of the State Department and put it into the Commerce Department, only to reverse that later on when we found out that many of the transfers had taken place. We remember regretfully the time President Clinton signed a waiver to allow the transfer of guidance technology that was produced by the Loral Corporation. That is something that would be very dangerous for the other side to have. Considering what little we do have left in terms of technology, I cannot imagine a worse time in our Nation's history to be making it easier to transfer technology from a pure national security standpoint than right now. So I am hoping my colleagues will look at what has happened over the last 8 years, look at what has happened over the last 2 weeks, and come to the conclusion that maybe this is a good idea for sometime in the future. It is not a good idea for this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Daniel Wood be given floor privileges for this day.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. All right.

Mr. INHOFE. Let me change that to about 7 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman and ranking member if they agree with my interpretation of the Inhofe amendment adopted as part of the managers' package. This amendment ensures that certain sites that have been contaminated by petroleum or petroleum products, ``petroleum contaminated'', will be eligible for funding under title I of this bill, by expressly adding these sites to the definition of ``brownfield sites,'' and specifically authorizing funding for the characterization, assessment and remediation of these sites. These petroleum-contaminated sites must meet several conditions to be eligible for funding under this new provision. First, the site must be relatively low risk, as compared with other petroleum-only sites in the State. This provision does not presuppose that each State has conducted a ranking of its petroleum sites, or require that it do so. Rather, we are aware that most States already have experience in making determinations as to which petroleum contaminated sites pose the greatest risk, under section 9003(h)(3) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), States are directed to prioritize sites for corrective action based on ``which pose the greatest threat to human health and the environment.'' The Committee contemplates that States will be able to use similar approaches to those used under section 9003(h)(3) to identify sites that are appropriately covered by this provision, those that are relatively low risk. Section 9003(h)(3) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act directs states, who are authorized under section 9003(h)(7), to prioritize underground storage tank, ``UST'', sites. Under 9003(h)(3), a priority for remediation is given to UST sites which pose the greatest threat to human health and the environment, as determined by those States. The new section 128(a)(D)(ii)(II) of S. 350 addresses sites that meet all of the following conditions: there are no viable responsible parties, otherwise known as abandoned sites; the petroleum site is not subject to an order under section 9003(h) of SWDA; and the petroleum contamination is relatively low risk. Relatively low risk should be determined by comparing the relative risk of a given site to UST and other petroleum contaminated sites in that State. The determination as to whether a particular site meets the ``relatively low risk'' criterion will be made by the entity that is awarding the grant or loan to the person doing the work. Funds authorized under the new section 128(l)(2) shall be used for site remediation, characterization, or assessment. If a site uses funds authorized by section 128(l)(2) to assess a site, and it is later determined (after the assessment) that the site is eligible for other applicable Federal and State funding, funds from those other applicable Federal or State programs shall be used first. This will preserve funds authorized under this bill for sites that do not have access to another source of funding. Neither this nor any other provision of S. 350, in any way, alters the exclusion of petroleum or petroleum products from the definition of ``hazardous substance'' under section 101 of CERCLA.

Mr. INHOFE. Five minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as we have discussed here today, I hope there will be additional opportunities for the committee to consider needed legislative changes to sections of Superfund that are not related to brownfields. There are two such changes which clarify liability for common carriers and rail spur track owners I would like to bring to your attention which this committee has favorably considered in past Superfund bills. The first provision would conform the existing law to the industry's current practice of using contract carriage agreements by clarifying that a railroad would not be liable for the transportation of hazardous substances under the terms of a contract with a shipper who later mishandles the commodity. This is a technical amendment which is necessary to reflect the fact that most rail shipments today move under the terms of transportation contracts, not tariffs, as was the case when CERCLA was first enacted in 1980. The second issue addresses contamination on or around spur tracks, which run to and through shipper facilities. The current law states that railroads can be potentially liable as landowners for such contamination even when it is caused by a shipper. This change would hold the railroad liable only if the railroad caused or contributed to the release of the hazardous substance. Both these issues recognize that a railroad, as a common carrier, should not be liable when it cannot control its customer's handling of hazardous substances, and the customer's actions result in the release of a hazardous substance that creates CERCLA liability. These noncontroversial changes are simple and needed reforms to the Superfund law, and I would hope you could support including these provisions in later Superfund legislation or even, if the opportunity presents itself as part of this brownfields bill.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the chairman for his support on these two provisions. regarding environmental insurance

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the ``information'' referred to in new section 129(b)(1)(B)(iv) of S. 350 pertains to information that indicates that a site presents a threat requiring further remediation to protect public health or welfare or the environment. The committee expects that the Administrator shall use her discretion in determining whether this information is both credible and relevant to the site. ``Information'' consists of information not known by the State on the earlier of the date on which cleanup was either approved or completed. The ``information'' need not be specific to this site; however, it must be relevant to the site in question. After careful consideration of the quality, objectivity and weight of the ``information'' regarding the site, the Administrator shall decide whether this information is adequate to determine there is a threat to public health or welfare or the environment. This ``information'' triggers this section only if the Administrator determines that it indicates that such contamination or conditions at the facility present a threat requiring further remediation to protect public health or welfare or the environment. Do the chairman and ranking member agree with this interpretation of ``information?''

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while I was one who opposed S. 350 when it was in committee because of some problems that were there that we have tried to address, we have gotten a lot of cooperation from the committee in the meantime to address the problems. I think S. 350 contains provisions that would be a positive first step toward revitalizing brownfields in this country. S. 350 provides developers with moderate assurances for Superfund- forced cleanups. While some of my concerns over the finality of the language remain, I am comforted by the remarks of the chairman and ranking member of the committee concerning new information. That is, the information referred to in S. 350 pertains to information of the highest quality, objectivity, and weight which is acquired after cleanup has begun. With this language, I don't think the abuses I was concerned about are going to be there. If they are, we will be monitoring it. The scope of the cleanup finality provision is still of concern. The EPA could simply sidestep the bill by using RCRA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or even the Toxic Substances and Control Act to force parties to clean up sites. This is one of the concerns we tried to address in the committee. I don't think it has been addressed to our satisfaction, but at least we are in a position to monitor it. It has been the argument of supporters of the legislation that EPA has never overfiled on a brownfields site. If the EPA overfiles a State cleanup, S. 350 now requires the EPA to notify Congress. I wasn't satisfied with just the fact that they had not done this in the past because there is always that first time. We will be closely monitoring this to make sure that provision stays in the legislation. I still have concerns that businesses will not feel adequately protected, and, therefore, brownfields may not get cleaned up. In the end, the developers and businesses will be the judges of S. 350's successes or failures. A lot of people forget this and look at the bureaucracy and say: We are going to have all this language. I can assure you, Mr. President, if we do not have some protection for developers and businesses that are willing to bid on cleanup sites, they are not going to be able to do it. It does not do any good to pass legislation unless there is enough confidence in the business community that they will not be abused if they bid on these projects. According to the EPA's figures, there are 200,000 sites contaminated primarily from petroleum. This is roughly half the approximately 450,000 brownfields in the United States. During the markup, I had concerns that by failing to address RCRA, Congress was neglecting the 200,000-plus sites that are petroleum-contaminated brown- field sites in this country. By not addressing these sites in S. 350, Congress is preventing almost half the brownfields in this country from being cleaned up and developed. I insisted Congress must address this issue. I stated that it was not right to allow so many brownfields to remain contaminated under this program. I am proud to say today help is on the way for these sites. The Inhofe amendment, which is incorporated into the managers' amendment, will take a first major step toward cleaning up petroleum-contaminated sites. Specifically, the Inhofe amendment, A, allows relatively low-risk brown- field sites contaminated by petroleum or petroleum products to apply for brownfields revitalization funding and, B, authorizes $50 million to be used for petroleum sites. My amendment will allow the large amount of abandoned gas stations and other mildly petroleum-contaminated sites all across the Nation to be cleaned up and put back into productive use. Finally, I still want to work to place a cap on the administrative costs set aside by the Federal EPA. A cost cap will ensure States and parties seeking to clean up and redevelop brownfields are getting the vast majority of the funds for brownfields programs and not just for administrative costs. EPA has informed us they are currently using approximately 16 percent of brownfields funds appropriated on administrative costs. This amount is unacceptable. I will be watching very closely to see what can be done perhaps in the appropriations process. Senator Bond and some others can perhaps propose an amendment to get this cap on and avoid excessive administrative costs. Over the last several years, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has worked very hard on Superfund reform. With S. 350, the committee has decided for now to address only brownfields. There are a lot of other problems. In the very beginning, I said let's not cherry-pick this thing; let's not just address brownfields. Let's get into it and look at retroactive liability, natural resource damages, joint and several liability, and some of the abuses that have taken place in this system. I believe we now have the assurance of enough Members that we will go ahead with a more comprehensive program and address these other problems. I thank the chairman and the ranking member and specifically Senators Crapo, Bond, and Voinovich who are helping me on some of the issues about which I have concerns and also the staff who have spent many hours coming up with a bill that I think is acceptable. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in his recent address to Congress, President George W. Bush made it clear that, unlike his immediate predecessor, he strongly endorses the deployment of an effective missile defense system capable of protecting the United States, its allies and its forward deployed forces from the growing threat of missile attack. As someone who has long viewed the deployment of missile defense as an urgent national priority, I look forward to working with President Bush to achieve this vital national security goal for America. March 23 marks the 18th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's historic speech announcing his determination to see America build a defense against ballistic missiles. It is gratifying to know that Reagan's vision remains alive today. As Reagan said in 1983: What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies? I know this is a formidable technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century. . . . It will take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs . . . as we pursue a program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles. Now, 18 years later, at the dawn of the new century, a renewed Presidential focus on missile defense is appropriate and necessary. The threat posed by ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction is very real and growing. And as we have seen over time, the technology to begin to meet this threat is available, if we will make the effort to aggressively develop it. Today, President Bush promises to do just that. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration squandered most of the last 8 years, failing to build a proper foundation for the kind of robust missile defense development and deployment which the growing threat demands. Wedded to the outdated 1972 ABM Treaty, to the superstitions of arms control and to greatly reduced defense budgets, Clinton was consistently hostile to the deployment of effective missile defense. Here is a quick year-by-year review of some of the highlights of the Clinton administration's dismal record on missile defense. 1993: cut $2.5 billion from the Bush missile defense budget request for fiscal year 1994; halted all cooperation with Russia on a joint global missile defense program; terminated the Reagan-Bush Strategic Defense Initiative program; downgraded National Missile Defense to a research and development program only; cut 5-year missile defense funding by 54 percent from $39 billion to $18 billion; reaffirmed commitment to ABM Treaty, saying any defense must be ``treaty- compliant.'' 1994: State Department official called the ABM treaty ``sacred text,'' saying ``arms control has more to offer our national security than do more weapons systems. We look first to arms control and second . . . to defenses;'' declared Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) non-treaty compliant; placed self-imposed limits on THAAD testing to keep it ``treaty-compliant.'' 1995: Placed self-imposed limits on Navy Upper Tier system to keep it ``treaty compliant;'' politicized National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to downplay growing missile threat; vetoed Defense Authorization bill requiring missile defense deployment by 2003. 1996: Cut funding and slowed development of THAAD and Navy Theater- Wide systems, in defiance of the law--the Defense Authorization bill-- requiring accelerated development; announced fraudulent ``3-plus-3'' program for national missile defense: three years to develop, plus three years to deploy. (Later changed to ``5 plus 3,'' then ``7 plus 3,'' then dropped the ``plus 3''); reaffirmed ABM Treaty as the ``cornerstone of strategic stability;'' opposed and helped kill legislation calling for NMD deployment by 2003. 1997: signed ABM Treaty agreements with Russia which, if ratified by the Senate, would: (1) reaffirm the validity of the ABM Treaty banning effective national missile defense; (2) sharply limit the effectiveness of theater defense systems; and (3) ban space-based missile defenses. Clinton never submitted these for ratification, knowing they would fail to get the needed 67 votes for ratification. 1998: opposed and helped kill legislation calling for NMD deployment ``as soon as technologically possible;'' disputed the Rumsfield Commission's assessment of the growing missile threat, arguing that there was no need to accelerate missile defense deployment; on August 24, Joint Chiefs Chairman Henry Shelton wrote to me affirming his assurance that U.S. intelligence would detect at least three years' warning of any new rogue state ICBM threat; on August 31, one week later, North Korea surprised U.S. intelligence by testing a three-stage Taepo-Dong I missile with intercontinental range, demonstrating critical staging technology and rudimentary ICBM capability. 1999: delayed by at least two years the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) satellites designed to detect and track missile launches necessary to coordinate with any effective national missile defense system; emasculated the Missile Defense Act of 1999--passed by veto- proof majorities in both houses--calling for deployment ``as soon as technologically possible.'' In signing the bill into law, Clinton outrageously interpreted it to mean that no deployment decision had been made and that therefore he would make no change in his go-slow missile defense policy. 2000: cut funding for the Airborne Laser (ABL) program by 52 percent over 5-year period, but the cuts were later reversed by Congress; allowed Russia to veto U.S. missile defense plans by making NMD dependent on Russia's agreement to modify the ABM Treaty, but Russia would never agree; postponed the administration's long-awaited NMD deployment decision from June to September and then decided to defer any decision indefinitely to the next administration, insuring that the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency would pass without a commitment to deploy national missile defense. The net result of this abysmal record is that America continues to remain completely vulnerable to missile attack, despite growing threats. In the 8 years of the Clinton administration, there was never a commitment to deploy national missile defense. Instead, there was a misguided ideological dedication to preserving the ABM Treaty, whose very purpose was to prohibit effective missile defense. In essence, the Clinton vision was exactly opposite of the Reagan vision. Today, the threat grows. Proliferation of missile and weapons technology around the world proceeds at an accelerated pace. Under Clinton, weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq; Russia greatly increased its military assistance to China; China was caught stealing U.S. nuclear secrets; U.S. companies were given a green light to help improve the accuracy and reliability of China's nuclear missiles; China transferred missile and weapons technology to North Korea, Iran, Iraq and others; China threatened to absorb Taiwan; and China threatened to attack the United States with nuclear missiles. The Rumsfeld Commission determined that new ICBM threats could emerge in the future ``with little or no warning.'' The Cox Commission determined that Clinton covered up or presided over some of the most serious security breaches in U.S. history, affecting critical national secrets about virtually every weapon in our nuclear arsenal and numerous military-related high technologies. The case for missile defense is more compelling today than it has ever been. With a new President determined to set a new course, or rather to set us back to the course first articulated by President Reagan, there is reason for hope and optimism. I urge President Bush to move quickly in forging a national commitment to the deployment of a robust global missile defense system capable of defending all 50 States, our allies and our forward deployed troops around the world. We should appropriate the necessary budgets. We should exploit all options and technologies. We should seriously consider an initial deployment at sea, using our proven Aegis ships and complementing it with important ground and spaced based systems. In consultation with our allies, and while maintaining our nuclear deterrent, we should break free of the constraints of the outdated ABM Treaty and begin to fashion a security regime based, as Reagan said, on our ability ``to save lives rather to avenge them.'' This is the legacy America deserves, consistent with Reagan's vision of courage, morality and security--a vision I know is shared by President George W. Bush.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this morning the Senate briefly debated and tabled the Feinstein amendment No. 27 to S. 420, the bankruptcy reform bill. I was unable to make that vote this morning, but I did want to make a brief statement for the record to register my opposition to the amendment. Under the Feinstein amendment, credit card companies would be forced to limit the debt a minor can carry on a credit card to $2,500, unless the minor demonstrates a means to pay back the debt or a parent cosigns for the debt. I oppose this amendment as unnecessary government intervention in the marketplace. Washington has no place in limiting or determining the financial needs of students and their ability to repay loans. The government has an abysmal track record when it meddles in the marketplace, and I strongly believe that these decisions should be made by individuals and families, not by the federal government. Financial Privacy