Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this Congressional Review Act. This was put together back in 1996 at a time when we decided that maybe it was time for Congress to get a handle on the bureaucracy and time that we had a successful trial of this CRA, and I ask you to support it.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wanted more time, but I think almost everything has been said, except only in Washington can we have the opinion that no good decision is made unless it is made in Washington, DC. We had a news conference some time ago--in October--about what the regulations cost the American people. The average family of four right now pays $6,800 a year just for these regulations. In the Clinton administration, the average number of pages of regulations per day in the Federal Register was 319. The previous record was 280 pages. I remember when OSHA first started. I was in the State senate at that time. I remember when I was in Michigan and I held a book up and said-- I was going to talk to the National Association of Manufacturers. I said: I bet I can close down anybody in here just with these regulations. One guy called me on it and we went out and closed him down. Overregulation is an extremely burdensome thing. I think as far as the extreme broad reach of this program, single incident trigger--all these points have been made. I want to just bring it closer to home and share with you a couple of things and ask that they be put in the Record. We have had over 1,000 letters from the various businesses and others who believe their businesses have been threatened. I ask unanimous consent these excerpts of letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my privilege to stand before you today to honor a man who has lived to see three centuries. On February 23, 2001, Mr. John Harries, of Edmond, Oklahoma, will be 107 years old. Born on a farm twelve miles west of Waukegan, Illinois, in 1894, John has witnessed many major events throughout his lifetime, including two world wars. Showing true patriotism, he left dental school and joined the army at the onset of World War I. While fighting in France, he was exposed to mustard gas, which severely damaged his lungs. But the sacrifices he made in the name of freedom did not go unnoticed. Recently, France awarded him the French Legion of Honor for his service. This is the highest medal that the French award to foreigners. Retiring in 1967, John spent most of his professional life at Salerno Baking Company in Chicago, where he was chief salesman. He was married to his wife, Mildred, for 66 years until her death in July, 2000. He then moved to Oklahoma, where he now lives with his niece, Nancy Pruett. I am proud to honor John Harries for his service and dedication to our country and his long life. Please join me in wishing him a wonderful 107th birthday.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been listening with a great deal of interest to you, the Senator from Arizona, as well as the Senator from New Hampshire. I do, as you mentioned, chair the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. The Subcommittee on Readiness has jurisdiction over training, military construction, the BRAC process, and a few other things. It is important during this debate that we say it in terms of reality to get the attention of the American people. Since 1996, I have been saying that we in the United States of America are in the most threatened position we have been in in the history of this country. Many people do not believe that. Many people shrug their shoulders and say: This is not true, we are the strongest in the world. Yes, we may be the strongest in the world at this given time, but with the number of threats, it is questionable whether or not we would be able to defend ourselves adequately, certainly not meet the minimum expectations of the American people, which is defend America on two regional fronts. When I make this statement that we are in the most threatened position--we had before our committee less than a year ago George Tenet, who is the Director of Central Intelligence and the man who knows more about threats than anyone else in this Nation who was, incidentally, appointed by President Clinton. I asked George Tenet that question: Is it true what I have been saying since 1996, that we are in the most threatened position we have been in as a nation? He said: That's exactly right. That is from George Tenet. The reasons we are are threefold. It has been said on the floor but not put together in one thread. First of all, the obvious is that we are at one-half the force strength we were in 1991 at the end of the Persian Gulf war. What I am saying is we are one-half the force strength--that can be quantified-- one-half the Army divisions, one-half the tactical air wings, one-half the ships. Talking about ships, we were cut down from a 600-ship Navy to a 300- ship Navy. We saw the tragedy that took place in Yemen with the U.S.S. Cole. When you stop and think about it, some of the ships that were taken out when we downsized the Navy were the oilers, the tankers that refuel our ships at sea. We send our fleets from the Mediterranean, through the Suez Canal, down the Red Sea, turn left and go up the Arabian Sea to the Persian Gulf. That is 5,000 miles. We have to have refueling capacity. After the Yemen tragedy, I could not find one vice admiral who did not say if we had not taken out of service at least two of those refuelers, we would have refueled at sea, and those sailors would be alive today. We are at one- half force strength. At the same time, we have more than tripled our number of deployments around the world. I might add, these are places where I contend we don't have national security strategic interests at stake. In November of 1995, in this Chamber, we were debating whether or not to go into Bosnia. We said on this floor, it is easy to go in; it is hard to get out. We had a resolution of disapproval. It wasn't until President Clinton said: I guarantee if you vote down that resolution of disapproval, we will send the troops over there and they will all be home for Christmas, 1996. Guess what. They are still there. It will be very difficult to get them out if the same thing happened in Kosovo. Regarding the threat in the Persian Gulf, just to handle the logistics of a war if it should break out in the Persian Gulf, we would have to be 100-percent dependent upon our Guard and Reserve to take care of the defense of this Nation. This is very difficult because the Guard and Reserve components also are down in numbers because of the retention problems we have. That is serious. When you take that and the number of deployments, along with one-half force strength, the third component is we don't have a national missile defense system. Sometimes, I say it is handy not to be an attorney in this body because when I read the ABM Treaty that was passed, introduced by the Republicans, back in 1972, between two great superpowers, the U.S.S.R. and the United States, I contend that doesn't exist anymore. Yet that is the very thing that has been used for the last 8 years by our previous President to keep us from deploying a national missile defense system. In 1983, we made the decision we were going to put one into effect. We were online to do that until this last administration came in. Next, I think it is important to realize this euphoric assumption that many have--and the press does not discourage this notion; it might be our force strength is down, our deployments are up--we don't have a national missile defense system, but there is no threat out there in terms of a national missile defense. Virtually every country out there has weapons of mass destruction. Many countries have missiles that will reach the United States of America. Take China, for example. If they fired a missile, it would take 35 minutes to get here. We have nothing in our arsenal to stop that missile from hitting an American city. Compare my State of Oklahoma and the terrible disaster, the tragedy that took place. The smallest nuclear warhead known to man is 1,000 times greater in explosive power. Think about that. China has missiles that can reach here. Do other countries besides Russia, North Korea, and China have the missile? We don't know for sure. They are trading technology and trading systems with countries such as Iran and Iraq, Serbia, Libya, Pakistan, and others. The one thing they have in common is they don't like us. We have a serious problem. We don't have the modernization people think. I heard people say: At least we have the finest equipment in the world. I was proud of Gen. John Jumper not too many months ago when he came out and said: Right now we don't have anything in our arsenal as powerful in terms of air-to-air combat as the SU-27 and the SU-37. It is my understanding, if we go on with the SU-22, it is not as good as the SU-37 they are building today. Look at our training and retention. We see our pilots leaving. We see our midlevel NCOs leaving. I talked to pilots at Corpus Navy. Forty pilots said: It is not the competition outside; it is not the money. This country has lost its sense of mission. We are not getting the training we need. Our Air Force pilots cannot go into the desert and have red flag exercises because we don't have the money to do it. The Senator from Arizona talked about not having bullets, ammunition. We don't have bullets and ammunition. RPM accounts, the maintenance accounts, are supposed to be done immediately. I was at Fort Bragg the other day in a rainstorm. Our troops were covering up equipment with their bodies because we don't have the money to put a roof on the barracks down there. Our equipment is old. We found some M915 trucks had a million miles on the chassis. They were in bad repair. We see the cannibalization rate at Travis--C-5s sitting in the field with rotting parts. It is very labor intensive to get the parts back on and to uncrate new parts and replace them. In many areas, our mechanics are actually working 14 to 16 hours a day. Our retention is down. I can think of nothing more significant at this time than to start doing exactly what our new President said he would do when he was on the campaign trail; that is, assess the problems we have now and how can we put ourselves back into position, where, No. 1, we can adequately protect America from an incoming missile. As the Senator from Arizona said, we might have tried the same thing with the sea-based AEGIS system. We have $50 billion invested in 22 AEGIS ships, but they cannot reach the upper tier. It costs little to get them up to knocking down incoming missiles and they can protect the troops in North Korea and both coasts in America. The opportunity is there. I wish we had proceeded with this 10 years ago. I believe we are on the right step. The single most significant thing we can do as a Senate and Congress and the President of the United States is to rebuild our defense system, to satisfy the minimum expectations of the American people; that is, to defend America on two regional fronts. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know our time is to run until 3:15 p.m. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the hard work that Mr. Eddie Rathbun and the staff of the Natural Resources Conservation Service have done for the people of Bridge Creek, OK. I have often spoke of the incredible kindness Oklahomans have demonstrated through trying times, and Mr. Eddie Rathbun's actions have been an example of this. I am sure you remember the horrible tornados that ravaged Oklahoma in May of 1999 that killed 44 people and injured 795 others. For many of my constituents this was a very difficult time and Mr. Rathbun and the staff of the Natural Resources Conservation Service went out of their way to be helpful to those who's lives had been altered by this disaster. Mr. Rathbun and his crew worked long hours, in difficult working conditions, to ensure that the people in Bridge Creek could return their lives to normal. The people of this community have informed me that he was a great help to them in a time of need, and have expressed a deep appreciation of him, which I share here today. Mr. Eddie Rathbun and the crew of the Natural Resources Conservation Service exemplify the Oklahoma spirit of going beyond what is necessary to help a neighbor in a time of need. I wanted to recognize the efforts of a good man, for the kindness he has provided to the people of Oklahoma.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my privilege today to pay tribute to an outstanding woman who will be recognized this Saturday, February 10, with a special Honor Dance for her years of service to American Indians and to our country. This dance honors what is perhaps one of the most impressive and prestigious achievements of Lorena DeRoin's lifetime: becoming the first and only American Indian ever to serve as president of American War Mothers. American War Mothers is a national, patriotic organization dedicated to recognizing mothers whose children have served in the military. As national president, she is able to expound on years of experience leading women in both state and local chapters of the organization. Born February 9, 1915, in Red Rock, Oklahoma, Mrs. DeRoin has made her mark as an American Indian and a patriot. She belongs to the White Pigeon Clan of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe. In 1962, she joined Otoe War Mothers, a local chapter of American War Mothers. During her years of service, she worked on all standing committees and then became president of the chapter. She is also retired from the Bureau of Indian Affairs as an employee of the old Chilocco Indian School. Showing her dedication to our country, she has served as Mistress of Ceremonies for three separate years on Mothers Day at Arlington National Cemetery and laid the Wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Mrs. DeRoin's contributions to our community and our country are an example of true servant leadership. Oklahoma is fortunate to count Lorena DeRoin as one of our own. It is my privilege to recognize her accomplishments and to also wish her a Happy Birthday.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as a lot of people have been doing, I have been watching and listening with a great deal of interest to the debate and the brilliant things that have been said about the proposed tax cut. I think there are three significant things that have not come across in this debate, and I think we need to talk about that and concentrate on it. One is the myth that if we cut rates, somehow that is going to have the result of cutting revenues. I do not know what we have to do in history to show that is not correct. The first time that the whole idea--some call it supply side--came out was way back, following the First World War. At that time, it was the Harding administration and the Coolidge administration. They raised money in order to fight the war. And, of course, that was successful. But after the war, they decided that with the war effort gone, they could reduce the taxes. They reduced the top rate from 73 percent to 25 percent. They thought that would have a dramatic reduction in the revenues that were produced around our country. But they were willing to do it. To their surprise--this is the first time they had learned this--the economy, as a result of that reduction from the top rate of 73 percent down to 25 percent, actually grew the economy 59 percent between 1921 and 1929. And the revenues during that time grew from $719 million in 1921 to $1.16 billion in 1928. Then along came the Kennedy administration. This is the one where I don't understand how liberal Democrats can stand here and ignore the lesson that we learned during the Kennedy administration. Yes. Kennedy wanted more money spent on social programs. And he said on this floor that we needed more money to raise more revenues to pay for all the domestic programs we were getting into, and the best way to increase revenue was to reduce taxes. At that time, the top tax rate was 91 percent. So he reduced the taxes with the help of Congress from 91 percent down to 70 percent, and exactly the same thing with exactly the same percentages that took place after World War I took place. Tax revenues grew during that period of time, 1961 through 1968, by 62 percent. I know there are a lot of people who don't want to believe this. I don't want to unfairly attribute a quote to Laura Tyson, but I remember in 1993 she made a statement I interpreted to be: There is no relationship between the taxes that a country pays and its economic performance. Theoretically, if that is true, you could tax Americans 100 percent and they would have the same motivation to stimulate the economy as if they were taxed 50 percent. We knew that is not right. We had gone through that during the 1960s. For some reason, Democrats today will not acknowledge that. This is a lesson we learned from Democrats. Of course, the 1980s came. In 1980, the total amount of revenue raised to run the United States of America was $517 billion. In 1990, that was $1 trillion. It almost doubled in that 10-year-period. Those are the 10 years we had the most dramatic marginal rate reductions in the history of America. If you take just the marginal rates, it was $244 billion raised in 1980 and $446 billion raised in 1990. In that 10-year period it almost doubled, and that was dropping the rate from the 70-percent top bracket we inherited from President Kennedy when he brought it from 91 percent to 28 percent. History has shown it will happen. Never once in the debate do we talk at all about the fact that it will not reduce revenues; it will increase revenues. I have watched this happen over my short lifespan in politics and have been surprised to find this is true. If the money is there, the politicians will spend it. One of the best political speeches I heard in my life was the first one that Ronald Reagan made, ``A Rendezvous With Destiny.'' I bet some don't remember it at all. In the speech he said, the closest thing to immortality on the face of this Earth is a government program once started. That means if there is a problem, form a government program to take care of it; the problem goes away but the program remains there. This is a fact of life. It has repeated itself over and over again. The second item--a lot of the liberals say this because it sounds good to conservatives--let's go ahead and not have tax cuts until we pay down the debt. The Wall Street Journal had an article entitled, ``Where Do We Put the Surplus?'' A couple of professors say we have a serious problem because if we wanted to take the surpluses projected, which is $5.5 trillion in the next 10 years--upgraded by OMB to $6 trillion in that same timeframe we would have to find someplace to put the money. If you don't return it to the taxpayers, it will get spent. There aren't enough places you can put money like that because you can't pay down the debt immediately. Some things have not matured. You can't force a debt repayment in the publicly held portion, and the debt is $3 trillion. You have to find a place to put it. You can go into the equity market. If you go into the equity market, that will create a problem. According to Greenspan, by the year 2020, if we take this course, the Government will own one-fifth of all domestic equities. If there is anything we don't want to happen, it is to have Government owning 50 percent of the private equities in this country. The last point is how modest this cut is. I would like to have it much greater than $1.6 trillion because I believe we can afford to do that. During the Reagan administration, it was $1.6 trillion, but in today's dollars that would equal $6 trillion that we would actually have as tax cuts. If you look at it another way, taking it as a percentage of the gross domestic product, what we are suggesting is somewhere between a 0.9 and 1.2 percent cut in the gross domestic product. In the Kennedy years, it was 2.2 percent; during Reagan it was 3.3 percent. This is far less than those tax cuts would have been. I conclude by saying we have a decision to make--and it is a very difficult decision--as to what to do with that amount of surplus. I ask unanimous consent the Wall Street Journal article I referred to be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. INHOFE. I don't think there is any question, if we are honest, we would deny that if we leave this money, it will be spent. Parkinson's law is: Government expands to consume the resources allocated to it, plus 10 percent. This has proven to be true over and over again. I can argue as to the fairness of where this cut takes place. I could talk about the fact that the top 5 percent of the income makers in this country actually pay 54 percent of the taxes; the bottom 50 percent only pay 4.2 percent of the taxes. That begs the question. There is no reason to talk about the fairness of this because it is too logical. Obviously, what we are going through now is an overpayment. We have taxed the American people, and anyone out there right now--and there are millions of people who have paid any type of taxes--is entitled to a refund. To redistribute that wealth would be as unfair as it would be if you went down to an auto dealership, bought a new car, paid the sticker price, got home and said: Wait, I paid $2,000 too much. And you get in the car and drive to the auto dealer and say: You overcharged me $2,000, and he says: I just gave it to my mother-in-law. This is an overpayment of taxes we have made and I think people are entitled to have the overpayment back. If you do that, it will have the effect of increasing revenue, and stimulating the economy, which we desperately need. We are on the brink right now of a recession. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 29, 2001] Where Do We Put the Surplus? (By Kevin A. Hassett and R. Glenn Hubbard) When historians look back on Alan Greenspan's tenure as chairman of the Federal Reserve and attempt to identify the source of his enormous success, last Thursday's Congressional testimony--in which he advanced the course of tax reform-- will likely provide one answer. Mr. Greenspan raised a pressing public-policy question that has been overlooked by most, a question that will likely become the focal point of political and economic debate during President Bush's first four-year term. If the U.S. government starts accumulating big surpluses, where should it put the money? That might not seem so tricky. After all, the government already occasionally places deposits in private banks. But this time we aren't talking nickels and dimes. Current surplus estimates are so large that the government's passbook savings account, if nothing changes, will soon become the Mount Everest of cash hoards. Let's look at the numbers. The latest Office of Management and Budget forecast is for the surplus to reach about $5.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Rumor has it that the soon- to-be-released Congressional Budget Office forecast will peg it at $6 trillion, with almost $1 trillion arriving in 2011 alone. (Note: actual CBO numbers are $5.61 trillion, of which $3.12 trillion will be the non-Social Security surplus) Why not just pay down the debt? Put simply, there's not that much debt to pay. According to the Treasury Department, total government debt held by the public is only about $3 trillion. With no change in tax policy, projected surpluses would pay down the debt by around 2008. Government will subsequently have to decide in what it will invest the massive surpluses. But that is far in the future. Many opponents of tax reduction have suggested that we wait until the uncertain surpluses arrive, and the $3 trillion of existing government debt is retired, before considering tax cuts. Mr. Greenspan had an answer for that as well: ``Private asset accumulation may be forced upon us well short of reaching zero debt.'' Indeed, by some estimates, as much as half of existing government debt will be almost impossible to retire, since savings bonds and state and local government series bonds often aren't redeemed until maturity, and because many holders of long-term treasury bills will be unwilling to sell them back to the government. Factor in that surplus estimates keep getting revised upward, and government may well be forced to invest in private assets in just three or four years. How big could the hoard get? Investing that much public money would likely mean the government purchase of stocks, because only equity markets are large enough to absorb such inflows and still remain liquid. Assuming the Treasury begins to invest surpluses in the stock market as soon as it has retired all the debt that it can, and that these investments earn a 10 percent annual return, our government will be sitting on a stock-market portfolio worth $20 trillion by 2020. To put that in perspective, the current market value of all equities in the U.S. is about $17 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. Projecting forward, the U.S. government could own about one-fifth of all domestic equities by 2020. Allowing the government to own that much of the private economy is an invitation to unbounded mischief. Firms will lobby to be put on the list of acceptable investments; those firms or assets left off will suffer hardship. Calls to sell firms that aren't ``green'' or that fail to pass litmus tests will become the latest in political lobbying. Which is why Mr. Greenspan stated flatly: ``The federal government should eschew private asset accumulation because it would be exceptionally difficult to insulate the government's investment decisions from political pressures.'' The risks are just too great. His argument on Thursday caught Democrats flat-footed. Sen. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina told Mr. Greenspan that ``in all candor, you shock me with your statement.'' An apoplectic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York dubbed Mr. Greenspan's analysis a mistake.'' Such venom is reserved for truly decisive arguments. Indeed, word is out that economists at President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers prepared an analysis of this issue that wasn't allowed to see the light of day. Perhaps the Democratic senators had not previously recognized that their opposition to tax cuts would require the government to buy a massive share of private America. Mr. Hollings later warned Mr. Greenspan that he was ``going to start a stampede.'' It is not a stampede we will observe, but a wholesale retreat by poll-conscious opponents of tax reform, who will have little stomach to defend such a massive government intrusion into private life. A large tax cut is virtually a sure thing. Which doesn't mean we've seen the last of this important question. First, if supply-side arguments are correct, then the marginal-rate reductions proposed by Mr. Bush will eventually increase tax revenues and surpluses, presenting us once again with the quandary of what to buy. Second, Social Security continues to be on very weak footing in the long run, and something must be done to stave off fiscal disaster. This puts Democrats in a tough position. For if they reject the option of allowing the government to hoard private assets in anticipation of retiring baby boomers, there is--as Mr. Greenspan highlighted elsewhere in his remarks--one inevitable alternative: individual accounts. In taking a stand on such important issues in such a public forum, Mr. Greenspan has fundamentally altered the debate on the surplus, taxes and government investment. From now on, opponents of privatization will have to reveal just where it is they intend to put our money, and convince us that those investments will be economically benign.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that Megan Wanzer be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the assistant minority leader. Certainly in having the discussion on the floor about Christine Todd Whitman and her nomination to be the director of the EPA--I have served on the Environment and Public Works Committee since I have been in the Senate--I can say what a refreshing change it is going to be. I have watched her record and things for which she stands. She is someone who really believes in a commonsense approach to solving problems. She has experience as Governor and has the desire for cost-effective programs and environmental beliefs. I am very pleased that she is going to take on this job at a time when we really have serious problems. For the last 8 years, we have not had a reliance upon science in the promulgation of our rules and regulations. We haven't had the cost- benefit analyses that I think most people realize we should have. I think there is a lot of work to be done. I was very upset when we ended up with the so-called ``midnight regulations.'' I applaud President Bush for issuing a 60-day review of all of the Clinton administration's midnight regulations. For example, one of the regulations was the final rule, the sulfur diesel rule which spent 2 weeks at the OMB instead of the customary 90 days. This is something that will have a direct effect on the cost of fuel, something we were having hearings on, and we didn't need to rush into that. Or some of the regulations having to do with putting 60 million acres out of reach so that they cannot be developed or have roads built on them. Right now, we have a crisis in this country. Some States have a greater crisis than we have. But certainly it is a crisis in terms of the price of fuel and the availability of fuel. By putting this 60 million acres in the category that it is in, it would keep us from developing about 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That would be enough to run this country for a period of 1 year. The EPA doesn't operate in a vacuum. Some of the things they have and the rules they promulgate affect other departments. I happen to be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. And I can tell you right now that some of the EPA regulations on our training grounds have caused us to be less than adequate in our training activities. In fact, we have testimony from one of our commander trainers that they spend more money on compliance of EPA rules and regulations than they do actually on training. In terms of the energy supply, we can't just act as though all of these new rules and regulations affecting our refiners don't have an effect on cost. They do have an effect on cost of gasoline that we burn in our cars. It is something that will have to be dealt with. Right now, we are at 100 percent of refining capacity in this country. Any new rules and regulations that would cause any of these refiners to drop down directly impacts and increases the cost of fuel. If I could single out one thing that I am really thankful for in Christine Todd Whitman taking on this position, it is that she has been on the receiving end of abusive regulations. She has been the Governor of a State that had to comply with things without adequate time, without the resources, and I think it is time we had someone in that position who has been on the receiving end of these regulations. I am sure Christine Todd Whitman will be one of the best directors we have ever had for the EPA. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Maybe a little bit longer.

Mr. INHOFE. I was listening very carefully during the entire presentation of our very illustrious minority leader, immediate past majority leader. I had a hard time figuring out who he was talking about. I am 66 years old, and I have been involved in virtually every kind of political job. I have been involved for 30 years in the private sector. I don't believe I can stand here and think of one person I have ever met in my entire life who is a more honorable person, who is totally incapable of telling a lie, than John Ashcroft. I have watched him take courageous stands for things he believes in, yes, but he always tells it exactly the way he believes it. That is not the question here. We are talking about a law enforcement officer. We are talking about the chief, the guy at the top. When I have heard people say that he will not uphold the rule of law, I am reminiscent of the last 8 years, certainly Janet Reno and the Clinton administration. We have been waiting for her to uphold the law, to prosecute people, and not to let people off just because they may be friends of the administration. I have watched her refuse to go after campaign fundraising abuses, refuse to appoint an independent counsel where it is required by law, reject advice by Louis Freeh and Charles LaBella, refuse to prosecute Gore's White House phone calls, questionable plea bargains with John Huang, Charlie Trie. I have watched the theft of nuclear secrets, watched the botching of the investigation of Wen Ho Lee. I have watched this Attorney General refuse to vigorously enforce gun laws. Gun prosecutions went down under the Reno administration. We could think of a lot of examples. One that comes to mind, I happen to be in a Bible study with a man named Chuck Colson, who occasionally comes by. I got to know him quite well. I think most Americans know who Chuck Colson is. Chuck Colson violated the law back during the Watergate era. He disclosed confidential information and leaked it to the media. As a result of that, he was found guilty and he served time, was prosecuted and went to prison in a Federal penitentiary. Ken Bacon did exactly the same thing. I have stood on this floor on three different occasions and talked for about 40 minutes just on this particular case, that during the Linda Tripp case, Ken Bacon did in fact release confidential information to the media. And as a result of that, this person was taken out of consideration in terms of credibility. There is no reason in the world. The law hasn't changed. If anything, it is stronger than it was at that time. But there is no reason in the world that if Chuck Colson was prosecuted 25 years ago and spent time in the Federal penitentiary, Ken Bacon should not have been prosecuted and sent to the penitentiary exactly as Chuck Colson was. There is an accusation that John Ashcroft would not uphold the law. I am not saying he should be just a little bit better than our previous Attorney General, Janet Reno, has been. He has to be much, much better. But there is certainly no comparison. As far as Ronnie White is concerned, I think it is important that we not try to paint John Ashcroft as being any kind of racist. During the time he was in the positions that he held in the State of Missouri, he supported 26 of the 27 black judges. It is my understanding that he supported more black judges during his administration than anyone had before him. As far as Ronnie White is concerned, I listened to him testify before the committee, and I was wondering why certain things were not said that should have been said, because after going back and reading the case--I believe the name is James Johnson--where this individual had gone out and had violently murdered a sheriff, in the same night a deputy sheriff, in the same night another deputy sheriff, and then, if that weren't enough, went to a person's home where they were having a Christmas party and in the process of praying brutally murdering the wife of one of the sheriffs, White was the lone dissenter in the death penalty case involving that man who brutally murdered four people. On the same day that the nomination came to the floor, I heard this story. I voted against Ronnie White mostly because of that case. But I have to say this. I don't think many of us here who were not on the Judiciary Committee knew that Ronnie White was black. This is the thing that shocked everyone. One of the Senators said this: The first time I realized that he was black is when someone took the floor and said this was a result of racism. I know this isn't true. There is one thing I want to clarify. I think it is important during the next few hours that each one of these allegations be responded to because there is an assumption out there that is true. I am going to respond to one in kind of an unusual way about James Hormel. I almost 3 years ago on the floor of this Senate made a speech. It was on May 22, 1998. I heard some comments by one of my favorites in the Senate. I have to say this. When Patrick Moynihan was in the Senate, I always referred to him--he was my nextdoor neighbor--as my favorite liberal. Since he is gone, I think I will refer to Paul Wellstone as my favorite liberal. He and I have found that we don't agree on too many things, but he made some comments concerning my opposition to James Hormel. It has been stated several times on this Senate floor, and I think in the hearings also, that John Ashcroft was the one responsible for James Hormel not getting legitimately confirmed. I am here to say today that it was not John Ashcroft; it was I. I am going to read the Record where I thanked the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, for some comments he made, and I also said what we might do since we are both sharing time was that I would speak first and he could respond afterwards. Some statements were made on the floor yesterday concerning the hold I have on James Hormel to be Ambassador to Luxembourg. It is true I have a hold on James Hormel. This is I, myself, speaking almost 3 years ago. It was not John Ashcroft, it was I. There very well may be a vote on this individual, but I will oppose his nomination, and I want to stand and tell you why. Statements were made on the floor by the senior Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone. I will read excerpts from it. Now, one of my colleagues, and I think it is extremely unfortunate, one of my colleagues has compared Mr. Hormel, a highly qualified public servant and nominee, to Mr. David Duke, who, among other credentials, is a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. He goes on to say: I want to say to my colleagues, that given this kind of statement made publicly by a United States Senator, this kind of character assassination, it is more important now than ever that this man, Mr. Hormel, be voted on. In defense, really, of the senior Senator from Minnesota, I say that if I had said what he thought I said, he was certainly entitled and justified to make the statements that were made. But I think it is important to know that I did not make those statements in the context that he believed I made them. Let me, first of all, say that there probably are not two Members of the U.S. Senate who are further apart philosophically than the senior Senator from Minnesota and myself, I would probably, in my own mind, believe him to be an extreme left-wing radical liberal and he believes me to be an extreme right-wing radical conservative. And I think maybe we are both right. But one thing I respect about Senator Wellstone is he is not a hypocrite. He is the same thing everywhere. He is the same everywhere. He honestly believes that government should have a more expanded role. He is a liberal. I am a conservative. Having said that, let me go back and talk a little bit about what he had actually said. I made the statement when I was running for office-- and I have been consistent with that--that if I get to the Senate where I have the opportunity to participate in the confirmation process, I will work to keep the nominee from being confirmed if that individual has his own personal agenda and has made statements publicly to the effect that he believes strongly in his personal agenda and will use that office to advance the personal agenda more than he will the American agenda. In the case of James Hormel, a gay activist, he made statements in the past, which I will read in a moment, that have led me to believe that his personal agenda is above the agenda of the United States. As I said, the same thing would be true if it were David Duke. If he were up for nomination, I would oppose him because I believe he would have his agenda above the agenda of America. Maybe with Patricia Ireland it would be the same thing, Ralph Reed, who started the Christian Coalition. Maybe if he were up for nomination and he made the statement that he would use that nomination, whether it be ambassadorial or anything else, to advance his own agenda, I would oppose it. Yet I agree with his agenda. I would also like to quote someone who I think is familiar to all of us and whom we hold here in very high esteem, Faith Whittlesey, former U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland. She was talking about this trend of trying to put people with their own personal agendas in the various embassies. She said: Ambassadorial appointments should not be used for the purposes of social engineering in the countries to which the ambassadors are assigned. One of the many statements I have made previously about James Hormel that led me to the conclusion he wanted to use his position to advance the agenda was the following statement he made June 16, 1996. He said: I specifically asked to be Ambassador to Norway because, at the time, they were about to pass legislation that would acknowledge same-sex relationships, and they had indicated their reception, their receptivity, to gay men and lesbians. I believe he was implying and there is no question in anyone's mind that he was saying he was going to use that job to advance his own agenda. I think it is important that we understand that. I would like to repeat what I just said. It was 3 years ago. As we listen to the confirmation hearings and hearing the speeches on the floor, whoever it was who said that John Ashcroft was the one who blocked and attempted to block the confirmation of James Hormel, they are wrong. I am the one. It was not he. I think there is a more serious thing here. I don't think it is the issue so much of James Hormel, or of abortion, or of discrimination. We are always shocked when we hear about repercussions in places such as Sudan and China. People are enslaved for their religious belief. I look at this and I think John Ashcroft is guilty of one thing. He is guilty of having an inseparable walk with the Lord. And he has said that several times. There is someone I dearly love by the name of Bill Bright who wrote the book ``Red Sky in the Morning.'' I think it should be required reading for all Americans. Let me read a couple of things from it. George Washington, ``Father of Our Country,'' 1st President of the U.S.: ``Bless O Lord the whole race of mankind, and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy Son, Jesus Christ.'' ``It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.'' Patrick Henry, American Revolutionary Leader: ``It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not be religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.'' Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States: ``Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.'' It goes on and on. You can read all of the founding fathers of this country. What would John Adams, who said we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled mortality, and religion--what would they say if they knew right now that a man from Missouri, after very carefully listening to all the comments, all the charges have been made about John Ashcroft? I believe this is a case of religious persecution. I have to conclude by saying what I started out by saying; that is, of all the people I have known and worked with in my entire life, I know no one of greater character or more highly moral than John Ashcroft.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, while I do not disagree with anything that has been said here, I do feel compelled to make a statement. While I was not on the floor, there was a unanimous consent request propounded successfully, so that this is automatically going to become a reality without a vote. That is fine. That is going to happen. But I have to say, I was not here on the floor, as 75 percent of the Senators were not here. I am not criticizing the majority leader or any Member of this Senate. But I have to say, I agree with Senator Byrd that--I think he probably recited it, even though I was not here--section 3 of Article I of the Constitution says: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. I often say that one of the few qualifications I have for this office is that I am not an attorney. So when I read the Constitution, I know what it says. So after the 20th, we will be a majority party. While I chair two subcommittees, the rule that we are adopting here, the resolution, says that even though I chair that subcommittee, if it is an equal vote--it is a tie vote--it goes on to the full committee. I do not think that is right. For that reason, I just want to make sure the Record does reflect I do oppose the resolution. I would like to have the Record reflect that.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but if he is going to be able to get that, I would like to have 1 minute before his time.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to lodge my objection to H.R. 4577. I understand that there will not be a rollcall vote but if there were to be a rollcall vote I would vote ``no.''

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume debate on the tax legislation. Debate will take place throughout the morning with a vote expected in the early afternoon. The Senate is also expected to have a vote on the motion to proceed to the conference report to accompany the D.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, many on the Senate Armed Services Committee have been quite distressed over some of the uncertainties, some of the things that happened in conjunction with the tragedy of the U.S.S. Cole. Even though it is a delicate thing to talk about, there are people still around who believe that the President took some actions, such as sending the cruise missiles into Afghanistan and the cruise missiles into Sudan, without consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, without consultation with the Intelligence Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, something that was done and nobody knew it was going to happen. There are a lot of people who believe that might have been politically motivated. I think it is very appropriate tonight to urge the President that if something should happen that we would have to take some kind of action in the next few days, in that there are only 13 days until a national election, make sure there are no suspicions out there. I want to get on record urging the President to work closely on any proposed action that could take place as a result of the U.S.S. Cole tragedy, to work closely on the matter, in full consultation with all members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the top service commanders in chief, as well as the members of both the Senate Armed Services Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, and the Intelligence Committees. By doing this, we could preclude any types of suspicions, allowing us to participate in what would have to be a major decision.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Finally, it is my understanding that the references to ``urgent cases,'' ``significant threat,'' ``properly considered'' and other key terms should be interpreted consistent with ordinary dictionary definitions and in light of previous years' statements of managers.

Mr. INHOFE. It is also my understanding that in providing for an exception for urgent cases, we anticipate that the EPA will use the four part test set forth in previous committee reports, namely that (1) EPA has found on the record that the contaminated sediment poses a significant threat to the public health to which an urgent or time critical response is necessary, (2) remedial and/or removal alternatives to dredging have been fully evaluated, (3) an appropriate site for disposal of the contaminated material has been selected, and (4) the potential impacts of dredging, associated disposal, and alternatives have been explained to the affected community.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Missouri has addressed similar questions before the conference on this legislation was convened, but now that we have the actual text of the statement of managers before us, I would like to clarify a section in the statement of managers. The language directs EPA to take no action to initiate or order the use of certain technologies such as dredging or capping until specific steps have been taken with respect to the National Academy of Science report on sediment remediation technologies, with limited exceptions. It is my understanding that in directing that the report's findings be properly considered by the Agency, the conferees are not directing any change in remediation standards. However, the conferees are directing EPA to consider the findings and recommendations of the forthcoming report, in addition to the existing guidance provided by the Agency's Contaminated Sediments Management Strategy, when making remedy selection decisions at contaminated sediment sites, and as the Agency develops guidance on remediating contaminated sediments.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in fiscal year, FY, 2000, some 54 federal departments and agencies and over 130,000 federal employees spent over $18.7 billion writing and enforcing federal regulations. The number of full-time positions in regulatory agencies reached an all- time high during the Clinton/Gore Administration. The era of big government is not over. In fact, it is in its hey day. In FY 2000, bureaucratic staffing set a new record, exceeding the previous all-time high of 130,039 in FY 1995. Rochester Institute of Technology's Professor Thomas Hopkins estimates that the total cost of federal regulation will be $721 billion in 2000, which is equal to about 40 percent of all federal spending--representing a hidden tax of more than $6,800 per year for each American family. This represents direct compliance costs, not indirect costs such as the cost of lost productivity, increased cost of goods and services, as we are seeing with gas prices right now, and lower wages--among others. These figures are very important for us in Washington to keep in mind--when we are developing laws and regulations. When considering the entire federal budget, $6,800 per year may seem like peanuts, but $6,800 is a great deal of money to millions of hard working Americans. To put Professor Hopkins' estimates in perspective, current regulatory costs are about 40 percent of the size of the federal budget--which stands at an estimated $1.9 trillion in FY2000--and represent about 8 percent of America's gross domestic product. Moreover, Hopkins' estimates of annual U.S. regulatory costs exceed the entire 1998 GDP of such countries as Canada, $604 billion; Spain, $553 billion; Australia, $364 billion; and Russia, $275 billion. Beyond the cost of regulations and the size of the federal bureaucracy, a very troublesome trend is occurring in the regulatory arena right now. In its last few days in office, the Clinton/Gore Administration is currently pushing through a number of new rules-- particularly in the environmental arena. This last-minute regulatory push, also known as ``midnight-regulation,'' serves two purposes for the Clinton/Gore administration: (1) to pander to the special interest groups and (2) to make regulatory decisions more difficult for the next administration. This administration is playing a zero sum loss game with the regulatory process. While special interests and bureaucrats are winning, the American people are losing. When well thought out and reflecting consensus, regulations can certainly provide benefits to the American people. However, what is most disturbing is the fact that this administration will promulgate these regulations at any cost--at the financial cost of the American people--at the cost of making a mockery of rulemaking due process--even at the cost of environmental protection. This isn't just my opinion, other experts agree. Wendy Gramm, former Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and Susan Dudley--both of whom are with George Mason University's Mercatus Center-- recently wrote in an article in The Atlanta Journal, ``when regulations are rushed into effect without adequate thought, they are likely to do more harm than good.'' Eighty-eight rulemakings are in the process at the EPA. On August 25, 2000, a Washington Post article's byline read, ``[m]indful that Republicans could occupy the White House in less than six months, the Clinton administration is working feverishly to issue a host of new regulations supported by environmentalists and other liberal leaning groups . . .'' The article goes on to state that, ``[a]t the EPA alone, officials have listed 67 regulatory decisions looming before Clinton's second term expires in January.'' In response to the Washington Post article, the National Manufacturers' Association requested this list of 67 pending ``regulatory decisions.'' However, NMA's request was denied. Thanks to the leadership of Representative David McIntosh, the Clinton/Gore Administration submitted the list of regulations. Representative McIntosh discovered that it was not 67 regulatory decisions--but rather 88! This does not include the numerous interim final regulations, policy statements, and guidance documents, which EPA is pushing through. In fact, the average pages of regulations in the Federal Register is currently sky-rocketing. Currently, the Clinton/Gore Administration is averaging 210 pages of regulations per day in the Federal Register. The last time that the American people experienced such a flood of regulations was at the end of the Carter Administration--when the Federal Register had an average of 200 pages of regulations per day. Mr. President, there is a graph of the average number of regulations in the Federal Register during election years since the Ford Administration. Here are some examples: The Clinton/Gore administration's ``Total Maximum Daily Load'' or ``TMDL'' Rule. The now final TMDL rule drew more than 30,000 public comments and has been the subject of 12 congressional hearings. An overwhelming majority of these citizens, including environmental, community, state, labor union, and business organizations, expressed their opposition to the rule. Their concerns have included such issues as the rule's effectiveness, costs, technical and scientific feasibility, and basic structure. On June 30, 2000, in response to the testimony and thousands of letters that I and other Members of Congress received in opposition to EPA's proposed TMDL rule, Congress included a provision in the FY 2001 Military Construction Appropriations Act that would prohibit EPA from implementing this rule. This provision was a bipartisan attempt to direct the EPA to take a step back and address the concerns of the American people--not a sneak attack on the environment as many extremist environmental groups tried to portray it. The U.S. Congress sent a clear message to the White House and EPA. However, the Clinton/Gore Administration allowed EPA to finalize its proposed TMDL rule shortly before President Clinton signed the FY 2001 Military Construction Appropriations Act into law. I have grave concerns about any Administration which seeks to make the will of Congress ``meaningless''--which is what the White House was quoted as saying. The very thought of such an action is a vulgar abuse of power and blatant disregard for the legislative branch of our government. The Clinton/Gore EPA's poorly thought-out sulphur/diesel rule. For some reason the EPA is shocked and surprised that fuel prices are spiking because of the introduction of the new RFG phase 2 regulations. The trouble is the EPA continues to roll out new restrictions and regulations on gasoline and gasoline formulas without any regard to what the consequences are to the consumer. I am concerned that the Clinton/Gore sulfur diesel regulation is a perfect example. This is a regulation which will cause price spikes for fuel over the next ten years, and EPA has done a miserable job in predicting the consequences of this regulation. I believe there will be severe shortages of diesel fuel which will lead to higher prices for truckers, farmers, and the home heating market. It is highly likely that instead of installing the expensive desulfurization equipment many companies will choose to export their diesel instead of selling in the U.S., creating greater shortages. While they are discussing finalizing this rule, they are also discussing the need for a technology review in three years on the pollution devices for the trucks themselves. It seems the EPA is not sure if the technology will be available which requires the low sulfur diesel fuel. But this review will take place after the refiners begin installing the expensive low sulfur equipment. The real shame in this is that it could be avoided if the EPA were more reasonable in their expectations. Instead of calling for a 97 percent reduction in sulfur, they could have taken a 90 percent reduction in sulfur which would have produced the same benefits for particulate matter at half the cost. While it is true that NOx would only be reduced by 75 percent instead of 95 percent. I think we need to stop and look at it, 75 percent reduction at half the cost is a bargain. Once again the EPA appears bent on chasing pennies of benefits for dollars of costs. My subcommittee will be looking even more closely at the cost of EPA's programs on our nation's fuel supply. I really think the lasting legacy of Carol Browner might very well end up being these gasoline price spikes over the next ten years, unless something is done to restore some sanity to this process. EPA's arsenic regulation. The EPA is reconsidering its proposal for lowering the federal standard for arsenic in drinking water. The 5ppb standard, for which EPA is seeking comment, is scientifically unjustifiable. Many experts believe that ``given the available information EPA has provided, a final standard below 20 ppb can not be justified.'' This rule is anticipated to cost $1.5 billion annually and require $14 billion in capital investments--threatening to bankrupt small towns. EPA's own analysis reveals will impose net costs on users of drinking water systems. Unfortunately, this regulation is just another example of the EPA putting the policy ahead of the science--at the cost of the American people. Mr. President, I could go on and on about these midnight regulations. The Clinton/Gore administration is circumventing regulatory rulemaking due process. A fundamental safeguard provided by the Administrative Procedure Act (the ``APA'') is to ensure that federal agencies provide an opportunity for informed and meaningful public participation as part of the regulatory rulemaking process. As if midnight regulations were not bad enough, the Clinton/Gore administration attempts to short-cut APA safeguards by the issuance of interim final rules, guidance documents, and policy statements. These documents, which do not go through the notice and comment rulemaking process required by the APA, are not subject to review by the courts. Often, these documents suggest that regulated entities must comply with requirements beyond the requirements found in law or regulation. Though agencies deny the fact these documents are legally biding, it is clearly an attempt to make law outside the rulemaking process--in a way which tries to shield agencies from judicial review. For example, on April 14, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Appalachian Power v. EPA, struck down EPA's ``Periodic Monitoring'' Guidance. Among it's findings, the Court found: (1) EPA was creating broad new authority through the guidance document; (2) EPA did intend the guidance document to have binding effect; and (3) the guidance was illegally issued outside the APA rulemaking procedures. From 1992 to 1999, the Clinton/Gore EPA published over sixty-five interim final rules, guidance, and policy statements in the Federal Register. However, there are many more of these documents, which have never been published in the Federal Register--in violation of the Federal Register Act. And the cycle continues . . . on August 28, 2000, EPA has just issued a guidance document on Environmental Justice. While I will reserve the policy discussion on environmental justice for another time, the process question arises again. Even though the Congress and many stakeholders urged EPA to issue an Environmental Justice Rule, which would be subject to the APA's opportunity for notice and comment as well as judicial review, the EPA refused to do so. Instead, the EPA again created a binding regulation, albeit through a guidance document, which is not subject to judicial review. Additionally, in the case of many of the 88 rules, EPA will argue that the regulation has been a work in progress for years. EPA's claim begs the question, ``Then why cram through the final product when EPA is juggling so many balls at once.'' Though some of the regulations may have been proposed before, it does not mean that the proposal is still relevant--which we see with EPA's Proposed New Source Review Rule. In this and other cases, EPA should re-propose the rule rather than going final with it's obsolete, out-dated proposed rule. In conclusion, the Clinton/Gore Administration is in overdrive to make policy by administrative edict where it has failed to do so by the legislative process or by following the regular regulatory order. President Clinton and Vice President Gore can't really believe that the less the public participates the better--but they're acting like they do. The fact that the EPA is cramming though scores of rules and other regulatory decisions without public discourse is irresponsible. I call on the Administration to exercise regulatory restraint and stop exceeding its legal authority without undergoing appropriate rulemaking procedures. Rushed and poor judgement and deliberate acts that exceed an agency's authority can cause serious disruptions in the course of American families' lives. Therefore, I, along with other Members of Congress, will explore the various options, which Congress could use to address this Administration's numerous egregious political and anti-democratic actions. Environmental protection is vitally important, but so is the integrity of our government.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. That is exactly right. My concern has been, I hope and I will go on record right now and I am already on record saying, if we have this referendum, this will be the last time that we should allow a referendum to take place on closing a live range. When one stops and thinks about the domino effect this will have on other places, such as Capo Teulada in Sardinia or Cape Wrath in northern Scotland, it would be a real crisis if we lose those, and yet they logically ask the question--I have seen it in print in Scotland: Wait a minute, if they do not allow the training to take place on land they own, why should we let them come here to our country and bomb it?