Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I join in the remarks that were made by the Senator from Kansas about the U.S.S. Cole, the tragedy that took place. We are all so saddened to hear about that. It was a complete surprise to all of us. Also, his comments about our chairman--our chairman, the Senator from Virginia, has done just an incredible job of leading the way and getting this bill done. I see this bill we are about to vote on as turning the corner. After 7 years of neglecting our military, we are actually starting to improve some things. We have some things in this bill that I think are long overdue. In our readiness funding, the conferees add more than $888 million to the primary readiness accounts. That included areas of neglect: $125 million to the war reserves and training munitions. We have places where they actually do not have enough bullets, enough ammunition to train with; $222 million for spare parts--that is not nearly enough, but there is a trend going up in the right direction now. I go around as chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee to quite a few of the places around the country and around the world and find the cannibalization rates, getting spare parts out of engines. I have seen them open up a new, crated F-100 engine just to pull off spare parts. That becomes very labor intensive. As a result of that, we are having terrible retention rates. We hear about the pilots, but we don't hear about the mechanics and some of the other MOS, military occupational specialties, where we really are having a crisis. This bill also goes a long way to try to get us back into opening up the live range on the island of Vieques.

Mr. INHOFE. The western land now will go not to the politicians in Puerto Rico but to the residents of the island of Vieques, and in the event something should happen that they should vote to reject the Navy, then it is not going to go into some developer's hands where someone is going to stand to get rich over this. We have done a good job----

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia, who is the ranking member on the Readiness Subcommittee, for the contributions he has made. The Senator from Virginia is in the same position I am in, having live ranges in his home State. I can recall going out on one of the carriers before one of the deployments from the east coast to the Persian Gulf. They have this integrated training on the island of Vieques. They have F-14s and F-18s doing air work; they have the Marine expeditionary, with which the Senator is familiar, since he was a marine, doing their work, and at the same time they have live Navy fire. They say they can get that training elsewhere but not at the same type of place. The analogy was called to my attention by someone who was on one of the deploying battle groups. It is like you have the very best quarterbacks, the very best offensive line, and the very best defensive line. If one is training over here, one is training over here, and one is training over here, but they never train together. On the day of the big game, of course, they lose. The integrated training is necessary. I believe the language in this bill is going to offer the self- determination of the people of Vieques to support the Navy live range, and I have every expectation that is exactly what is going to happen. American lives are at stake. I want to make one last comment. I have mentioned several times we should have probably gone further with this bill. I have been concerned about our state of readiness, and we outlined some of these things in the real property and maintenance accounts and others. But I was reading, the day before yesterday, in the Wall Street Journal, an editorial by Mark Helprin. Mark Helprin is a contributing editor to the Journal but is also a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute. He talks about the crisis that we are going to have to take care of, and that we should not be talking about the fact that we right now, today, are better equipped than we have been. We are not better equipped than we have been before. He goes on to talk about the fact that in Kosovo, 37,000 aerial sorties were required to destroy what Gen. Wesley Clark claimed were 93 tanks and 53 armored fighting vehicles. That is approximately 8 percent and 7 percent, respectively, of which Milosevic actually had. He goes on to say: Twenty percent of carrier-deployed F-14s do not fly, serving as a source of spare parts instead. Forty percent of Army helicopters are rated insufficient to their tasks. Half of the Army's gas masks do not work. It goes on and on. I ask unanimous consent that this entire editorial be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be recognized at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, he has appeared before our committee on three occasions I can recall.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much getting that into the Record because that testimony came out in our committee meetings. The Senator from Kansas is right. Sometimes when you sit in a committee meeting in Washington, everything is filtered. You do not really get the truth you find in the field. This bill is going to put $449 million in real property and maintenance. The RPM accounts are accounts that are mandatory that we have to get down, and yet I have been down to Fort Bragg during a rainstorm. Go into the barracks and one will see our soldiers are actually covering up their equipment with their bodies to keep it from rusting. It is a crisis. We are addressing that crisis with this bill. It is a start. We should be doing more than we do with this particular bill.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. INHOFE. Lastly, let me just say I am glad that defense has become prominent in this Presidential election. We have had a degradation in what has happened to our defense. We have great troops, but right now we are operating at roughly one-half the force strength we were during the Persian Gulf war. And that can be quantified. So often when people stand up politically and say we are stronger now than we were, or as strong as we were back during the Persian Gulf war, that just isn't true. We are approximately 60 percent of where we were in terms of force strength. That can be quantified. I am talking about 60 percent of the Army divisions, 60 percent of the tactical air wings, 60 percent of the ships floating around, going from a 600-ship Navy to a 300-ship Navy. It is true some of that was from the previous administration. The Bush administration wanted to go down from 600 to 450 ships. But now we are far below that. I think this administration has done a bad job the last 8 years. We are going to have to turn that around and do a massive rebuilding in the next administration. I think we are probably going to do it. I think we are going to see our Defense authorization committees of the House and the Senate do that. As well the Appropriations Committees are primed and ready, as is evidenced by the bill we are discussing today that we are going to pass. We are going to turn that corner and start rebuilding America's defense again. With that, I yield the floor. Exhibit No. 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 10, 2000] Mr. Clinton's Army (By Mark Helprin) Many people have come to believe that thinking about war is akin to fomenting it, preparing for it is as unjustifiable as starting it, and fighting it is only unnecessarily prolonging it. History suggests that as a consequence of these beliefs they will bear heavy responsibility for the defeat of American arms on a battlefield and in a theater of war as yet unknown. Theirs are the kind of illusions that lead to a nation recoiling in shock and frustration, to the terrible depression of its spirits, the gratuitous encouragement of its enemies, and the violent deaths of thousands or tens of thousands, or more, of those who not long before were its children. They will bear this responsibility along with contemporaries who are so enamored of the particulars of their well-being that they have made the government a kindly nurse of households, a concierge and cook, never mind a resurgent Saddam Hussein or China's rapid development of nuclear weapons. They will bear it along with the partisans of feminist and homosexual groups who see the military as a tool for social transformation. And they will bear it with a generation of politicians who have been guilty of willful neglect merely for the sake of office. Abject Lie So many fatuous toadies have been put in place in the military that they will undoubtedly pop up like toast to defend Vice President Gore's statement that ``if our servicemen and women should be called on to risk their lives for the sake of our freedoms and ideals, they will do so with the best training and technology the world's richest country can put at their service.'' This is an abject lie. To throw light on the vice president's assertion that all is well, consider that in Kosovo 37,000 aerial sorties were required to destroy what Gen. Wesley Clark claimed were 93 tanks, 53 armored fighting vehicles, and 389 artillery pieces; that these comprised, respectively, 8%, 7%, and 4% of such targets, leaving the Yugoslav army virtually intact; and that impeccable sources in the Pentagon state that Yugoslav use of decoys put the actual number of destroyed tanks, for example, in the single digits. To achieve with several hundred sorties of $50-million airplanes the singular splendor of destroying a Yugo, the United States went without carries in the Western Pacific during a crisis in Korea, and the Air Force tasked 40% of its intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets, and 95% of its regular and 65% of its airborne tanker force, in what the chief of staff called a heavier strain than either the Gulf War or Vietnam. One reason for the ``inefficiency'' of Operation Allied Force is that this very kind of farce is funded by cannibalizing operations and maintenance accounts. Such a thing would not by itself be enough to depress the services as they are now depressed. That has taken eight years of magnificent neglect. Case in point: The U.S. Navy now focuses on action in the littorals, and must deal with a burgeoning inventory of increasingly capable Third World coastal submarines that find refuge in marine layers and take comfort from the Navy's near century of inapplicable blue-water antisubmarine warfare. But our budget for surface-ship torpedo defense will shortly dip from not even $5 million, to nothing in 2001. The reduction of the military budget to two-thirds of what it was (in constant dollars) in 1985, and almost as great a cut in force levels, combined with systematic demoralization, scores of ``operations other than war,'' and the synergistic breakdown that so often accompanies empires in decline and bodies wracked by disease, have produced a tidal wave of anecdotes and statistics. Twenty percent of carrier-deployed

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the chairman. Also I thank the ranking member, Senator Levin, who was very helpful on this whole issue. I believe we addressed it properly in this bill. If we let an agreement go that had a financial motivation for the 9,000 residents of the island of Vieques to vote to kick out the Navy forever and lose that as a range, that had to be changed. This bill does that. We changed it so that the western land is not going to the Governor of Puerto Rico but to the people of Vieques. A lot of people do not realize that Vieques is like a municipality in Puerto Rico, and the people of Vieques are very fond of the Navy. I am the first one to admit the Navy had some PR problems, but I say to our chairman, they have worked very hard, and I see a change in attitude there. I was recently in Vieques meeting with a group of people. I left firmly convinced that if we have this referendum and if the referendum has a motivation for them to vote right--and that is to accept the Navy and the live firing range--then I believe they are going to do it. The other day, I was on a talk show and someone called in. Actually, it was someone who was on the other side of this issue. They said: How would you like to have a live range in your State of Oklahoma? I said: Let me tell you about Fort Sill.

Mr. INHOFE. Certainly.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that Kyndra Jordan, who is a correspondent in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill by request of the members of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole Nations, historically referred to as the ``Five Civilized Tribes,'' who still own individual Indian restricted land or ``restricted property.'' The proposed bill would repeal aspects of the Stigler Act of 1947-- the 1947 Act--and the Act of June 14, 1918--the 1918 Act--which subject the transactions of restricted property to the jurisdiction of Oklahoma's district courts and leave such lands open to adverse possession. By way of background, the issue of individual restricted Indian lands has had a long legislative history. Between 1906 and 1970, Congress enacted numerous laws dealing specifically with the individually allotted lands of the ``Five Civilized Tribes.'' Collectively, these laws have created a complex system of Indian land tenure in eastern Oklahoma. These laws are unique to eastern Oklahoma and are not applicable either in western Oklahoma or elsewhere in the United States. Due to these laws, thousands of acres of Indian lands in eastern Oklahoma have gone unprobated for years, causing ownership of these lands to be increasingly fractionated and more difficult to manage for the benefit of the devisees or undetermined heirs. Indian allotments elsewhere in the United States, on the other hand, are generally held in trust under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Interior. The goal of this legislation is to provide the remaining restricted Indian allotments in eastern Oklahoma, to the greatest extent feasible, with the same kind of protections as are afforded trust allotments in western Oklahoma and all other reservations in the United States. The bill would also include these lands in the national efforts to alleviate the growing problem of fractionated ownership. Notwithstanding these goals, great lengths have been taken to draft the bill so that it would be ``tax neutral'' as to the county tax rolls. The bill is written to help preserve what is left of the individual Indian restricted land base, reducing the rate at which the current inventory of restricted property in eastern Oklahoma passes out of restricted status. The bill would not allow Indian members of the Five Civilized Tribes to simply acquire fee land and have it placed in restricted status. With time very limited in the remaining days of the 106th Congress, I do not intend to rush this bill through Congress, denying adequate hearings and oversight, but simply to demonstrate to all interested parties that this legislation is a serious effort to reform the 1947 act. This bill has been through many drafts in recent months and much progress has been made to achieve a workable bill. I am hopeful that Congress can enact this reform next year.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill by request of the members of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole Nations, historically referred to as the ``Five Civilized Tribes,'' who still own individual Indian restricted land or ``restricted property.'' The proposed bill would repeal aspects of the Stigler Act of 1947-- the 1947 Act--and the Act of June 14, 1918--the 1918 Act--which subject the transactions of restricted property to the jurisdiction of Oklahoma's district courts and leave such lands open to adverse possession. By way of background, the issue of individual restricted Indian lands has had a long legislative history. Between 1906 and 1970, Congress enacted numerous laws dealing specifically with the individually allotted lands of the ``Five Civilized Tribes.'' Collectively, these laws have created a complex system of Indian land tenure in eastern Oklahoma. These laws are unique to eastern Oklahoma and are not applicable either in western Oklahoma or elsewhere in the United States. Due to these laws, thousands of acres of Indian lands in eastern Oklahoma have gone unprobated for years, causing ownership of these lands to be increasingly fractionated and more difficult to manage for the benefit of the devisees or undetermined heirs. Indian allotments elsewhere in the United States, on the other hand, are generally held in trust under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Interior. The goal of this legislation is to provide the remaining restricted Indian allotments in eastern Oklahoma, to the greatest extent feasible, with the same kind of protections as are afforded trust allotments in western Oklahoma and all other reservations in the United States. The bill would also include these lands in the national efforts to alleviate the growing problem of fractionated ownership. Notwithstanding these goals, great lengths have been taken to draft the bill so that it would be ``tax neutral'' as to the county tax rolls. The bill is written to help preserve what is left of the individual Indian restricted land base, reducing the rate at which the current inventory of restricted property in eastern Oklahoma passes out of restricted status. The bill would not allow Indian members of the Five Civilized Tribes to simply acquire fee land and have it placed in restricted status. With time very limited in the remaining days of the 106th Congress, I do not intend to rush this bill through Congress, denying adequate hearings and oversight, but simply to demonstrate to all interested parties that this legislation is a serious effort to reform the 1947 act. This bill has been through many drafts in recent months and much progress has been made to achieve a workable bill. I am hopeful that Congress can enact this reform next year.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise to make some brief comments. I was listening, while I was chairing the session, to the very distinguished Senator from Vermont talking about how many appointments and how many nominees should be acted upon. He was very passionate in his appeal to just have a vote; let's just vote up or down. He named nominee after nominee and how many days they have been under consideration. I was tempted to go back and get the history as to some of the problems we are having with this administration and the fact that, yes, I am guilty of putting holds on judicial nominees and doing the same thing that, back in 1985, Senator Byrd did when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States. But rather than go into that, I will only say this--I don't want to take much time; I want the Senator from Iowa to have his time--we have acted upon President Clinton's nominees. In fact, it is my understanding that he is only five short of having an all-time record of having nominees being confirmed in a period of time. Even though the Senator from Vermont was quite eloquent in talking about all of the judicial nominees who were left without final action being taken, either to confirm or not confirm, if we quit right now and didn't confirm these four we are discussing today, at the end of President Clinton's term, that would leave a total of 67 vacancies. It is my understanding that 61 is considered to be a full bench. Let's say 67 vacancies are there. Back when President Bush was President, when he left office at the end of 1992, there were 107 vacancies. The bottom line there is the Democrat-controlled Senate at that time was able to stop or was stopping more of the nominations than the Republican-controlled Senate is today. Seeing that the Senator from Iowa has left the Chamber and no one else is asking for time, I will go ahead at this point and proceed to the history behind this. Back in 1985, when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States and the Senate was controlled by the Democrats, a lot of the conservative appointments--not just judicial nominations but others--by the President were not acted upon by the Democrat-controlled Senate. Consequently, President Reagan did something he should not have done back in 1985. He started making recess appointments, and he made many recess appointments. The majority leader at that time, the very distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, wrote a letter to President Reagan. In this letter, he reminded him as to what the senatorial prerogative was in accordance with the Constitution. At that time he said: You have violated the Constitution with these recess appointments, and you have done so to avoid our confirmation or lack of confirmation. Therefore, if you have any more recess appointments, I will put a hold on all nominees, not just judicial nominations but all nominations. Consequently, after a short period of time, President Reagan wrote a letter back to Senator Byrd and said: You are right; it was a violation of the Constitution. And he recited that the Constitution had a provision for recess appointments only in the cases when the appointment occurs during the time we are in recess and that that was not the case when he made his recess appointments. Fifteen months ago, when we found out that President Clinton was making excessive recess appointments, I found the old letter that Bob Byrd had sent to President Reagan, and I sent that same letter to President Clinton, saying the same thing: If you continue to do recess appointments, we are going to put holds on all your nominees, except, I said, just judicial nominees. Consequently, President Clinton, after a period of 3 or 4 weeks, wrote a letter back and said that he would agree to the same terms Ronald Reagan had agreed to back in 1985. Then when President Clinton violated his word, I put holds on nominations. This was 15 months ago. As we all know, there was a vote to override my holds after a few months, and that was successful. However, for all judicial nominations that have not gone through the process since President Clinton did have 17 recess appointments during the August recess, I have renewed that hold on all future judicial nominations. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate convene at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow; that the time until 10:30 be equally divided between the two managers; and that the cloture vote on the pending amendment to the H-1B visa bill occur at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was very honored to have the opening prayer given by my pastor in Tulsa, OK--a church where my wife, who is present today, and I were married 41 years ago--when he was a very small baby, I might add. It is kind of unique, Mr. President. You know Oklahoma quite well. Oklahoma wasn't even a State until 1907, and yet the First Presbyterian Church started in 1885. For the first 15 years, the congregation was made up entirely of Cree Indian. It is an unusual type of church. I might also add that in all those years--that would be what, 115 years--there have only been six pastors of the First Presbyterian Church of Tulsa. Dr. Jim Miller is the sixth pastor. So once they come, they do not want to leave. We are honored also to have with us his wife Diana and two of his children, David and Courtney, who are in attendance with my wife. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues from Florida. I have worked in the Armed Services Committee of the Senate to protect and defend the base closure and disposal process from political manipulation. I would agree that the resolution in the legislation before us today should not be read to mean the Air Force should delay its decision on the disposal of Homestead Air Force Base or otherwise alter its decision making process. The law is clear on how surplus military facilities in this country are disposed and it is my intent that this law be followed and adhered to by the Air Force. I note the presence on the floor of the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee on the floor. I yield to Senator Warner.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the leader. First of all, there are no two people I respect more than the two Senators from Florida. They certainly have done a very good job on the Everglades portion of the bill. However, I have to get on record. I will oppose the bill because of these elements that have been introduced. This is of great concern to me. Looking at the fiscal end, I see four reasons we should not have this on the bill. First of all, if we do this, and we have already done it--and on the Everglades portion I pleaded with everyone it should have been a stand-alone bill because it is too big to be incorporated into this resources bill--this will be the first time we have actually had projects without first having the Chief of the Corps of Engineers give a report. That has been something we have said is necessary. Second, we are looking at questionable technology. Everyone has admitted this. Certainly, the chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, was very honest about it and straightforward. He said he felt strongly enough about it that we will have to try some things that perhaps have not been proven. This is unprecedented. Third, the amount of money we are talking about is open ended. We say this will be $7.8 billion in 38 years. But when we first started Medicare, approximately the same length of time ago, they said it would cost $3.4 billion, and this year it is $232 billion. A major concern I have is changing a precedent that has been there for 16 years; that is, that the operation and maintenance costs should come from the States. Now we are absorbing those costs, or at least 50 percent of those costs, operation and maintenance, by the Federal Government. I think we are opening up something here. Yes, it is popular. There is a big constituency. It is open ended. It could end up costing us a tremendous amount of money. I wanted a chance, Madam President, to explain why I have to vote against this bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m. Senator Durbin will be in control of the first hour and Senator Thomas will be in control of the second hour. Following morning business, the Senate will begin debate on the motion to proceed to S. 2557, the National Energy Security Act. At 3:50 p.m. today, the Senate will begin closing remarks on the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, with a vote scheduled to occur at 4:50 p.m. As a reminder, cloture was filed on the pending amendment to the H-1B visa bill on Friday.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Warner amendment. In my dissenting view on S. 2797, the ``Restoring the Everglades, An American Legacy Act,'' I outlined my concerns with this legislation. I would like to submit my dissenting view for the Record. While I recognize the Everglades as a national treasure, S. 2797 sets precedents, which I cannot, in good conscience, condone. I would also like to reiterate my objection to the marriage of the Everglades and WRDA legislation. I know many advocates of this plan argue that the Everglades should be a part of WRDA 2000. However, the Everglades plan is hardly a typical WRDA project. Because of the scale and departure from existing law and policy of the Everglades legislation, it should be considered as a stand alone bill--not a provision in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This is a precedent setting bill. With other plans of this nature in the works, the Everglades will be a model for how we handle these enormous ecological restoration projects in the future. We are entering new and, in my opinion, dangerous territory. No. 1. This legislation violates the committee policy concerning the need for a Chief of the Army Corps of Engineer's report before project authorization. This legislation authorizes 10 projects at a cost of $1.1 billion with no reports of the Chief of Engineers on these projects. Since 1986, it has been the policy of the Committee on Environment and Public Works to require projects to have undergone full and final engineering, economic and environmental review by the Chief of Engineers prior to project approvals by the committee. This process was established to protect taxpayer dollars by ensuring the soundness of all projects. While I understand that, under this legislation, no appropriation can be made until a ``Project Implementation Report'' is submitted by the Corps, this legislation is still breaking committee policy--it is authorizing projects without a Chief's report. No. 2. Everglades restoration is based on unproven technology. I have serious concerns about the wisdom of a federal investment in unproven technologies--particularly a $7.8 billion investment. The project approval process, described above, was established to prevent exactly what is happening with this legislation--a gamble with the American taxpayers' money. No. 3. The open-ended nature of costs of this project. The total cost of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is estimated at $7.8 billion over 38 years. This is the current estimate. I have serious concerns about this potential for cost over runs associated with this project. GAO agrees with me. In a report--released today--GAO stated, ``Currently, there are too many uncertainties to estimate the number and costs of the Corps projects that will ultimately be needed . . .'' As with almost all federal programs, this project will probably cost much more at the end of the day. For example, in 1967, when the Medicare program was passed by Congress, the program was estimated to cost $3.4 billion. In 2000, the costs of the program are estimated to $232 billion. No one could have foreseen this exponential growth! The future cost of projects of this magnitude must be taken into consideration by Congress before we pass legislation. Once projects like these get major investments, they are funded until the end--no matter what the cost. There should be a cost cap on the entire Everglades project--not just on portions. No. 4. This legislation sets a new precedent which requires the federal government to pay for a major portion of operations and maintenance costs. The Warner amendment will remedy this problem. Since 1986, water resource projects, including environmental, navigation, flood control, and hurricane restoration are financed partially by the federal government and partially by the local and state governments. And all of the costs of operations and maintenance of the projects has been the non-federal entities--usually state or local governments responsibility. We should not forget that this critical cost-share policy was a key factor in breaking a 16 year stalemate on water resources development authorization legislation. This Everglades legislation splits the cost of operations and maintenance of the Everglades--\1/2\ to the federal government and \1/ 2\ to the State of Florida. The O&M expenditures for these prematurely authorized projects is expected to cost $20 million, and, according the Corp, when the Everglades project is completed, O&M costs are projected to be in excess of $170 million a year. At the end of FY 2000, there will be a $1.6 billion backlog of federal O&M costs nationwide of which $329 million is considered ``critical'' because, if O&M is not performed on these facilities, they will not be able to maintain current performance. In the Tulsa district, which includes Oklahoma, there is a $80 million backlog in O&M. The $170 million needed for O&M of the Everglades--which is almost half of the this year's critical backlog--will drain resources-- creating a larger backlog around the rest of the nation. How can we fund local O&M expenses when we can't fund federal O&M expenses. States and localities have enormous backlogs of operations and maintenance costs due to lack of funding. The precedent, which the Everglades legislation sets, could open a pandora's box--having the Federal Government take on expenses for the operations and maintenance of many projects. There are a number of Oklahoma projects that could use federal funds for operations and maintenance costs. My hometown of Tulsa pays in excess of $3 million a year in O&M costs. The Everglades legislation is also unfair because the Corps will be conducting annual inspections on all flood control projects turned over to the local sponsors for 100 percent O&M. Though they try very hard, many localities, which cannot afford O&M costs, will not be able to keep their projects properly maintained. When it comes time for more Federal projects, they will not be favorably looked upon. the Federal Government will say, well, if the local sponsor cannot afford the current cost-share agreement, how could they afford a new one--even if the community desperately needs the new project. How can the Federal Government fund Florida's Everglades O&M bill; while other community's projects are denied because they can not afford proper O&M and we will not help them? How is this fair? Again, I recognize the Everglades as a national treasure--as I do many treasures in Oklahoma. As Congress considers the Everglades restoration legislation, all I ask is that Congress play by the rules. Mr. President, to reiterate, I commend the Senator from Virginia for bringing to our attention what is happening here. I am concerned. This is a major piece of legislation. As I said yesterday in committee, it would be my preference not to have it as part of the water bill but to have it as a stand-alone bill. Because of the size, the magnitude, and nature of it, it should be. It is true what Senator Warner has said about how this violates both the letter and the intent of what we decided in 1986. I remember when it happened. But it is not just in this area. Let me mention briefly three other areas where we are having the same problem. First of all, this legislation violates the committee policy concerning the need for the Chief of the Army Corps of Engineer's report before project authorization. This was decided back in 1986. To my knowledge--and I had my staff research this--we have not gone forward with any other projects that have not had a recommendation and a report completed by the Chief of the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. INHOFE. I can see what is going to happen after this because every time something comes up they are going to say: Wait a minute, you didn't require it then. They are overworked. So why should we require it now? We have two right now in the State of Oklahoma, in my State, awaiting those reports. The second thing is the unproven technology. If you go back to 1986, repeated again in 1996, we said we will only use proven technology when these projects are authorized. Admittedly, during the committee meeting they said--in fact even the chairman of the committee said--we know a lot of this technology is not proven. The third thing is it is open ended. I want to mention we are talking about $7.8 billion over 38 years. Yesterday, the GAO came out, and after pressing on this, said it could be higher. How much higher? It could be as high as $14 billion. I am old enough to remember--I think there are a couple of us in this Chamber who might remember, too--back in 1967 when we started out on the Medicare program. They said at that time it was going to cost $3.4 billion. I suggest to you this year it is $232 billion. I do not like these open-ended things. They say we are only talking about the first year. Once you start, you are committed. The last thing, of course, is what this amendment addresses. I believe very strongly that when we open up the O&M accounts, the operation and maintenance costs will be borne by the Federal Government. It is not just going to be that on future projects that come up we will say we don't have to worry about O&M accounts because 50 percent of it can be provided by the Federal Government; there is now a precedent for it. Not only that, I can see right now coming back on existing projects and saying: Look, we are undergoing that as a State expense. Why should we do that when we are not doing it for this particular project? I think the amendment is very good, but I think the amendment should be broadened to cover these other violations of both the intent and letter of the 1986 law.