Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there is an issue that needs to be addressed in WRDA that is not addressed by this bill. On June 12, 2000, the Administration sent us a report on the management of the Corps of Engineers' hopper dredge fleet. It says that efforts initiated by Congress in WRDA 96 have been successful. That legislation moved more of the routine maintenance dredging to the private sector and increased the Corps emergency response capability. In their report, the Corps recommended a plan that would move a little more work to the private sector while rehabilitating the oldest federal hopper dredge for emergency response purposes. While it may be questionable whether or not the benefit of this federal investment is worth the cost, I am willing to implement the Corps recommendations in order to get the management and emergency response improvements that are described in the report to Congress. After receiving the report, I requested legislative language from the Corps that they provided to me. I have been attempting to work with interested members to get this language, or possibly other compromise language, adopted in this legislation. I do not understand why the Corps recommendation is not considered a victory by the supporters of this federal dredge. The Corps strongly believes that their recommendation is a win-win for the nation's ports and the ports along the Delaware River as well as the nation's taxpayers. While I am not offering an amendment here today, I want my colleagues to know that this is an issue that I am going to pursue. I hope that we will be able to work something out in the conference committee. Thank you very much. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important national issue.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will add to my friend's thoughtful analysis. This is yet another example of the President's apparent lack of concern for the rule of law. All year long, the administration has berated the Republican majority for not doing enough on controlling gun violence. Yet at the same time, by releasing these terrorists, he has set aside 36 specific Federal firearms convictions pertaining to: Possessing an unregistered firearm; Possession of firearms during the commission of seditious conspiracy; Transport of firearms with intent to commit seditious conspiracy; Possession of firearm without a serial number; Conspiracy to make destructive devices. Let there be no mistake, these were not people merely exercising their first amendment right of freedom of speech. They are responsible for the deaths of six Americans and the injury of at least 84 others. One has to wonder why the administration will not simply enforce existing law. The record shows the Clinton-Gore administration has not enforced Federal gun laws, and more disturbing, they have conveniently forgotten the law if it suits their political ends. I believe the President's efforts for these terrorists were just that.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I would like to say we made it very clear to this President on two of the recesses since that time, that if he did not live up to the standards as were put in the letter by Ronald Reagan and to which he agreed, that we would put holds on all these nominations. Obviously, I had holds on these nominations. I have to admit it was not the Democrats; Republicans were not a lot of help to me at that time. They voted and overruled the hold that I had. I would say the Senators who voted with me at that time to uphold the Constitution were Senators Shelby, Murkowski, Allard, Craig, Crapo, Grassley, McConnell, Bunning, Grams of Minnesota, Burns, Smith of New Hampshire, Gregg, Domenici, Helms--as I said, Inhofe--Thurmond, Gramm of Texas, Thomas, and Enzi. In spite of the fact that that happened, they went ahead, the President went ahead and has continued to make recess appointments. The last time he did was during our August recess between the 3rd and 31st. He granted 17 recess appointments in just an arrogant defiance of the Senate's prerogative of advice and consent for confirmation purposes. Even though it is kind of an empty threat now, I will do it --I am announcing tonight I am going to put a hold on all judicial nominations for the rest of his term, not that there are that many, because if we stopped right now, there would still be fewer vacancies than were there at the end of the Bush administration. But when we took office, we swore to uphold the Constitution and the Constitution is very specific. Today I am making this announcement that we are going to hold up all judicial nominations. I am doing exactly what Senator Byrd would do under the same circumstances. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in 1985, when we had a conservative Republican in the White House by the name of Ronald Reagan, we had a Senate that was dominated by the Democrats. At that time, the Senate majority leader was a very distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Bob Byrd. We found Ronald Reagan was violating the Constitution with recess appointments. Let me go back and give a little background of this. In the history of this country, back when we were in session for a few weeks and then they got on their horse and buggy and went for several days back to wherever they came from, if some opening occurred during the course of a recess, such as the Secretary of State dying, the Constitution provides that a President can go ahead and make a recess appointment and not rely on the prerogative of the Senate to confirm, for confirmation purposes. This is understandable at that time. Since then, Republicans and Democrats in the White House have, when they were philosophically opposed to the philosophy of the prevailing philosophy in the Senate, made recess appointments. Ronald Reagan was doing this. I loved him, but he was violating the Constitution. Senator Byrd read and studied the Constitution. He sent a letter to the White House that said: If you continue to do this, then I can assure you we will put holds on all of your nominations. It wasn't just judicial nominations but all of them. I read from Senator Byrd: In the future, prior to any recess breaks, the White House will inform the majority leader and (the minority leader) of any recess appointments which might be contemplated in the recess. They would do so in such advance time to sufficiently allow the leadership on both sides to perhaps take action to fill whatever vacancies might take place during such a break. Those were for anticipated vacancies. President Reagan agreed with this and sent a letter back to Senator Byrd saying he would do it. In June of 1999, the President made a recess appointment of someone who had not even gone through the committee process, had not given all their information to the appropriate committee in order to become an ambassador. He went in and appointed him anyway. I felt that was a violation every bit as egregious as anything Ronald Reagan had done. I took the same letter that Senator Byrd had sent to Ronald Reagan, and I sent it to President Clinton. I got no response until finally he realized I was putting holds on all these nominations. On June 15, 1999, President Clinton wrote a letter saying: I share your opinion that the understanding reached in 1985 between President Reagan and Senator Byrd cited in your letter remains a fair and constructive framework which my administration will follow. I wrote a letter back thanking him and was very complimentary to him for taking this action. A short while later--we were going into recess--along with 16 other Senators, I sent a letter to the President because we had heard rumors he was going to make several appointments, recess appointments. In fact, that is exactly what happened. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record all this in more detail.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, national security must take precedence over trade. Granting permanent trade favors to China in the face of its openly threatening actions of recent years is unconscionable. We cannot allow the pursuit of dollars to blind us to certain realities about the ruling communist regime in China, including: repeated threats against the United States and Taiwan; massive military modernization and buildup; its proliferation of dangerous weapons to rogue states; theft of U.S. nuclear secrets; demonstrated strategy to exploit commercial relationships to acquire advanced military technology; attempts to corrupt the U.S. political system; violation of international agreements; and brutal repression of dissidents. To ignore these actions in the belief they can be separated from what we do in our trading relationship is dangerously misguided. China's trade surpluses are helping to finance the regime's military buildup and aggressive foreign policy, while strengthening its hold on economic and political power. Similarly, to suggest that increased trade is by itself going to reverse China's negative behavior is belied by recent history. Trade with China has been steadily increasing for the past decade while its behavior in these security areas has grown substantially worse. America should require from China some measure of permanent normalized international behavior as a prerequisite to permanent normalized trade relations. Otherwise, it is predictable that the favors we grant to China will be exploited to enhance its military buildup, while the market-opening favors and prosperity we expect from China will be much less than many in our country anticipate. I want to emphasize that I am not philosophically opposed to free trade. I voted for the recent Africa-Caribbean trade bill and I am a strong supporter of a measure to end the use of agricultural trade sanctions as a means to achieve policy goals. I am very skeptical about the extent to which China will actually open its markets to U.S. products. Despite tariff-lowering measures in trade agreements, China has--in the past--sought to erect other complicated trade barriers to block imports. Especially with regard to agricultural products, China is unlikely to offer the wide-open market some in the U.S. are anticipating. China will go to great lengths to protect its own huge labor-intensive agricultural sector, because of the difficulty of absorbing displaced agriculture workers in scarcer city jobs. Permanently opening the U.S. market to China now--in the face of its bullying at home and abroad--would be viewed by Chinese leaders less as an act of friendship than as an act of weakness. It would signal to them that there is going to be no meaningful consequence to their bad behavior and that America is content to put the pursuit of dollars ahead of any obligation to protect its own values and security. The following are examples of the major national security issues that must be considered in the debate over PNTR for China: Threats to the United States: In recent years, China has issued direct military threats against the United States of a kind that even the Soviet Union largely avoided in the darkest days of the Cold War. These included a threat to destroy Los Angeles with nuclear weapons; other threats to launch missile strikes on the United States and neutron bomb strikes on U.S. aircraft carriers if we should intervene to defend Taiwan. In 1998, the CIA confirmed that at least 13 of China's 18 land-based ICBMs were targeted on American cities. In Dec. 1999, China's defense minister, reflecting well-documented military thinking in China, stated, ``War (with the U.S.) is inevitable. We cannot avoid it.'' Threats to Taiwan: China has openly threatened military action against democratic Taiwan. In 1996, China fired M-9 missiles off the coasts of Taiwan in an attempt to intimidate voters during its presidential election. In Feb. 2000, it issued a ``white paper'' openly threatening ``all drastic measures, including the use of force'' if Taiwan delayed reunification talks, a threat previously reserved only for a Taiwanese declaration of independence. In 1995, China had 40 M-9 missiles targeted on Taiwan. By 1999, it had deployed at least 200 such missiles and the number is increasing at a rate of 50 per year. The Pentagon estimates that by 2005, China could have 800 missiles targeted on Taiwan. Military buildup: China is engaged in a massive long-term military modernization largely designed to counter U.S. power projection capabilities. In March 2000, China announced a 13 percent increase in military spending, which U.S. analysts believe is probably a lot less than the true number. China's new JL-2 submarine-launched ICBM will be able to hit the United States from Chinese territorial waters. China's new DF-31 truck-mounted mobile ICBM was test-fired in August 1999 and described by U.S. Air Force analysts as ``a significant threat not only to U.S. forces . . . in the Pacific theater, but to the continental U.S. and many of our allies.'' In January 2000, China signed a multibillion dollar deal to purchase weapons from Russia, adding to what it has already purchased, including: 4 heavy destroyers armed with SS-N-22 ``Sunburn'' nuclear-capable cruise missiles designed specifically to attack U.S. aircraft carriers; 200 SU-27 jet fighters, which are more capable than the U.S. F-15; 40 SU-30 jet fighters with precision guided weapons; 4 Kilo-class (quiet) attack submarines; 24 Mi-17 assault helicopters; and 50 T-72 tanks. China is also purchasing up to 4 Airborne Warning and Control System--AWACS--aircraft. In addition, China is employing all means--legal and illegal--to purchase improvements in a whole range of advanced military technologies, including: computers; lasers; space launch and space control systems; cyber-warfare; stealth; and chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Proliferation: China is doing more than any other country to spread dangerous weapons and military technology to rogue states around the world. In recent years, China has transferred technology on such items as missiles, nuclear weapons, and chemical and biological weapons to North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, and Syria, among others-- often in direct violation of commitments to refrain from such behavior. Thefts and compromises of nuclear secrets: In 1999, the Cox Report revealed that China had stolen or otherwise acquired advanced U.S. technology on ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, reentry vehicles, high performance computers, anti-submarine warfare techniques and much more. It confirmed that China had acquired information on our most advanced miniaturized nuclear warhead, the W-88, helping to give China MIRV capability--multiple warheads on a single rocket. As I reported in a major speech on the Senate floor on June 23, 1999, what we learned is that 16 of the 17 most significant major technology breaches to China revealed in the Cox Report were first discovered after 1994--during the Clinton-Gore administration. And that at least 8 of these actually occurred during the Clinton-Gore administration. I have compiled this important information in a chart that clearly illustrates what the Clinton-Gore administration has been trying to cover up for over 5 years. It helps reveal the fact that Clinton and Gore have not protected national security in our relations with China; that their appeasement of China has extended to selling, transferring, and overlooking the theft of some of our most sensitive nuclear and missile-related secrets. Coupled with their receipt--in the 1996 campaign--of hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign contributions from China, this is a scandal of huge proportions. The American people need to know the truth, but they are not going to get it by listening to the self-serving spin being spewed by this President and his equally culpable and subservient Vice President. Exploitation of commercial arrangements to acquire technology: The Cox Report also revealed the massive efforts China is making to acquire advanced military technology through its dealings with U.S. companies in the commercial sphere. For example, it confirmed that through its arrangements to launch satellites for U.S. companies such as Loral and Hughes, China acquired technology which improved the accuracy and reliability of its long-range military rockets which are targeted at the United States. Attempts to corrupt U.S. political process: During the 1996 election cycle, people with close ties to the Chinese government funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign contributions in an attempt to influence U.S. elections. The full extent of this scandal is not yet known. But we do know that the FBI director, Louis Freeh, and the hand-picked Justice Department investigator, Charles LaBella, believed it was serious enough to require the appointment of an independent counsel to fully investigate. Serious questions remain about the activities of John Huang, Charlie Trie, James Riady and a host of others who were involved. One of the important critical questions is whether national security was compromised in return for campaign cash. Neither China not the Clinton Administration has cooperated in these investigations. Violations of agreements: China has failed to abide by international agreements it has made in the past. For example, despite promises to abide by the norms of the multilateral Missile Technology Control Regime, China has repeatedly engaged in weapons proliferation activities. Human rights--repression of dissidents: The U.S. State Department confirms that China's record on human rights has deteriorated in recent years, that it has engaged in such activities as arrests and repression of political dissidents, persecution of religious expression, exploitation of slave labor, and forced abortions. China has never repudiated its actions in brutally crushing China's democracy movement at Tiananmen Square in 1989 or its ethnic cleansing in Tibet. These issues cannot be ignored or swept under the rug in an exclusive pursuit of trade. Our first obligation is protecting national security. We will not do it by evading the truth. Granting China permanent normal trade status without any progress on these issues is appeasement. Granting it in the naive hope that it is going to bring about such progress is a delusion. Madam President, once again, I support the Thompson amendment. I think most of the people who are supporting it also support PNTR. I am going to be opposing PNTR. However, I think he is addressing one of the many areas where we have a problem with proliferation. As I have said, I think national security must take precedence over trade. Granting permanent normal trade status to China in the face of its openly threatened action in recent years is, I believe, unconscionable. While Senator Thompson is correct when he talks about the problems with proliferation, there are many other problems, too, which include China's repeated threats against the United States and Taiwan; China's massive military modernization buildup; China's proliferation of dangerous weapons to rogue states; China's theft of U.S. nuclear secrets; China's demonstrated strategy to exploit commercial relationships to acquire advanced military technology; China's attempts to corrupt the U.S. political system; China's violation of international agreements, and China's brutal repression of dissidents. I think to ignore these actions in the belief that they can be separated from what we do in our trade relationship is dangerously misguided. China's trade surpluses are helping finance the regime's military buildup, while strengthening its hold on economic and political power. Similarly, to suggest that increased trade by itself is going to reverse China's negative behavior is belied by recent history. Trade with China has been on the upswing. We are trading more with them: Yet their behavior in security areas has grown substantially worse. I believe America should require from China some measure of permanent normalized international behavior as a prerequisite to permanent normalized trade relations. Otherwise, it is predictable that the favors we grant to China will be exploited to enhance its military buildup, while the market-opening favors and prosperity we expect from China will be much less than many in our country anticipate. I emphasize that I am not philosophically opposed to free trade. I did oppose NAFTA in 1994. In fact, I did it for two reasons. One was that I knew what was going to happen to our infrastructure as a result of allowing trucks from Mexico to go through our corridors--being from Oklahoma, we are pretty close to it, and the occupant of the Chair being from Texas, she understands this--without having to comply with our environmental standards, wage and hour standards, and safety standards. The competition isn't open. It is not a level playing field. We know that. The other reason is, it seemed to me it would damage our trade deficit. If you will remember, in 1994, we had a trade surplus with Mexico of $1.3 billion. It is now a $22 billion trade deficit. On the other hand, I voted for the recent Africa-Caribbean trade bill. I am a strong supporter, along with Senator Ashcroft, of exempting agricultural products from the sanctions. I am very skeptical about the extent to which China will actually open its markets to U.S. products. Despite tariff-lowering measures in trade agreements, China has in the past sought to erect other complicated trade barriers to block imports--especially with regard to agricultural products. I think it is very unlikely that China is going to go to great lengths to protect its own huge labor-intensive agricultural sector because of the difficulty of absorbing displaced agricultural workers in scarcer city jobs. I had a chance to visit the other day with Wei Jing Sheng. He was a dissident who was imprisoned for some period of time in China. He is exiled now; he is here. He said it made perfectly good sense. Why would we expect China to import wheat grown in Oklahoma or someplace in the United States, when all that would do would be to take the very labor-intensive, antiquated technology that they use in their agricultural programs in China and then move those people to the cities where they can't absorb it? This individual was absolutely convinced that would be the end result. Permanently opening the U.S market to China now--in the face of its bullying at home and abroad--would be viewed by Chinese leaders less as an act of friendship than as an act of weakness. It would signal to them that there is going to be no meaningful consequence to their bad behavior and that America is content to put the pursuit of dollars ahead of any obligation to protect its own values and security. The following are some examples of the major national security issues that I think should be considered in the debate over PNTR to China. Of course, this amendment only deals with one of them. First of all, the threats to the United States. In recent years, China has issued direct military threats against the United States of a kind that even the Soviet Union in the midst of the cold war would never have made. These include a threat to destroy Los Angeles with nuclear weapons. Another threat was to launch missile strikes on the United States; neutron bomb strikes on U.S. aircraft carriers if we should intervene to defend Taiwan. In 1998, the CIA confirmed that at least 13 of China's 18 land-based ICBMs were targeted on American cities. We knew it a long time before that. But somehow there was a leak, and I believe the Washington Times was able to disclose that. In December of 1999, China's Defense Minister said war with America was inevitable. I hesitate to say this, but I remember so well when we were warned by Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat Senator from Nebraska. Some of you may not know it. In 1992, before the election of Bill Clinton to the White House, he said Bill Clinton is an awfully good liar. He was very prophetic. I think of all of the things this President has said that are untrue, probably the one that inflicted the most damage on the United States is the one he repeated 133 times. Keep in mind that at the time he said this, he knew the Chinese were targeting American cities. He said: For the first time in the history of the nuclear age, there is not one--I repeat, not one--missile aimed at an American child tonight. Everybody cheered. Yet we knew at that time that missiles from China were aimed at American cities. They still are today. We know that. It is not even classified. China is engaged in a massive, long-term military modernization largely designed to counter U.S. power projection capabilities. In March 2000, China announced it was going to have a 13-percent increase in military spending. Most of our U.S. analysts believe that is far from the true figure; it is really far greater than that. China's new JL-2 submarine-launched ICBM will be able to hit the United States from Chinese territorial waters. China's new DF-31 truck-mounted mobile ICBM was test-fired in August of 1999 and described by U.S. Air Force analysts as ``a significant threat not only to U.S. . . . forces in the Pacific theater, but to the continental United States and many of our allies.'' In January of 2000, China signed a multibillion-dollar deal to purchase weapons from Russia adding to what it already had purchased, including four heavy destroyers armed with SS-N-22 ``Sunburn'' nuclear- capable cruise missiles designed specifically to attack U.S. aircraft carriers; 200 SU-27 jet fighters--this is a jet fighter that we know now is better than any air-to-air combat vehicle we have, including the F-15--40 SU-30 jet fighters with precision-guided missiles; 4 Kilo class, quiet class, attack submarines; 24 MI-17 assault helicopters; and 50 T-72 tanks. China is also purchasing up to four airborne warning and control systems--AWACS systems--that they are purchasing from Israel. In addition, China is employing all means legal and illegal to pursue improvements in a whole range of advanced military technologies, including computers, lasers, space launch and space control systems; cyberwarfare; stealth, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Let me repeat: On the SU-27 and SU-30, I was very proud of Gen. John Jumper a few months ago when he had the courage to stand up and tell the American people the truth. There is this myth floating around, particularly among people who are anti-defense to start with, that there is no threat out there--that America has the best of everything. We don't have the best of everything. Gen. John Jumper, the air commander at that time, made the statement that Russia, in the position of manufacturing their SU-27s, SU-30s, and SU-35s and selling them on the open market to countries such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and North Korea--this is something they have. The proliferation is going on and on. They already have more modern equipment and better equipment in some areas of combat than the United States has. China is doing more than any other country to spread dangerous weapons and military technology to rogue states around the world. In recent years, China has transferred technology and such items as missiles, nuclear weapons, and chemical and biological weapons to all the countries I just mentioned--North Korea, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and other countries, which is a direct violation of commitments to refrain from such behavior. I guess what I am saying is China has been working. It is not a matter of what they have and how you trust China. It is the same with Russia. They are trading technologies and trading systems with these other countries. That is compromising nuclear secrets. The 1999 Cox report revealed that China had stolen or otherwise acquired advanced U.S. technology on ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons reentry vehicles, high-performance computers, anti-submarine- warfare systems, and much more. It confirmed that China had acquired information on our most advanced miniaturized nuclear warhead, the W- 88, helping to give China a MIRV capability--a multiple warhead on one single rocket. In fairness to China, I have to say that they have had a lot of help. The administration has been very helpful to China. By the way, I have frequently said things about the President that other people do not say. I would suggest to you, Mr. President, that Teddy Roosevelt said ``patriotism means to stand by your country.'' It doesn't mean to stand by the President or any other elected officials to the exact degree that he himself stands by his country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose a President to the same degree that he, by inefficiency or otherwise, fails to stand by his country. I believe President Clinton has failed to stand by his country. As reported in a major speech on the Senate floor in March and again on June 23rd, what we learned, as revealed in the Cox report, is that if you take away these other 17 compromises of our nuclear secrets--the first one, the W-70 warhead, you can forget about that. It happened in the Carter administration. It is obsolete. So it doesn't matter. These 16 do--at least 16, including the W-88 warhead I just referred to, which is our crown jewel. The first of these happened perhaps in a previous administration. The second eight all happened during the Clinton administration. These happened on Bill Clinton's watch. As far the first ones are concerned, the W-88 warhead technology, W-87 warhead, W-78 warhead, W-76 and W-62 warheads--all of these happened perhaps in a previous administration. But we found out in the Cox report that there was a Chinese ``walk'' into a CIA office where they said that in 1994 they informed the administration the Chinese had all of these secrets. These are from perhaps other administrations. But the President knew about it. The President covered it up. Berger and the rest of them covered it up until the Cox report, through their investigation in January of 1999, discovered that in fact these were discovered 5 years before. It was a coverup until 1999. I think it is an appropriate place to bring this up again just for the purpose of discussing this because we have got to remind the American people exactly what happened. All of this talk about what has happened in our energy lab, all the talk about passing laws that something such as this cannot happen again--I can tell you right now, if you have a President of the United States such as President Clinton who willfully goes out and stops the security at these laboratories-- one of his first acts after becoming President--of course there is going to be a problem. This is what this President did. In 1993, when he first got into office, he removed the color-coded security badges that had been used for years by the Department of Energy's weapons labs. They were removed as being discriminatory. We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, so we can't have color-coded badges. Second, he stopped the FBI background checks. In 1993, the FBI background checks for workers and visitors of the weapons labs were put on hold, dramatically increasing the number of people going into the labs who had previously not had access. Third, he overturned the DOE's security decision. In 1995, the Department of Energy personnel action revoking the security clearance of an employee found to have compromised classified information was overturned, giving him back his classification after it was proven he compromised secrets. No. 5, he rejected the FBI request for wiretaps. Since 1996, four requests for wiretaps on the prime suspect in the investigation of the loss of information on the W-88 warhead technology were rejected. The suspect was allowed to keep his job before being fired in the wake of news reports in 1999, the Cox report. No. 6, he leaked classified information to the media. In 1995, a classified design drawing of the W-87 nuclear warhead was leaked to and represented in the U.S. News and World Report magazine. The leak investigation was stopped when it pointed directly to the Secretary of Energy and this administration. No. 7, President Clinton or the Clinton-Gore administration thwarted whistleblowers. Career Government employees, such as the Energy Department's former Director of Intelligence, Notra Trulock, and its former security and safeguards Chief, Ed McCollum, who tried to warn of security concerns, were thwarted for years by political appointees. We had hearings in the Intelligence Committee on this, and the Readiness Subcommittee, which I chair, of the Senate Armed Services Committee. No. 8, the administration switched export license authority. They did this in 1996, from the State Department to the Commerce Department. This was over the objection of both the State and the Defense Departments. No. 9, he granted waivers allowing missile technology transfers. You may remember the most notorious. President Clinton took a signed waiver to allow the Chinese to buy the guidance technology to put on their missiles that was made by the Loral Corporation; their CEO was the single largest contributor to the Clinton-Gore campaigns. No. 10, he ended COCOM. In 1994, the Coordinating Committee on Multinational Export Controls, called COCOM, the multinational agreement among U.S. allies to restrict technology sales to China, he dissolved that. The list goes on and on. China had a lot of help in getting virtually everything that we had. Exploitation of commerce, commercial arrangements to acquire technology. The Cox report revealed engagement of a massive effort by China in acquiring advanced military technology through its dealings with U.S. companies. We have talked about that. China has it all. In the first chart, there were 16 compromises. We don't know what they have done with this information. I don't think our intelligence knows. We now know that all 16 compromises took place and China has the technology. What they have built with this technology, we don't really know for sure. In the attempt to corrupt the 1996 election cycle, people with close ties to the Chinese Government funneled hundreds of thousands into illegal campaign contributions in an attempt to influence U.S. elections. Remember the pictures of Al Gore at the temple? This full extent of the scandal is not yet known, but Louis Freeh, the Director of the FBI, as well as the hand-picked Justice Department investigator, Charles LaBella, believed it was serious enough to require the appointment of an independent counsel to fully investigate the Clinton-Gore scandal. Serious questions remain about the activities of John Huang, Charlie Trie, James Riady, and the list goes on and on. Of course, Janet Reno has refused to appoint counsel. I don't think we will hear more from this administration. China has failed to abide by international agreements it has made in the past. For example, despite promises to abide by the norms of the multinational missile technology control regime, China has engaged in weapons proliferation. The distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, was talking about this a few minutes ago. Lastly, the U.S. State Department confirms that China's record on human rights has deteriorated in recent years. It has deteriorated, not gotten better. Trade has increased but the relationships have deteriorated. They have engaged in such activities as arrests, repression of political dissidents, persecution of religious expression, exploitation of slave labor, and forced abortions in China, and have never repudiated its actions in brutality curbing China's democracy movement in Tiananmen Square in 1989. These issues cannot be ignored or swept under the rug exclusively, pursuant of trade. Our first obligation is to protect our national security. We will not try to do it by evading the truth. Granting China permanent normal trade status without any progress in these areas is appeasement. An appeaser is a guy who feeds his friends to the alligators hoping they will eat him last. No man survives when freedom fails, the best men rot in filthy jails, and those who cry ``appease'' are hanged by those they try to appease. In October of 1995, when we were preparing to intervene when they were doing the missile tests to try to influence the elections in Taiwan, China's top official said: We are not concerned about the United States coming to the defense of Taiwan because they would rather defend Los Angeles than defend Taipei. That is, at the very least, an indirect threat at a missile coming to the United States of America. Just a few weeks ago, the Defense Minister of China said war with America is inevitable. When we are talking about giving a country such as this preferred status, we will not be doing it with my vote.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that will modify the relationship between the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma and the Shawnee Tribe in Oklahoma. These two tribes were joined together by an Agreement entered into between them on June 7, 1869. This bill will allow the Shawnee Tribe to have an independent government, elect its own officials and do those things it believes necessary to protect its language, culture and traditions. Since the two tribes will continue to operate in the same territory, the bill sets forth the conditions which shall govern those operations. This legislation will have the effect of modifying the Cherokee- Shawnee agreement by allowing the Shawnee tribe to operate independently of the Cherokee Nation. The Shawnee Tribe will be governed by a separate constitution currently in existence. Membership of Shawnee Indians will continue to be permitted within the Cherokee Nation, although Shawnee Indians who so elect will become members of the Shawnee Tribe exclusively. The bill also sets forth the manner in which the Shawnee Tribe will conduct its business within the Cherokee Nation and both Tribes have concurred in this legislation through tribal resolutions of their respective governing bodies. Although the Shawnee Tribe will be operating within the jurisdictional territory of the Cherokee Nation, the Shawnee people believe it is in their best interest to have a separate tribal governance to protect and enhance their culture, language and history and to pursue the goal of self-sufficiency for their own Tribe. It is important to note that in changing the agreement between these two tribes there is no new tribal territory created nor is it proposed that any additional land be taken into trust for either Tribe as a result of the changes. The jurisdictional area of the tribes remains as before so that there are no impacts on communities within the Cherokee Nation. The proposal is also revenue neutral as to the United States. Tribal members of either tribe now receiving services will continue to receive those services as they have in the past. The Shawnee Tribe was never terminated nor can the Bureau of Indian Affairs cause the Tribes to be separated through the Federal Acknowledgment Process. The Agreement of 1869 between the two tribes was ratified by the President and can only be amended by this proposed action of Congress. In summary, this bill would recognize the long standing policy of the United States to respect the sovereignty of every tribe and to respect the desire of the Shawnee people to be governed independently of the Cherokee Nation so that Shawnee people can identify with their own Tribe and work to maintain their culture, language, heritage and traditions.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation which will remedy a long outdated statute which impedes economic development for the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma. For years tribes have been required to seek approval by the Secretary of the Interior before they may engage in contracts. Section 81, as it is known, provides that a contract `relating to Indian lands' is not valid unless it is approved by the Secretary. This statute was enacted with good intentions but unfortunately has outgrown its usefulness. Today this provision constitutes a confusing legal obstacle for tribal development. Early last year, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell introduced comprehensive legislation to address the current problems associated with this statute. That legislation has passed the Senate and now awaits action before the House. However, the Five Tribes have often been treated with separate statutes unique to eastern Oklahoma. The legislation I propose simply corrects a technical oversight which affects only the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma which is commonly referred to as Section 82a. Without this correction, the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma would be the only tribes in the nation which may still be required to seek Secretarial approval for these contracts. I urge my colleagues to join me in correcting this oversight.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that will modify the relationship between the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma and the Shawnee Tribe in Oklahoma. These two tribes were joined together by an Agreement entered into between them on June 7, 1869. This bill will allow the Shawnee Tribe to have an independent government, elect its own officials and do those things it believes necessary to protect its language, culture and traditions. Since the two tribes will continue to operate in the same territory, the bill sets forth the conditions which shall govern those operations. This legislation will have the effect of modifying the Cherokee- Shawnee agreement by allowing the Shawnee tribe to operate independently of the Cherokee Nation. The Shawnee Tribe will be governed by a separate constitution currently in existence. Membership of Shawnee Indians will continue to be permitted within the Cherokee Nation, although Shawnee Indians who so elect will become members of the Shawnee Tribe exclusively. The bill also sets forth the manner in which the Shawnee Tribe will conduct its business within the Cherokee Nation and both Tribes have concurred in this legislation through tribal resolutions of their respective governing bodies. Although the Shawnee Tribe will be operating within the jurisdictional territory of the Cherokee Nation, the Shawnee people believe it is in their best interest to have a separate tribal governance to protect and enhance their culture, language and history and to pursue the goal of self-sufficiency for their own Tribe. It is important to note that in changing the agreement between these two tribes there is no new tribal territory created nor is it proposed that any additional land be taken into trust for either Tribe as a result of the changes. The jurisdictional area of the tribes remains as before so that there are no impacts on communities within the Cherokee Nation. The proposal is also revenue neutral as to the United States. Tribal members of either tribe now receiving services will continue to receive those services as they have in the past. The Shawnee Tribe was never terminated nor can the Bureau of Indian Affairs cause the Tribes to be separated through the Federal Acknowledgment Process. The Agreement of 1869 between the two tribes was ratified by the President and can only be amended by this proposed action of Congress. In summary, this bill would recognize the long standing policy of the United States to respect the sovereignty of every tribe and to respect the desire of the Shawnee people to be governed independently of the Cherokee Nation so that Shawnee people can identify with their own Tribe and work to maintain their culture, language, heritage and traditions.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise to ask my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for clarification on the language in the Defense appropriations conference report concerning the Crusader program. The language states that fifty percent of the funding for the Crusader program cannot be obligated or expended until thirty days after the Secretary of Defense submits the Congress a comprehensive Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) on the Crusader program. I would ask the Chairman, is this language intended to delay the continuing development of the Crusader program?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I believe that it is not the intent of the conferees to require that the Department of Defense prepare a weapon system analysis AOA as required for the Department of Defense Directives for system milestone reviews. Instead, I believe what is needed is a quicklook analysis that evaluates the capabilities and costs of Crusader and comparable weapons system alternatives to support the Army's Transformation Initiative to include the counterattack corps and brigade combat teams.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today in favor of passage of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 1999. As the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee with jurisdiction over FEMA, I have been working on this legislation for the last couple of years. Senator Graham and I introduced this legislation last fall and have been working diligently on it ever since. We can both attest to this process being long and arduous, with many unforeseen pitfalls. However, the final result has been a piece of legislation that while changing the scope of disaster assistance, continues to assure that FEMA will have the resources and the capability to deliver disaster assistance when called upon. As we all know, the Federal government, through FEMA, has been there to help people and their communities deal with the aftermath of disasters for over a generation. As chairman of it's oversight Subcommittee, I want to ensure that FEMA will continue to respond and help people in need for generations to come. Unfortunately, this goal is becoming increasingly difficult since the costs of disaster recovery have spiraled out of control. For every major disaster Congress is forced to appropriate additional funds through Supplemental Emergency Spending Bills, another of which we will be discussing at some point later this year. This not only plays havoc with the budget and forces us to spend funds which would have gone to other pressing needs, but sets up unrealistic expectations of what the federal government can and should do after a disaster. For instance, following the Oklahoma City tornadoes on May 3, 1999, there was an estimated $900 million in damage, with a large portion of that in federal disaster assistance. In the aftermath of hurricane Floyd in North Carolina, estimates of $1 billion or more in damage have been discussed. This problem is not just isolated to Oklahoma City or North Carolina. In the period between fiscal years 1994 and 1998, FEMA disaster assistance and relief costs grew from $8.7 billion to $19 billion. That marks a $10.3 billion increase in disaster assistance in just five years. To finance these expenditures, we have been forced to find over $12 billion in rescissions. The Bill we are passing today will address this problem from two different directions. First, it authorizes a Predisaster Hazard Mitigation Program, which assists people in preparing for disaster before they happen. Second, it provides a number of cost-saving measures to help control the costs of disaster assistance. In our bill, we are authorizing Project Impact, FEMA's natural disaster mitigation program. Project Impact authorizes the use of small grants to local communities to give them funds and technical assistance to mitigate against disasters before they occur; but this is not just a federal give-away program. Local communities are required to have a demonstrated public-private partnership before they can become a Project Impact community. Too often, we think of disaster assistance only after a disaster has occurred. For the very first time, we are authorizing a program to think about preventing disaster-related damage prior to the disaster. We believe that by spending these small amounts in advance of a disaster, we will save the federal government money in the long-term. However, it is important to note that we are not authorizing this program in perpetuity. The program, as adopted, is set to expire in 2003. If Project Impact is successful, we will have the appropriate opportunity to review its work and make a determination on whether to continue the program. This forward thinking approach is revolutionary in terms of the way the federal government responds to a disaster. We all know it is more cost effective to prevent damage than to respond after the fact. I should note that in my state of Oklahoma, which has recently been hit by severe flooding, one of the affected communities, my home town of Tulsa, was a Project Impact community. While the community suffered some damage, the effects could have been much more severe had the community not undertaken preventative mitigation measures. In passing this bill, we are also allowing states to keep a larger percentage of their federal disaster funds for state mitigation projects. Under current law, states can only retain up to 15 percent of their post disaster assistance funds for state-wide mitigation programs. We are now increasing that percentage to 20 percent. Too often states have run into the program of too many mitigation projects, with too little resources. For example, in Oklahoma, the state used its share of disaster funds to provide a tax rebate to the victims of the May 1999 tornadoes who, when rebuilding their homes, build a ``safe room'' into their home. Because of limited funding, this assistance is only available to those who were unfortunate enough to lose everything they owned. The ``safe room'' program in Oklahoma is a prime example of giving states more flexibility in determining their own mitigation priorities and giving them the financial assistance to follow through with their plans. An additional problem we remedy with the increase is the lack of comprehensive state-wide mitigation plans. Under current law, states are required to submit mitigation plans to FEMA, at which time they are routinely approved. However, as a condition of receipt of increased funding, states are going to have to do a better job at bridging the gap between state and local mitigation plans by developing comprehensive mitigation plans so that in the aftermath of a disaster, states know what their most vulnerable areas are and can take appropriate preventative measures. While we are attempting to re-define the way in which we respond to natural disaster, we must also look to curb the rising cost of post- disaster related assistance. The intent of the original Stafford Act was to provide federal assistance after States and local communities had exhausted all their existing resources. As I said earlier, we have lost sight of this intent. To meet our cost saving goal, we are making significant changes to FEMA's Public Assistance (PA) Program. One of the most significant changes in the PA Program focuses on the use of insurance. FEMA is currently developing an insurance rule to require States and local government to maintain private or self-insurance in order to qualify for the PA Program. We applaud their efforts and are providing them with with some parameters we expect them to follow in developing any insurance rule. While FEMA's progress in this area is commendable, it has come at the considerable opposition from States and local governments who fear the impact of any new insurance regulation. Instead of ignoring the concerns of the stakeholders, we have sought to work with them and bring their views to the table early in the regulatory process. As FEMA continues its work towards an insurance regulation, States and local governments are now assured that the final rule will encompass their concerns. Second, we are providing FEMA with the ability to estimate the cost of repairing or rebuilding projects. Under current law, FEMA is required to stay in the field and monitor the rebuilding of public structures. By requiring FEMA to stay afield for years after the disaster, we run up the administrative cost of projects. Allowing them to estimate the cost of repairs and close out the project will bring immediate assistance to the State or local community and save the Federal government money. In all, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects our bill to save approximately $238 million over five years. I personally feel this is an underestimate. CBO, because of budget rules, is unable to take into account any savings that occur outside the initial five-year window. Yet, CBO says in its analysis that long-term savings are likely as a result of the predisaster mitigation measures included in the bill. CBO also says it cannot quantify the savings associated with the implementation of any future insurance rule. Yet, common sense tells us that if public buildings have some level of private insurance, federal spending under the Public Assistance Program will be reduced. Mr. President, we have spent months working closely with other Senators, FEMA, the States, local communities, and other stakeholders to produce a bill that gives FEMA the increased ability to respond to disasters, while assuring States and local communities that the federal government will continue to meet its commitments. Our bill has the endorsement of the National League of Cities, the National Emergency Managers Association , and FEMA. In closing, I want to thank Senators Graham, Smith, and Baucus for their help and the leadership they have taken on this important issue. I would also like to thank Senators Voinovich, Grassley, DeWine, and Bond for their support of this legislation. Without their help, input, and insight this legislation would be little more than an idea. I look forward to continuing to work with them as this bill moves to conference to make this legislation a reality.

Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the Senator bringing this matter to the Committee's attention and working with us to come up with a clear policy on PNP irrigators. As he knows, during the mark-up in February, the Committee adopted the Crapo/Baucus/Bennett amendment to solve this situation. However, as we later learned, the amendment was insufficient in the eyes of FEMA to resolve this issue. I think that the language contained in the legislation unequivocally addresses the issue and there can be no ambiguity in the wishes of the Senate concerning FEMA's policy affecting private nonproit irrigators in the states. Therefore, I reiterate my commitment to enacting legislation that creates equity for PNP irrigators in the implementation of FEMA policies.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, after watching my colleagues and the depth of concern and personal passion they have at the loss of Paul Coverdell, I want to tell them of an experience I had last night. Something came to me when I was at a dinner and we had just heard the news. It was the seventh Beatitude: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God. It occurred to me that this was really Paul Coverdell; he was the ultimate peacemaker. It was impossible for Paul to walk into a roomful of people, whether Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives-- hostility, anxiety, it all subsided when Paul came in. I remember when I was first elected from the House into the Senate in 1994. Paul had just arrived here. He didn't give the first impression as being a dynamic person, even an articulate person. You had to know him and know him well. But after you did, he was unlike anyone else we have been exposed to here in this body. I thought last night about all the things we deal with here in the Senate. It was articulated in Matthew 9, starting with verse 35. It says: Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. This is kind of the way we are. We are dealing with the problems of poverty, the problems of crime--a multitude of problems. So somebody has to be the one to take on those responsibilities. I read the following verse: Then he [Jesus] said to his disciples, ``The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out laborers into his harvest field.'' When I, last night, thought of that verse, I thought, really, Paul Coverdell is the laborer who was sent, was raised up to deal with these problems, and all the problems we deal with on a daily basis, in his own unique way. So I would just say our prayer for Paul Coverdell right now is the last verse of the 23d Psalm: Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the rest of my days; and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord for ever. Amen.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. INHOFE. After going through that rather lengthy amendment of the Senator from Illinois, there should be a little relief that this amendment should not be controversial. This amendment takes the amount of money that was increased--increased--to the National Endowment for the Arts and transfers that to a fund for Indian diabetes. It is the Indian Health Service for Diabetes. Probably the least understood illness in this country is that of diabetes among Indians. It is a chronic disease. It has no cure. There are two different types. Type II is what we are addressing, diabetes among adults. Among American Indians, 12.2 percent of those over age 19 have diabetes. This is the highest risk of any ethnic group. One Pima tribe in Arizona has the highest rate of diabetes in the world, about 50 percent of the tribe between the ages of 30 and 64. In Oklahoma, a lot of people are not aware, during the 1990 census, preliminary figures show the largest percentage of Indian population and the largest number of Indians of any of the 50 States. We spent a lot of time talking to our Indian population and looking at the problems that are peculiar to that population. Not long ago, I spent some time at an Indian hospital in Talihina, OK, operated by the Choctaws. Case studies include one young male patient I talked to, 20 years of age, who already has been partially blinded with diabetes. He is already suffering from renal failure. He has a 40-year-old father who has gone blind. They recently had to amputate his leg, and probably the other one will go next. In one family, the father and mother both have type II diabetes. The mother is going to start dialysis next month. The son, who is 20 years old, has eye and kidney damage. The daughter is 17 years old and suffered a stroke, requiring weekly medical care. She has a 3-year life expectancy. The average life expectancy of the American Indian patient with diabetes is only 45 to 50 years. It is very peculiar to the Indian population. It is very clear to see our money is better spent there and we can actually try to do something through research, through medication, through programs, to get the Indian population where they can be treated, where they know how to deal with infections they don't know how to deal with now. It is unacceptable that, nationwide, 12.2 percent of the Indian adult population has type II diabetes. There is no cure. It is not a lot of money but will go a long way toward saving lives, not just in Oklahoma but in the Indian population all over the country.

Mr. INHOFE. I have no objection to setting it aside and voting when we vote on the rest of the amendments.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Washington for his comments. I do not agree, obviously. I do think, though, I find two reasons to disagree with his arguments: One, to use percentages, as to what percentage this represents that would be decreased from the NEA as opposed to increase for diabetes because of the seriousness of this; the second thing is why carry this into a discussion and a debate on the merits of the National Endowment for the Arts. If we were to do that, I would be glad to join in that debate. In fact, I voted many times to defund the National Endowment for the Arts. However, that is not this amendment. Right now they have, from last year, $97 million, the NEA, and they are talking about not keeping it level but increasing it by $7.3 million. I am saying the $7.3 million is going to end up saving lives, particularly lives of Indians with diabetes, as opposed to rewarding and increasing the appropriation to the NEA. I think we need to look at it in that light. As I said, it is just incredible for people to comprehend the seriousness of this affliction among the Indian population. Yes, I am prejudiced. Yes, the State of Oklahoma has the largest number of Indians of all 50 States, and there are a lot of States that do not have that concern. I can tell you right now, we are going to do everything we can. What the Senator from Washington says is true. We have increased it by some $30 million and it is going to be increased again over the next 4 years. However, every incremental increase is going to have a very positive effect on the research and the treatment of the Indians with diabetes. So I am going to ask for the yeas and nays on this for a vote. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is a very simple, straightforward, easy-to-understand amendment. It merely takes $7.3 million and puts it into the Indian Health Services for diabetes. It does take that out of the National Endowment for the Arts, but all it does is take it out of the increase. Last year they had $97 million. They are increasing it this year to $105 million. All I am asking is to take that $7 million, instead of increasing the National Endowment for the Arts, and to put it into the Indian Health Services' diabetes program. I am prejudiced because I come from the State that has in terms of percentages, the largest Indian population. However, I can tell you this, that of the national Indian population, 12.2 percent of them have diabetes because of the environment in which they live. It is an unhealthy environment. There are cases where they have all kinds of infections that set in where they are unable to keep from having amputations. So it is a very serious thing. You will hear from the other side an argument that says we are hurting the National Endowment for the Arts. I want Senators to remember, when you cast your vote, this does not take any money away from the allocation they had last year; it merely freezes that allocation in for the coming year. Even with the increase of $30 million that is currently in this program, that still is less than 10 percent of the amount of money that is spent for research on cancer and AIDS.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I agree with the statement of the very distinguished Senator from Montana. Reasonable people can disagree, and they can use the same statistics and come to different conclusions. We do that every day in this Chamber. I wonder, after listening to the debate--whether it is Montana, Minnesota, or whatever the State being represented by the other side of the aisle--how Montana could be so different from Oklahoma. Eleven months ago, I did a tour of very small areas in Oklahoma-- Shattuck, Boise, and Gage--places you probably never heard of, with very small populations. These people are not wealthy. They are small family farmers and ranchers. In that part of Oklahoma, they normally have three sources of income. It is either small grain or cattle or oil. When all three are down, we have real devastation out there. We have a lot of family farms that are not even making enough money to break even. I remember going out there and talking about the various agricultural programs. I talked about crop insurance. I talked about transition payments. But when the subject of estate taxes came up, they forgot about all of the other Government programs having to do with agriculture. They said: It would be the greatest thing in the world for us to be able to survive as a family institution and pass this on to the next generation. These people live day to day. They are not wealthy people. They have to really save to buy halfway modern farm equipment. They say: The greatest single thing you could do for us would be to allow us to pass this on to the next generation. I think that dwelling on the small percentage of total estates subject to the death tax isn't really an adequate reflection of the damage inflicted by the death tax, which is about 1.9 percent out of the approximately 2.3 million deaths each year, and 4.3 file a return; that is, 98,900. Not all of these are taxable. There is an effect in Oklahoma on small businesses and farms. If you look at the ``1995 White House Conference on Small Business Issue Handbook''--we had several people there as part of that group who made this handbook--more than 70 percent of all the family businesses do not survive through the second generation, and fully 87 percent do not make it to the third generation. I ask the Senator from Wyoming about the source of some of these figures which we hear, such as the loss of $40 billion in tax revenues. I don't know where they come from. I certainly question them. The current Federal death tax accounted for only $23 billion in 1998, or a meager 1.4 percent of $1.7 trillion in total Federal receipts, a level that has remained fairly stable over the years. I suggest there are two factors that are not being considered. One is the cost of compliance and one is the economic impact. There are some studies which illustrate that we could actually end up increasing tax revenues by altogether eliminating the death tax. A December 1999 study by Congress' Joint Economic Committee said: The compliance costs associated with the estate tax are of the same general magnitude as the tax's revenue yield, or about $23 billion. . .The estate tax raises very little, if any, net revenue for the Federal Government. In 1998, the Heritage Foundation came up with a similar conclusion. They said: The cost of compliance means that the $19 billion collected in the Federal death taxes last year actually cost taxpayers $25 billion. It is actually a net loss, according to their study. A recent report from the Institute for Policy Innovation says: Reducing estate taxes would generate sizable economic gains with little revenue loss. Over the next 10 years, doing away with the estate tax would produce $3.67 in output for every $1 of static revenue loss. Finally, Alicia Munnell, a former member of President Clinton's own Council of Economic Advisors, in a 1988 economic review, estimates that the costs of complying with estate tax laws are roughly the same magnitude as the revenue raised. This came right out of the White House. The other factor I am very sensitive to--because before I came to this body or to the other body down the hall, I spent 30 years in the real world--I know what it is like and how tough it is out in the real world. I wish every Member of the Senate had that kind of 30-year experience. I can remember the years I spent working long hours hiring people and expanding the economic base. There is one statistic that is hardly ever used around here. Every 1 percent increase in economic activity produces an additional $24 billion of new revenue. If you look at the motivation of many of us--I am not the only one in this Chamber. I am not the only one certainly in Oklahoma or in this country who spent the majority of his life working, not for himself but for the kids. Would I have worked those hours and would I have taken the time to go out and generate the jobs and revenues for this country if I had known that I could not have passed them on to my children? I say this: For probably the last 20 years of the 30-some years I worked in the real world, I worked for my four kids and now my grandkids. If anyone in this Chamber who was opposed to the 1993 Clinton/Gore tax increase--which some have characterized as the largest single tax increase in the history of this country, and the increase in estate taxes at that time--if they were offended by that and felt we increased taxes too much, as even the President said he did, this is your opportunity to undo some of that damage. Finally, I consider this to be a moral issue. I think any time you have the Government saying you must spend your savings on yourself and not give to your kids, it becomes a moral issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. It is exactly the sort of arrangement which you have outlined that the language in Title III is intended to promote. It is the committee's hope that additional government facilities will pursue such initiatives in order to increase their efficiency. The ARMS act was intended to breathe new life into facilities for which the Army might otherwise have less use. It is a model program and we are trying to incorporate those aspects of the ARMS program which make sense in a government owned, government operated industrial facility. This is indeed a win/win situation for business, for the Department of Defense, and for the American taxpayer.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of Senator Landrieu. I look forward to working with her and others on this important issue in conference. As you noted, as chairman of the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee I have spent considerable time looking into this matter and I believe that this facility is essential to the readiness of the Navy and Marine Corps. I understand the concern raised by some that a failure to transfer the western land as requested by the President would frustrate the long-term goal of rebuilding relations between the Navy and the people of Vieques and resuming live-fire training on the island. However, I recently visited Vieques and spoke with some of the local residents who were not as enthused by the proposed transfer of land as the Governors's office has led us to believe. Furthermore, they asked that if any land is transferred, that it be transferred directly to the people of Vieques rather than to the Commonwealth Government. However, I understand that this may not represent the views of all residents of the island and I will continue to look very seriously at this issue during the conference and will continue to speak with the residents of Vieques before I make a final decision. I also want to ensure that whatever approach we take, we do not undermine the chances of the resumption of live-fire by providing a reverse incentive. I strongly support the Navy and Marine Corps' goal of resuming live-fire training in Vieques. As stated by the senior officers of the Department of Defense, this training is critical to our readiness. I will continue to speak with these officers on the issue, including the impact of not transferring the western land, as we proceed through conference. I am committed to resolving this matter in a way that maximizes our opportunity to provide our military personnel with the training they need to ensure they are not unnecessarily put at risk when they are deployed into harm's way.