Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 2084) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if the Senator from Pennsylvania would yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, when the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was passed, there was a misinterpretation by the Health Care Financing Administration of this bill--while it should have been revenue neutral--to have regular reductions in the amount of reimbursement that goes to hospitals, specifically a 5.7-percent reduction to reimbursement that would take place in July of the year 2000. This was not the intent of the Members of the Senate. I have a letter that has 77 signatures on it, including those of each Senator who is in the Chamber right now, stating that was not the intent. This is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution saying that was not the intent so we would not be having that 5.7-percent reduction in July of the year 2000. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment in accordance with the modification at the desk.

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

Mr. INHOFE. I suggest to the Senator from Pennsylvania, both Senator Daschle and Senator Reid have signed the letter asking for this same thing we have in the sense of the Senate.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I hope the Appropriations Committee will take a close look at how the EPA is implementing this program. As the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee and the author of the legislation, I will be paying particularly close attention to its implementation.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senior Senator from Missouri for his recognition, and he is correct that there might be some problems with the implementation of the law. A provision of the law directs companies to conduct a public meeting for local residents regarding the risks of chemical accidents. The facilities are then supposed to send a certification of the FBI stating that they conducted the meeting. It is my understanding that the EPA and FBI have decided that the EPA should collect the certifications and manage them through an EPA contractor. Not only did Congress not appropriate funds for this activity by the EPA but we specifically directed the FBI to collect this information.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have all spent considerable time during the past few years analyzing the problems in agriculture and making predictions about the future. Some of these problems can be traced back to various sources such as an intrusive Federal Government, drought and instability in foreign markets. As markets closed due to the financial instability, the Asian economic crisis spread, supply increased and farmers had no place to sell overseas. As a result, commodity prices across the board have been well under costs of production. We have all heard from producers in our states, and the message we hear is that our farmers are needing help. Before the August recess, the Senate passed a $7.2 billion emergency spending package designed to help offset some of the losses in recent years. Those in the Senate who represent Ag states realize we cannot pass emergency spending bills every time the Ag economy takes a nose dive. This is not fiscally responsible and is not sound public policy. Our farmers deserve better and the representatives in the Congress must look for ways to ensure the people in rural America reap the benefits of the economic prosperity we are experiencing. Over the August recess, I held many town hall meetings across the state of Oklahoma. In one meeting in the small farming community of Boise City, I had an audience of six farmers. For over an hour, I was able to talk to the folks who had seen the face of agriculture go through substantial changes over the past 10 years. I was able to hear these farmers voice their concerns about what was working, what wasn't and what could be improved. What really impressed me Mr. President, was the fact that these producers believed Freedom to Farm was the right thing to do for agriculture. They liked having the freedom to plant what they wanted, the freedom to experiment and try something new without government interference. One of the farmers, Mr. Ron Overstreet, decided to try a couple of new things. In an area we would not normally think of as dairy country or an area for growing grapes, Ron and some of his partners have opened a dairy operation, as well as starting a vineyard. As I heard during the meeting, ``If I am not willing to experiment and try something new, I am in the wrong business.'' I was pleased these farmers did not want to turn their backs on Freedom to Farm but rather work to improve and refine some of the provisions of the program. At the end of August, Congressman Frank Lucas, who represents all of Western Oklahoma, and I held an Agriculture Summit in which we invited individuals representing different commodity groups, Ag lending companies, farm & ranch organizations, as well as Ag economists to discuss solutions to the sustained downturn in the agriculture economy. Many saw several positive changes which could be made to Freedom to Farm, with very few advocating getting rid of the existing farm program. As several of the representatives at the Ag summit suggested, the Federal Government must be more aggressive in opening and competing in foreign markets. We must make opening and penetrating foreign markets a top priority of our Nation's Ag policy. Nearly \1/3\ of all U.S. crops are grown for the export market. In 1996, farm exports reached nearly $61 billion, with nearly 46% of that total going to Asian markets. Due to the economic turmoil, exports to Asia are now less than 39%. While economies in Asia are recovering, relief for our farmers cannot come soon enough. This Administration has been lax in it's fundamental duty to aggressively pursue foreign markets for American farmers. To do this, we must change attitudes. When the U.S. uses food as a diplomatic weapon with presidential embargoes, it deprives farmers of the freedom to sell their products. These unilateral sanctions hurt only a small percentage of America's populations. Unfortunately, that group is our farmers. But a simple reform introduced by Senator Ashcroft, myself and others would work to change this. As part of the Agricultural appropriations for FY 2000, the Senate adopted the Food and Medicine for the World Act. Under this amendment, all current food and medicine embargoes would be re-evaluated by the Administration and Congress and future embargoes could be imposed only if Congress agrees in advance. It would also lift restrictions on farmers using U.S. Department of Agriculture credit guarantees to get their goods to foreign buyers, as well as requiring the President to obtain Congressional approval before the U.S. implements any trade sanctions on food and medicine. I think this is a positive step towards reforming our policies on sanctions. With all that said Mr. President, I would like to address the reason I came down here today, which is to announce my support for and original cosponsorship of Senator Roberts' bill, The Risk Management for the 21st Century Act. At the Ag Summit I held, one item many people thought could be improved was crop insurance. Witness after witness testified the current crop insurance program is inadequate and suffers from lack of affordability, inadequacy in multiple years of disaster, inequality in rating structure, and lack of sufficient specialty crop policies. I believe Joe Mayer, Vice-President of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, stated it best when he noted, ``. . . the cost of insurance balanced against the guaranteed revenues do not make the purchase of crop insurance a sound business practice in many parts of the country.'' In the Ag summit, producers also had several suggestions of how to improve the current system. These reforms are very simple. First and foremost, there must be greater levels of coverage at affordable prices to all producers. Second, there must be expanded availability of revenue-based insurance products. Third, the program must address the needs of producers suffering multiple crop failures. Given the present state of agriculture, many within the Ag community believe reforming the crop insurance program is the best ways to provide immediate relief for farmers across the country. Since the introduction of this bill, I have heard from producers and insurance agents across the state of Oklahoma who have been extremely pleased with the provisions of Senator Roberts' bill. I believe first and foremost one of the best provisions of this bill is the premium write-downs. Under this legislation, the current subsidy structure is inverted. By doing this we encourage participation at higher levels of coverage. By encouraging participation in the crop insurance program, we strengthen the safety net for America's farmers. While this is a very simple provision, I think this is one of the best provisions in the bill and one of the easiest ways to improve the current state of agriculture. The Risk management for the 21st Century Act contains provisions which establishes an Average Production history credit program. This addresses the needs of those farmers who lack production histories because they are just beginning or have recently added land. A related provision which helps many of the farmers in Oklahoma is the multi-year disaster Average Production History adjustment for producers who have suffered a disaster during at least three of the preceding five years. This is especially important to our producers in the Southwest who have suffered through several years of drought conditions. I am also pleased by the Noninsured Assistance program. Under this program, producers are allowed to plant different varieties of a crop and still be considered a single crop. As I heard from the farmers in Boise City, as well as the Ag summit, this is what they wanted--greater freedom and the opportunity to try new things. I am also pleased by the provisions dealing with restructuring the Board of Directors for the Federal Crop Insurance Commission. It is my hope we can fill this Board with producers who are farming on a daily basis and know the crop insurance system. Mr. President, Danny Geis, President of the Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association, noted at the Ag summit, ``Policy set forth from now to the end of the current farm bill must culminate in the development of a program that will provide a realistically solid financial floor that will insure stability, and will encourage the opportunistic free enterprise system that makes U.S. agriculture strong.'' I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act as I believe it helps achieve this important goal. It helps producers obtain better coverage at a lower cost, creates a flexible policy that better meets their needs, and it encourages development of policies that ensure against market losses. This plan strengthens the farm safety net by improving farm and risk management by providing a good step for long-term policy improvements for producers. By making the permanent improvements to crop insurance, we will ensure that farmers and ranchers will have powerful management tools for years to come. Once again, Senator Roberts is providing a tremendous voice for farmers across the country and I look forward to working with him to ensure passage of this important legislation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I did allude to that. I suggest to the Senator from Virginia also the fact that the successes we had in Kosovo were directly related to the Vieques. The last place they got training before going into Kosovo was at the Vieques.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do want to talk about some of the tax ramifications, today's subject. I think it is very significant. Prior to doing that, though, we have an issue that is current, rather sensitive, and is rather serious in terms of our Nation's security. Tomorrow, the committee I chair, the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will be holding a hearing to review the national security requirement for continued training operations of the naval facility off the island of Puerto Rico called Vieques. It is a very important issue, military readiness, with the lives of military personnel on one side of the debate and the interests of the local community on the other. At this point, I remind the President that for 57 years we have used this island of Vieques, an island that is approximately 20 or 25 miles wide, one small area way over on the east end of this island as a range, a bombing range--57 years. During that time, we have lost the lives of one person, who was a civilian employee working for the Navy. This happened last April and created quite a bit of hysteria. There are many people trying to use this as an excuse to close down the range that is so vital to our interests. We have seen all the press reports outlining the concerns of those who oppose the military's use of the island. We have also witnessed the introduction of legislation to close this range. Unfortunately, far less attention has been given to the national security requirement for continued access to the training provided by this range. In fact, I have not heard anyone address the increased risk to our Nation's youth who serve in uniform and what they will face if we send them into combat without the benefit of the training that is offered only at Vieques Island. The subcommittee will be meeting tomorrow to explore the requirements of this language. It is my hope that once the panel, appointed by the Secretary of Defense to review this matter and make recommendations for appropriate resolution, issues its report, the committee will be able to then meet to review those recommendations and hear from the people of Puerto Rico as well as the military. The Secretary of the Navy recently released a report, prepared by two of its senior officers, which examines our training activities on Vieques and explores potential alternative training sites. Although no alternative site has yet been identified that would replace the training Vieques provides, I understand the panel appointed by the Secretary of Defense and by the President continues to seek a resolution to this issue. I will read a couple paragraphs out of the Navy report prepared by those individuals. I think it is very significant: The Inner Range at Vieques is the only range along the Atlantic seaboard that can accommodate naval gunfire, the only range at which strike aircraft are afforded the use of air-to-ground live ordnance with tactically realistic and challenging targets and airspace which allows the use of high altitude flight profiles. This is very similar to what we witnessed in Kosovo, and they were very successful. Even though to begin with we should not have been involved, it was necessary to use high-altitude bombing to be out of the range of surface-to-air missiles. We did that successfully, and they received their training at Vieques. I do not know what the degree of success would have been otherwise. Continuing from the report: It is the only range at which live naval surface, aviation and artillery ordnance can be delivered in coordination. Additionally, Vieques is the only training venue that can accommodate amphibious landings supported by naval surface fires. . . . It continues and talks about how this is the only facility we have, and if we do not have this facility, we are going to be deploying troops into areas without proper training. One of the conclusions of the report is: This study has reaffirmed that the Vieques Inner Range provides unique training opportunities vital to military readiness, and contributes significantly to the ability of naval expeditionary forces to obtain strategic objectives. This study examined alternative plausible sites and concluded that none, either in existence or yet undeveloped, would provide the range of training opportunities at Vieques Inner Range. The U.S.S. Eisenhower is going to be deployed in February to the Arabian Gulf and to the Mediterranean to do just this type of exercise and will be called upon to do something to defend this country when they will not have had the proper training from Vieques because right now there is a moratorium and the U.S.S. Eisenhower has not had the opportunity to have that training. Any resolution must provide the military with the ability to achieve the same level of proficiency that the training operations at Vieques currently provide. Any proposal to move operations to a phantom or an unidentified site as of yet is unacceptable. Before any decision is made to move operations from Vieques, a specific alternative site must be identified and all actions necessary to make it functional, from environmental studies to military construction, must be completed. Failure to identify a specific site and make it available will simply prove the validity of the Navy's position that no viable alternative exists. Therefore, any decision to continue the use of Vieques, but at a reduced level of operations, must still allow the military to perform the training necessary to meet the required wartime proficiency. I fear that a decision is going to be made based on politics rather than national security. I am concerned that this administration may take action that will place at risk the lives of sailors and marines simply to court the popular vote in favor of candidates with close ties to this President. One only has to look back at the recent decision to release terrorists from prison to fully appreciate the extent to which this President is willing to place American lives and interests at risk in order to garner votes for his friends and family. The inappropriate politicization of the issue has already been demonstrated by the Justice Department and the U.S. attorney's office in Puerto Rico which have refused take necessary action to protect the lives of American citizens. As many of my colleagues already know, as we speak today, there are protesters over there, some four groups of protesters, who are on the live range with live ordnances. I had occasion to spend a good bit of the recess looking at this. I have been over every inch of the island either by helicopter or by car or on foot. I have seen the protesters out there throwing around live ordnances. Just imagine, in 57 years, how much is out there. One particular individual came out carrying a live ordnance and tried to get on a commercial aircraft, which would have killed everybody on the aircraft. It is a very serious thing, and I cannot believe our Justice Department has refused to enforce the laws of trespassing on Federal military Government property. I hope these explosives do not fall into the hands of some of the terrorists the President recently released from prison. One thing about this issue is certain. The primary mission of Roosevelt Roads is to support training operations at Vieques. If military access to Vieques is eliminated, the value of Roosevelt Roads will be greatly reduced, and those functions, other than supporting this range, can be performed very well in other areas where there is excess capacity. The U.S. military cannot afford to fund a base that provides little or no benefit to national security. Therefore, today I have introduced S. 1602, legislation which will close naval station Roosevelt Roads at such time as the military terminates military operations at Vieques, if that should become a reality. I have seen this. I have become convinced. Our hearing tomorrow will either disprove or prove what I am saying today--that it is absolutely necessary to have the benefits of this range and that there is no place else we have in our arsenal, no other range, that provides the type of training that will save American lives. If we send in our troops, as we are preparing to do right now on the U.S.S. Eisenhower, and they get involved in some kind of a problem and do not have the benefit of the training at Vieques as those who participated in Kosovo, it could certainly cost American lives, and we will be sending our troops at far greater risk, which I weigh and measure in terms of human life.

Mr. INHOFE. Let me respond to the chairman. In the subcommittee, we are only going to address what alternatives there are, why it is critical. There are far more things to consider. It is my hope the full committee that my colleague chairs will hold a hearing.

Mr. INHOFE. I am happy to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. INHOFE. I agree with the Senator.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Virginia. I would only say that it is not very often you get total agreement from all of the commanders in the field, all of the CINCs in the field, as well as all the chiefs. All four chiefs are on record right now saying this is absolutely necessary to have as part of our training. One of the things I have been trying to do is to quantify in terms of American casualties when you go from low to high to very high risk-- what that means. There is no question there is not one who will not say if we send our troops in there without this very valuable training that they can only get at the Vieques, it is going to be at a higher risk, which means American lives. I certainly hope the people of Puerto Rico understand we are talking about their lives, too. So we should all be focused on the same thing.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Exhibit No. 1 U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, September 20, 1999. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear. Mr. President: As Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I write to express my grave concern over the future of the United States Navy's training facility located on the Puerto Rican Island of Vieques. Ever since I was the Secretary of the Navy, I have worked to keep this facility available to the Department of Defense. The last two east coast carrier battlegroups which deployed to the Adriatic and Arabian Gulf, completed final integrated live fire training at Vieques. Both battle groups, led by the carriers U.S.S. Enterprise and U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt, saw combat in Operations Desert Fox (Iraq) and Allied Force (Kosovo) within days of arriving in theater. Their success, with no loss of American life, was largely attributable to the realistic and integrated live fire training completed at Vieques. This island is unique in character, both in terms of its geography, with deep open water and unrestricted airspace, and its training support infrastructure. The training range is absolutely vital to our readiness, and there is no replacement facility available. Without a doubt, America enjoys the best trained, best equipped and most motivated military force in the world. But combat skills, practiced at Vieques, are perishable. Aviators must hone targeting and weapons delivery skills; ammunition leaders and flight deck personnel must coordinate weapons assembly and leading; naval surface fire support teams must integrate calls for fire support with ground units; gunfire spotters must refine targeting skills; and ground units must practice the seamless transfer of command ashore. The Armed Forces have learned these lessons well. Untrained forces are exposed to higher casualty rates and experience less mission success. Mr. President, I urge you to take no action which limits or degrades our Armed Force's ability to properly and thoroughly prepare for the challenges they face in today's world. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, who testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, confirmed the continuing requirement for live fire training operations at Vieques. Due to the moratorium on training on Vieques, the next carrier battlegroup is deploying with reduced combat readiness in its airwing and naval surface fire support capability. I encourage you to now signal your support for all the men and women of our Armed Forces by allowing the critical live fire training at Vieques to continue. With kind regards, I am, Respectfully, John Warner, Chairman.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a number of significant developments have occurred since the passage of last year's authorization conference report--some good, some less so. The best news is that this year's defense budget reverses a precipitous decline in defense spending. For the first time in 15 years, we have finally passed an increase in defense spending, in real terms. We have also included a 4.8 percent pay raise for our overburdened troops. These steps are long overdue, and we have been blocked at many turns by the Administration. As many of our colleagues know, our forces are deployed in farflung places, many with little national interest or military requirement at stake. Yet, unfortunately, we have also had a hemorrhaging in the ranks, due to deep cuts from the Administration. The numbers are staggering. In just the last six years, the following are among the forces which have been eliminated from the U.S. inventory: 709,000 regular service soldiers, 293,000 reserve troops, 8 standing Army divisions, 20 Air Force wings with 2,000 combat aircraft, 232 strategic bombers, 13 strategic ballistic missile submarines with 3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles, 500 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles with 1,950 warheads, 4 aircraft carriers, and 121 combat ships and submarines along with their support bases and shipyards. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, the United States devoted 4.5 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) to national defense. Today, defense outlays account for just 3 percent of GDP--their lowest level since the end of World War II. By Inauguration Day 2001, defense spending is projected to have plummeted to 2.8 percent of GDP. Mr. President, this is a good bill. It has a number of important components to it, most of all the overall spending hike and pay raise. As the Chairman of the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee Infrastructure, we were able to address a number of important issues this year. Milcon: We authorized $8.49 billion for milcon, $3.06 billion above the Administration's request, with a strong emphasis on family housing and decaying infrastructure. Range Withdrawal: we have allowed critical readiness training to occur for the next 25 years on some of our critical ranges in the West. Spectrum: the spectrum was protected from a corporate takeover, allowing crucial bandwidth to be maintained by the military. At the same time, this bill simply does not go far enough. Under no proposed budget currently on the table is there a substantial increase in defense spending, like we need. In a budget approaching $2 trillion, we ought to be able to find the less than $100 billion it would take to truly restore our readiness. It is time to reverse these trends. It is time to take prudent steps to rebuild our defenses to protect our people, our values and our country. I look forward to working toward that goal as a major priority in the year ahead.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chairman for his ongoing support of this important safety equipment. big mountain road and great falls airport

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a brief colloquy with the Chairman regarding some weather observation equipment for the FAA. As the Chairman will remember, last year he was very helpful in getting money in the Department of Transportation Appropriation bill for FY 99 to begin testing of the Automated Observation for Visibility Cloud Height, and Cloud Coverage (AOVCC) system. Using high resolution digital imaging, laser ranging and high performance computing technology, the AOVCC system augments the current ASOS by adding the capability to detect fast-moving weather systems in a timely and representative manner. Is it my understanding that FAA is currently testing this equipment and it appears that AOVCC is performing up to expectations. Would the Chairman agree that if testing of AOVCC is successful, FAA would make every effort to purchase the AOVCC system to enhance existing weather observation?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I had been presiding and listened intently to the debate that has been taking place. I have a couple of thoughts which I think have not been addressed. For one thing, we recognize that this has to have been politically inspired, that you do not offer clemency to known terrorists without some type of motivation to do so. If one has been watching the media and if one has been listening to this debate, one has to come to the conclusion that it was politically motivated. There can be no doubt about that. Of course, there are a lot of Puerto Ricans in the United States and in some of the States such as New York, New Jersey, and Florida, perhaps, who could determine the outcome of a vote. So we have politicians catering to them. I suggest to you, Mr. President, that while this is onerous enough, this is not happening in a vacuum because at the same time people are going after this voting block by offering clemency, something else is going on right now, something that not many people are aware of, and that is, for the last 57 years we have been able to use an island called Vieques off the shores of Puerto Rico as a bombing range, as an amphibious training base. This is classified and characterized by the Navy, as well as the ground troops, as an imperative area for our training and our readiness. I guess what I am saying is, there is no place else in the Western Hemisphere we can use for this kind of training. It is high-altitude bombing training and also amphibious training. What this also means is when we are about to deploy a ship such as the U.S.S. Eisenhower they will not be able to train because of a moratorium on training on Vieques. How does that relate to this subject at hand? It relates directly in that the reason we are having problems with the range which we have used successfully for 57 years and which is an imperative part of our state of readiness is that it is unique, but they have stopped us from doing it through a moratorium because of the people of the island of Vieques. There are only 9,000 residents on this island who are saying, all of a sudden: Well, we decided we don't want to have bombing on the far end of this island. This island is over 20 miles long. The bombing range is way over on one side. There is a buffer zone in between that is a national park on which we have spent literally millions of dollars to satisfy that handful of people who want us to abandon the range. What do we have going on right now? We have people who are running for high office--and I do not think there is any reason to mention who they are at this time--going in and holding press conferences in Puerto Rico, saying: We want to stop the bombing that is taking place on this range; we want to deactivate the range. Those individuals who are running for office in Puerto Rico are going one step further. Right now, there are four groups of protesters. These protesters are down on the firing range, walking around where there are live ordnances on the ground, picking them up, throwing them around, and someone is going to get killed. Consequently, having witnessed this, when I came back I wrote a letter and made a phone call to Janet Reno, our Attorney General, to insist she apply the law to these trespassers to stop them from doing that. I do not know what her motivation is, but she refuses to do it, and she is selectively interpreting and enforcing the law. I suggest that the Senator from Utah was correct when he said the Attorney General is asleep at the switch while the White House is running the Justice Department. We are allowing the White House to run the Justice Department insofar as clemency is being offered to these terrorists, but also running the Justice Department by not enforcing the law in getting these people out of harm's way. I can stand on the Senate floor today and say that I believe someone is going to be killed, and when that someone is killed, it is going to be the fault of our Attorney General and her boss, the President, because they are selectively not enforcing the law at this time. While it is bad enough we allow terrorists to go unpunished--we turn them loose on society; we somehow fall into this mindset that punishment is not a deterrent to crime for political purposes--it is even worse, in my opinion, to take away the one thing that is necessary, the most significant, an important training area, from our military in order to prepare to defend America. So I think this thing has gone far enough, and I do believe it is politically inspired. I do believe that was the reason for the offer of clemency. I do believe that is the reason so many politicians right now are saying: Fine, we'll go ahead and close the range. One last thing on the range. I know this message will get out to the right places when I say it. It is true that the people and the citizens of the island of Puerto Rico would like to have this range deactivated. But they also at the same time want to keep our facilities that are so significant in making contributions to their economies, such as Roosevelt Roads. As chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, I went out and told them I am going to do everything within my power--if they deactivate this range; and are successful in doing this, through the White House and the President's efforts--to do what we can to move those functions that take place in Roosevelt Roads, to deactivate that and bring those back to various installations in the United States that are only partially utilized. So that is going out as a warning. I think it is time we take this whole thing very seriously and try, just for a while, to get politics out of this process which we have been discussing. Lastly, yes, it is significant. We are talking about a President who has offered clemency to a bunch of people, some terrorists, who have inflicted crime on American citizens. When you stop and think about how the young people of America are looking at this and saying, ``Well, I guess there's not anything wrong with participating in this kind of activity,'' this is morally wrong, and it should be stopped. I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.