Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on Wednesday, July 28, Paul Scott Howell of Edmond, Oklahoma was shot and killed as he pulled into the driveway of his parents' home. The apparent motive is carjacking. At the time of his death, Mr. Howell was returning from a shopping trip for school supplies with his daughters and his sister. Fortunately, his daughters and sister were not harmed. On Monday, August 2, the City of Edmond mourned this senseless death. It was clear from the tone of the service and from those who attended that Paul was loved and admired by many. Although I never had the pleasure of knowing Paul, I suspect that not only have his family and friends suffered a great loss but the entire country has as well because Paul was one of those people that we all wish we could be like. I think Carol Hartzog, the Managing Editor of the Edmond Sun newspaper says it best in a recent column, ``You would have liked Paul Howell.'' Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record Ms. Hartzog's tribute to Paul Scott Howell. The tribute follows: [From The Edmond Sun, Aug. 3, 1999] You Would Have Liked Paul Howell (By Carol Hartzog) Paul Howell's life went full circle. Four-year-old ``Paulie'' was blessed by a security that only a 1950s-era Edmond could provide. It was an idyllic time. Forty years later, Paul was gunned down dead in his boyhood neighborhood last Wednesday. He was a blessed youngster, and through life's trials, has been gifted as an adult. He would in turn bless all who knew him. Despite his death, his testament will live on. Often, the media will make a victim of random violence into a larger-than-life character. But in this case, Paul Howell ministered to so many, young and old. On one hand, he would light up a room with his bounding presence, his boisterous, fun-loving way. On the other hand, in an unassuming way, this 45-year-old man would mentor to those who had fallen victim of the bottle and sought help from Alcoholics Anonymous. Not only was he a recovering alcoholic, but he had such a passion for it that his story will live--and benefit--so many long after his death. He carried the message to other alcoholics, and mentored them through their steps of recovery. ``Paul didn't just use AA,'' his brother Bill told me. ``AA used him to continue to reach out to others. . . . He grabbed hold of it. He was available all the time, and pushed other people into it, and I was so proud of him doing it.'' ``It takes a special person to let go of that anonymity,'' Bill said. Paul really didn't care. He was so happy that AA had changed his life, he wanted to reach out and change as many people as he could. ``That's the real wonder of Paul.'' Paul took AA's philosophy to the ultimate degree--one day at a time. A funeral for an alcoholic often gathers a handful of people. Often, there has been no road to recovery, only to death, either by your own hand or another's. In contrast, Paul Howell's funeral Monday was a celebration--a celebration of one who had triumphed. And with Paul's gifts of an award-winning smile, his sense of humor an his good looks, he helped so many because of his Maker. Because of his hardships, he connected with the youth of his church, relating his failures and his message, ``Don't do to your parents what I did.'' Howell's funeral Monday brought people from all the ``walks'' of his life--his boyhood chums, his AA friends and the community of faith that had been there, literally, from the beginning. I never had the pleasure of meeting Paul. But it was evident from the many I visited with that what I have said is true. He and his family touched many lives. His family roots extend to the Land Run here. Sitting next to me was the 80-something year-old retired church organist, who accompanied Paul's mother, Dorothy, and the rest of the choir. The musician watched little Paul and his older brothers grow up. On the other side of me was Larry, a business associate in the insurance industry. Paul would visit Larry's office at least monthly. He has a gregarious nature. ``I expect by now, he's met everyone in heaven and they all like him,'' he said. ``He never met a stranger. Although, last week, he did.'' And then there's the teen-ager who was in Paul's ninth- and 10th-grade Sunday School class. ``He was really cool,'' Matt said. Paul would occasionally give him tickets to University of Oklahoma ball games. Leroy spoke at Howell's funeral Monday. Leroy is ``A friend of Bill W.,'' as the funeral bulletin would state. That reference is to the founder of AA. Through powerful, audible terms, all those who attended the funeral knew Paul's influence through AA. When Leroy spoke from the pulpit and said, ``Hello, my name is Leroy and I'm a recovering alcoholic. . . .'' I would surmise a third of those in attendance said, ``Hello, Leroy,'' the standard response spoken in unison at AA meetings. You knew Paul was a testament to the power of AA. The diversity of Paul's scope of influence was apparent. The sanctuary was overflowing. There were hundreds lining its walls, in the foyer, the crying rooms and other anterooms-- 1,200 people in all, it's estimated. The altar area was covered with 25 flower arrangements--the huge kind that would only look small in the setting of a British cathedral. Dozens more lesser arrangements filled in what space was left. Paul's memorial service was also a testament to Edmond--a community coming together to pay its respects to the victim of such a random, senseless act. In the 1950's this then-small town would give Paulie a Rockwell-esque setting in which to grow up. The town's population was 9,000. First Christian Church provided the security that came with that. He and his two older brothers would bound over fences to the neighbors' houses where the Gibsons and the Rices lived. He grew up in a tight-knit neighborhood where many of his playmates remained to adulthood and to adult responsibilities. That's unique in Edmond today, where a third of our population didn't live here five years ago. His youthful years became troubled with normal teen-age problems, drinking being a part of that. Twelve years ago, his life took another turn when he admitted his alcoholism and sought help with AA. That road would take him to a new high, a pinnacle that few reach when struggling with alcoholism. His community of faith at First Christian Church would walk with him. And along that long stretch, he touched so many. He had been given a gift of new life through AA, and he has been giving back over the years. This community has pulled together before--the 1986 tornado that struck our town but miraculously took no lives. The post office massacre that same year that took 15 citizens. And the Murrah Building bombing that took 19 Edmond residents. We don't get any better at coping. But we know, as the Rev. Kyle Maxwell so eloquently stated Monday, that ``suffering got us here (through the crucifixion of Christ on the Cross).'' Let's not ``try to make sense out of the senseless crime,'' Maxwell said. ``The `why?' of it is that God created us to be free. Sometimes that's too heavy a burden for some people.'' He has given us the freedom to be compassionate and the freedom to take another's life, Maxwell said. I believe that Christians are to be people of grace and of forgiveness. We are as sinful as the people who took Paul's life. In this case, society places consequences on those sins acted out. But, Jesus said that any sin is just as deadly, even if it is, unspoken and remains in the heart. You are to forgive, for if you don't, anger will literally eat away any energy or beauty that Paul may have placed in your hearts. That's what it's all about. Grace. And if you are not at that point to forgive in your journey, say so. Make a commitment to try. The families of those in jail who are on this side of heaven and going through a worldly hell need your prayers. I believe Paul would have been right there, leading the prayer service for those sinners like himself. He has experienced his own private hell and knew from whence they came.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not mind yielding first to the Senator from Illinois to make his remarks and we can go back and forth.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Of course. The Senator was reading from the report. I would like to read the next paragraph that he overlooked. It says they are recommending: Action by Congress to remove the current 2% oxygen requirement-- That is right before ethanol-- to ensure that adequate fuel supplies can be blended in a cost-effective manner while quickly reducing usage of MTBE. . . . Exactly the opposite of what the Senator from California is trying to do with her amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. INHOFE. I know people are getting restless and I know there will be a substitute offered, but if there is anyone in here who is predicating their decision on how to vote on this blue-ribbon committee, let me read from the report. It totally contradicts what the Senator from California is saying. They recommend: Action by Congress to remove the current 2 percent oxygen requirement to ensure that the adequate fuel supplies can be blended in a cost-effective manner, while quickly reducing usage of MTBE. What she is trying to do is actually fill that 2 percent with ethanol. Another recommendation says: Accelerate air and water affects research on other fuel components likely to take MTBE's place such as . . . It names ethanol, aromatics, and alkylates. It says don't do it until we do the research. That is the recommendation of this blue-ribbon committee. Last, it bothers me when people use scare tactics. This blue-ribbon committee said: The great majority of these detections to date have been well below levels of public health concern with approximately 1 percent rising to levels above 20 parts per billion. I certainly concur with the recommendation of the Senator from Texas. Let Members have a chance to hold hearings on the results of the blue- ribbon committee. Nothing would be lost.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, when I heard that the Senator from California was going to bring up her amendment, I came down to the floor. Quite frankly, I came down carrying the credentials of the blue- ribbon committee. I think there is one thing on which we can all agree: If you actually read the recommendations of the committee, they are not consistent with the amendment that is offered by the Senator from California. We have 13 people on the panel. They are from industry, they are from some of the environmentalist groups, chaired by Dan Greenbaum of the Health Effects Institute. I think it is important that we read what this blue-ribbon committee recommends. What they recommend is that they are not through yet. I will just read a couple of the recommendations here. They recommend that MTBE should be reduced but not banned. They said that oxygenate mandates should be eliminated. This amendment would increase mandates, not eliminate them. They said that benefits of ethanol need to be studied more. They did not say they have already been proven scientifically. If there is one thing that has bothered me about the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is that some of the things that come out are not based on sound science. In this case, we do have the beginning of sound science. We have a recommendation by a blue-ribbon committee, made up of 13 people who are very professional and should represent all aspects of this issue. Anyway, that is not what their recommendation is. They said that we should not ban MTBE, considering all alternatives and benefits. In addition to use as an oxygenate, MTBE is also used as an oxygenate enhancer. I think this has not been brought out. There is a reason for MTBE to be included. As far as the use of ethanol, as far as the report is concerned, the environmental benefits are in question. The blue-ribbon panel recommended that it further be studied before its use is increased. That is what the recommendations were of this committee. I think we have plenty of time to have the hearings, as we have discussed. There is another thing that has not been talked about. That is, if we were to adopt the Boxer amendment, some amount of money would have to come from the highway trust fund. Ethanol users receive a tax credit at the current time, and at the end of each year it comes out of the highway trust fund. Therefore, each of our States will have their highway funds reduced if this amendment should pass. It is not possible to switch to ethanol right away, as the Senator from California suggests. We do not have the national infrastructure to transport the ethanol. A lot of people are not aware that this cannot be added at the refinery; it has to be added at the rack where the fuels are mixed. On health effects, only 1 percent of the detections of MTBE in water has met the threshold for smell, which is below the threshold for human health effects. I really think if we want to use, as our basis, our decision on this amendment being the blue-ribbon panel recommendations, we ought to go ahead and not pass the amendment, allow Senator Chafee and me, as chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, to have hearings. We are going to have hearings on this, on the blue-ribbon committee, in September. We are prepared to do that. This is a drastic step. It is something we do not want to get into unless we are sure. If you read the report, it says: Do not do it now. Study it. The results are not in. We will have to make further recommendations. We are willing to have the committee hearing on this. I can just give you my word at this time we will have it probably sometime in September. I yield the floor or yield for questions. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my legislation, S. 880, the Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, which passed Congress today, and according to the Administration should be signed into law shortly. This bill was passed in the Senate by unanimous consent on June 23, 1999, and passed by the House with amendments, on July 21, 1999. I appreciate the speediness with which the House acted on this legislation and the support of my good friend Chairman Tom Bliley. Unfortunately the Senate is forced to act just as quickly on this legislation because of delays created by the administration. In early 1998, I raised concerns to the administration regarding the security risks posed by disseminating the worst-case scenario data on the Internet. The FBI agreed with my concerns. Despite the acknowledgment of the risks involved the administration did not cooperate with Congress to fix this problem until the eleventh hour. Because of the urgency in passing this legislation I have decided that a conference would not be beneficial. While I agree with most of the changes incorporated in the House-passed version, due to the haste of their consideration, I feel the necessity to explain in more detail my view, as the lead sponsor, of one particular provision. Section 3 of the act requires the ``Attorney General, and in consultation with appropriate State, local, and Federal governmental agencies, affected industry, and the public, shall review the vulnerability of covered stationary sources to criminal and terrorist activity, current industry practices regarding site security, and security of transportation of regulated substances.'' In carrying out this provision, I ask the Attorney General, in consulting with the Federal governmental agencies, to work with the Intelligence Community as well as the FBI. If any technical assistance regarding chemicals is needed I direct the Attorney General to work with the Department of Energy facilities, particularly the Hazardous Material Spill Center at the Nevada Test site and the Sandia laboratory in New Mexico. Regarding the transportation issues, the Attorney General should consult with the Department of Transportation. In addition, I would like to emphasize that any confidential information or national security information should be closely safeguarded.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I, like many of my colleagues, have been listening intently to all of the debate. I certainly understand that the Senator from New Mexico is very sincere when he talks about many of these programs that need funding. I do think that something has been completely lost in the debate that has been taking place on the floor. It is this assumption that if we are going to pass a tax reduction, it is going to automatically reduce revenues. I think this is one of the fallacies that defies all history, and it is one that needs to be talked about at this time. I can remember when President Clinton was first elected in 1992. One of the first appointments he made was his chief financial adviser, Laura Tyson, who was quoted to have said--I believe this is an exact quote; certainly the intent is the same--that there is no relationship between the level of taxation the Nation pays and the amount of economic performance. I think this is ludicrous. I think it defies all logic. If you carried that to its logical conclusion, you would say let's raise all marginal rates to 100 percent, and everyone is going to work as hard as they would have otherwise. Certainly this is not what history has shown us. One of the interesting things that is so overlooked by many liberals and others nowadays is that you can increase revenues by decreasing taxes. You have to realize that for every 1-percent increase in economic activity, that generates new revenues of $24 billion. This was really discovered by accident back in the 1920s. Back in the 1920s, under two administrations, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, there was a guy named Andrew Mellon, who was the Secretary of the Treasury under both administrations. It wasn't his understanding at that time that he would be able to increase revenues by reducing taxes, but this was right after World War I. In World War I, we had tax rates that were just unconscionably high--73 percent. So they said, all right, the war is over now. Let's reduce our tax rates, and they reduced them in three steps during a 9-year period from 73 percent to 25 percent. This chart shows the income tax rate at the time right after the war and how they reduced it from 73 percent down to 25 percent. Look what happens as the income started rising. It came up from about $700,000 to over a billion dollars. It was almost doubled during that period of time. I think this speaks for itself. It shocked a lot of people. This wasn't some smart economist saying this is the way to increase revenue. They weren't even trying to increase revenue. But that is what happened. Then again in the 1960s, of course, this was not a Republican administration. This was the administration of President Kennedy, and he made the statement, drawing upon the experience of the 1920s, that we have to have more revenues to take care of the obligations that we have incurred in Government. He said we need more revenues, and the best way to increase revenues is to reduce taxes. I say to the Senator from New York, this was not a Republican saying this. This is someone whom he knew very well, President Kennedy, back in the 1960s. So he came along with his tax rate. At that time the highest rate had been up at 91 percent, as you see on the chart represented by the green line. He reduced them over that period of time down to 70 percent. Now, if you make that kind of a reduction in the tax rate and you see what has happened during that period of time, during the 1960s, it did exactly what the President said it was going to do in anticipating what was going to happen to the revenues. President Kennedy knew that, and I think many of the people at that time felt this was something that twice in history had been proven to be the case. Then, of course, along came the 1980s. I can remember in the 1980s because I was around at that time. I remember when Ronald Reagan--keep in mind this was at a time when we had deficits, not surpluses as we have today. He was advocating a sweeping tax relief reduction of about $1.6 trillion. I happen to have known personally, as many of my colleagues did at that time, Speaker Tip O'Neill. Speaker O'Neill at that time was not considered to be one of the stalwarts of the conservative movement, but Tip O'Neill said: No, I think that is too much. I think to be fiscally responsible, we should reduce taxes only by $1.3 trillion. Now, keep in mind, this is Tip O'Neill, a Democrat, advocating the reduction of taxes by $1.3 trillion. Now we are talking about merely reducing them by some $790 billion. Mr. President, to repeat, we learned lessons quite by accident during the Harding and Coolidge administrations back in the twenties. The lessons were that you can actually increase revenues by decreasing taxes. We learned in the 1960s when President Kennedy did the same thing; we dramatically increased revenues by decreasing taxes. This is the most revealing one because there has never been a 10-year period in the history of this country where we have had more tax reductions in marginal rates than we did in the 1980s. On this chart, the green line is the income tax revenues, starting in 1980, going up here and showing that they increase by two-thirds at a time when the reductions in the rates were actually cut by two-thirds. I think it needs to be pointed out that there is not a direct relationship between the level of taxation and the amount of revenue. In fact, the relationship is just the opposite. I think those who are saying we don't want to reduce taxes are really saying we don't want to reduce revenues. I can understand that. Some people believe Government should have more spending power and more control of our everyday lives. That is what defines a liberal versus a conservative. I think we are trying to do something to really have dramatic cuts to enhance the economy. Perhaps one of the benefits of that would be, as history has shown, to increase revenues. There is one thing you can do if you want to cut down the size of Government, and that is to cut some of these programs. It has been my experience--having worked at the local level, State level, and now in both Houses of Congress--that once a problem exists out there, you form a Government agency to deal with the problem. The problem goes away, but the agency goes on. In a great speech made in 1965 which was called ``A Rendezvous With Destiny,'' Ronald Reagan said: There is nothing closer to immortality on the face of this earth than a Government agency once formed. I believe we need to look at this and realize what has been happening, where we are going from here, and what effect the tax cuts we are advocating are going to actually have on the economy. Another way of looking at it is, in 1993, Bill Clinton actually passed, with the support of Congress, the largest single tax increase in contemporary history--in the whole history of this country. He raised taxes in that one increase by $241 billion over a 5-year period. In 1995, 2 years later, President Clinton said: People in this room are still mad at me about the budget because you think I raised taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think they raised them too much, too. I think anybody at that time who was opposed to that largest tax increase in the history of this Nation should realize that a way to rectify that is to reverse and repeal some of the taxes that were increased at that time. We have looked at different taxes that should be reduced. I agree with the Senator from Texas that we should reduce the marriage penalty. It doesn't make any sense in our society to reward people who live together out of wedlock. It doesn't make any sense at all, and it creates some of the other problems that we are so concerned about. I am very concerned about the marginal rate tax, and I think we can probably have the effect of increasing revenues by reducing marginal rates. Thirdly--and this will be in one of the amendments that we vote on, I guess, tomorrow; I hoped it would be tonight, but it will be tomorrow-- is the death tax. I suggest to you that I had occasion to be out in western Oklahoma talking about the farm crisis and about all the things that are happening, I know, in other States and in Oklahoma. I am sure they have the same problems out in New Mexico. When you talk about repealing the estate tax or the death tax, all of a sudden they quit worrying about crop insurance and these programs because that is the thing they believe is most critical to the small businessman and woman and farmer in America. If there is one thing we can do, in all fairness, it would be to vote favorably on that when the appropriate time comes. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to lend my support for the inclusion of $15,000,000 million for the Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. This important funding brings to completion the creation of the Oklahoma City National Memorial Trust as specified by PL. 104-58. During the 104th Congress, we created the Oklahoma City National Memorial Trust to commemorate the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The Oklahoma City National Memorial will consist of three components: the actual Memorial, an interactive learning museum, and the Memorial Institute now funded in this legislation. Fundraising for the symbolic Memorial and the Memorial Center is nearly complete and construction for the symbolic Memorial is complete. With the funding provided in this legislation, the Memorial Institute is one step closer to a reality. Already, an implementation plan for the Memorial Institute is complete and work has begun to prepare for the construction. In preparation, the Oklahoma City National Memorial Foundation and the Oklahoma City Memorial Trust have entered into a partnership with the Oklahoma Alliance for Public Policy Research to establish an operational relationship for the Memorial Institute. The Alliance consists of all of Oklahoma's research universities (Oklahoma State, University of Oklahoma, and Tulsa University), while the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center will perform the administrative and functional duties as directed by the Institute's management team. The Alliance meets the joint public-private partnership arrangement provided for in the Oklahoma City National Memorial Trust Act. This joint partnership is both prudent and necessary as Oklahoma and the nation begins to consider the broader implications of domestic terrorism. The Memorial Institute will be the only institute of its kind in the nation dedicated to understanding, deterring, and mitigating against terrorism. Naturally, it is only fitting that such a center is located in Oklahoma given our close, personal relationship with domestic terrorism. Yet this Memorial Institute will go beyond being just another reminder of the tragic event that struck Oklahoma and the nation early in the morning of April 19, 1995. The Memorial Institute will also provide a collaboration and exchange of knowledge between public and private, Federal and state, and military and civilian efforts to counter terrorism. Another important issue that will be researched at the Memorial Institute is how to better coordinate and integrate health care and medical efforts associated with our response to terrorism. This collaborative research on emerging counter-terrorism projects will lend key insights to ensuring that the events of April 19 never occur again. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman, Senator Gregg, and the Ranking Member, Senator Hollings, for efforts to secure this important funding for the Memorial Institute. Their efforts will long be remembered by the researchers who spend time at the Memorial Institute and the American public who stand to gain countless benefits from their research. Oklahoma and the Nation thank them.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I recognize and honor Rear Admiral Leonard Vincent, U.S. Navy as he retires upon completion of 32 years of service to the Navy, The Department of Defense and the Nation. Born in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a graduate of McAlester High School, Oklahoma he enlisted in the Navy Reserve in 1961. He graduated from Southeastern State College, Durant, Oklahoma, in 1965 and received his commission as a Ensign in the Navy Supply Corps that same year. In 1976 he receive his Masters in Business Administration from George Washington University. A distinguished professional, Admiral Vincent currently commands the Defense Systems Management College (DSMC). As the Commandant of DSMC, he has been a leader of change agents for acquisition reform. And he has brought a wealth of acquisition, logistics, and contract management experience to the vital task of training our nation's Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce. Afloat he has served as the Supply Officer of an amphibious ship, the USS Pensacola (LSD 38) and the Supply Officer of a submarine tender, the USS Dixon (AS 37). Ashore his assignments have included duty as Supply Officer with Naval Special Warfare Group and with Naval Inshore Warfare Command, Atlantic, both in Little Creek, Virginia. His varied acquisition assignments include Director of Contracts, Naval Supply Center, Puget Sound; Contracting Officer for the Supervisor, Shipbuilding and Repair, Bath, Maine; Director of the Combat Systems department and Director of the Contracts department at the Navy's inventory control point, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania; Assistant Commander for Contracts, Naval Air Systems Command; Deputy Director for Acquisition for the Defense Logistics Agency; and prior to his current assignment, RADM Vincent was the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Fleet Supply and Ordnance, Pacific Fleet. In addition to his current assignment, his command tours have included Commander, Defense Contract Administration Services Region, Los Angeles, California; Commander, Defense Contract Management Command International, Dayton, Ohio; and Commander, Contract Management Command, Washington, D.C. Throughout his career Admiral Vincent has displayed exemplary performance of duty, extraordinary initiative and leadership, keen judgment, and dedication to the highest principles of devotion to his country. He leaves the military and the acquisition community better by having served them. His contributions will have lasting consequence. Mr. President, Leonard Vincent, his wife Shirley and their three children, Lori, Tiffany and Stephen have made many sacrifices during his 32 year Navy career. A man of his leadership, enthusiasm and integrity is rare and while his honorable service will be genuinely missed, it gives me great pleasure today to recognize him before my colleagues and wish to him ``Fair Winds and Following Seas'' as he brings to a close a long and distinguished career in the United States Naval Service. I ask that an article and narrative on Rear Admiral Vincent be printed in the Record. The article and narrative follows: Rear Admiral Leonard Vincent--Commandant, Defense Systems Management College Rear Admiral Leonard ``Lenn'' Vincent became the Commandant Defense Systems Management College (DSMC), Fort Belvoir, Virginia, in January 1998. The College is a graduate-level institution that promotes sound systems-management principles by the acquisition workforce through education, research, consulting, and information dissemination. Admiral Vincent entered the Naval Reserve program as a sea- man recruit in October 1961. Upon graduation from Southeastern State Teachers College in Oklahoma, he received a commission in July 1965 from the Officers Candidate School, Newport, Rhode Island, as an ensign in the Supply Corps, U.S. Navy. Since returning to the Navy in 1970, RADM Vincent's wide variety of afloat and shore-based assignments have provided him extensive contracting, contract management, and logistics experience. Afloat he has served as the Supply Officer of an amphibious ship, the USS PENSACOLA (LSD 38) and the Supply Officer of a submarine tender, the USS DIXON (AS 37). Ashore his assignments have included duty as Supply Officer with Naval Special Warfare Group and with Naval Inshore Warfare Command, Atlantic, both in Little Creek, Virginia. He attended the Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Virginia; and then in Washington, D.C., he earned a Masters in Business Administration from George Washington University. His varied acquisition assignments include Director of Contracts, Naval Supply Center, Puget Sound; Contracting Officer for the Supervisor, Shipbuilding and Repair, Bath, Maine; Director of the Combat Systems department and Director of the Contracts department at the Navy's inventory control point, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania; Assistant Commander for Contracts, Naval Air Systems Command; Deputy Director for Acquisition for the Defense Logistics Agency; and prior to his current assignment, RADM Vincent was the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Fleet Supply and Ordnance, Pacific Fleet. In addition to his current assignment as Commandant, DSMC, his command tours have included Commander, Defense Contract Administration Services Region, Los Angeles, Contract Administration Services Region, Los Angeles, California; Commander, Defense Contract Management Command International, Dayton, Ohio; and Commander, Contract Management Command, Washington, D.C. His military decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal with gold star, Legion of Merit with gold star, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with three gold stars, Navy Commendation Medal, and Navy Achievement Medal.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 11:30, at which time there will be a period of morning business not to exceed 1 hour equally divided.

Mr. INHOFE. Before amending my request, I ask the Chair, would the Senator from Minnesota be entitled to 10 minutes of the half hour that they already have under my request?

Mr. INHOFE. I so amend.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. I object.