Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a third time, and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been presiding, and I know that we are going to be continuing with the defense appropriations bill later on. I noticed something that I read just in the last couple days that was in the Wall Street Journal under the title of ``Do We Need a Missile Defense?'' This has been a debate in this body for quite some time during the Defense authorization bill. It is so obvious on its face, that virtually every strategist, in terms of strategic defense in the country, agrees that we are under probably a greater threat today than we have been maybe in the history of this country in that we no longer are in a cold-war posture where there are two superpowers and you can identify who the other one is, as it was in the case of the cold war. Some of us, I think, may be looking back wistfully at the days when there was a cold war and we could identify who the enemy was. I can recall that back during the Nixon administration, Richard Nixon and Dr. Kissinger put together the whole concept of the ABM Treaty, which was there are only two superpowers that have weapons of mass destruction and the missile means to deliver them, at least part way. Therefore, if we all agree not to defend ourselves, then the philosophy of mutual assured destruction would serve us all well. In other words, the Soviets fire at us, we fire at them, everybody dies and no one is happy. That is not the situation today. I did not agree with it back in 1972. Back when we had the ratification of the START II agreement, I was the only Senator halfway through the rollcall to vote against it. Everyone else was voting for it until a few others realized that what we were doing is going back and reinstating or resurrecting that philosophy of the ABM Treaty, except now it would be with Russia as opposed to the Soviet Union since it no longer exists. I think it is insane that we would even consider something like that. In fact, I had permission from Henry Kissinger himself to stand on the Senate floor and quote him when he said that he did agree at the time that that was a good policy for America in 1972, but he said that now some 25 nations have weapons of mass destruction, and he said, ``It is nuts to make a virtue out of our vulnerability.'' This article that I read--I will, without exceeding my time, just paraphrase a few of the comments here by some of the experts. Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense during the Ford administration. He said: Only someone deep in denial can contend that the U.S. cannot be threatened by ballistic missiles. Rogue states like Iran, Iraq and North Korea have made clear their determination to acquire chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. China and Russia, if inclined, could threaten many countries, near and far, with nuclear missiles. Missiles are a weapon of choice for intimidation, precisely because the world knows that once a missile is launched, the U.S. is not capable of stopping it. Henry F. Cooper was the director of the Strategic Defense Initiative during the Bush administration and the chief U.S. negotiator in the Geneva defense and space talks during the Reagan administration. He said--I will just quote this first sentence: America's vulnerability to ballistic missile attack is a leadership failure of potentially disastrous proportions. Then it goes on to quote many others, including James Woolsey, who was President Clinton's former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and now practices law in Washington. He was the one who 2 years ago said that--this was 2 years ago--we now have 22, 25 nations that have weapons of mass destruction or are in the final stages of completing those weapons and are working on the missile means of deploying them, delivering them. I think, Mr. President, if you update his statement, as he did the other day, it is now up to some 30 nations. Look at who these nations are. When you are dealing with the Middle East mentality of Iran, Iraq, and Syria and Lebanon and Libya, and, of course, people like Saddam Hussein, who would murder his own grandchildren, we are not dealing with people that we can predict, people who think like Westerners think. Yet here we are today considering the defense appropriations bill and giving virtually no attention to our ability to defend ourselves with a national missile defense system. So, Mr. President, I am hoping, as we keep repeating this over and over again, that we can penetrate somehow this Eastern media who would like to make people believe that the threat is not out there, this administration that keeps saying over and over again that it will be 15 years before we can be threatened by a missile attack, when in fact there are intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the United States from as far away as China or Russia. We have been held hostage. We were held hostage in the Taiwan Strait when the Chinese went over and were doing their missile experimentation. One of the highest ranking Chinese officials at that time said, ``We're not concerned about the Americans coming in and defending Taipei because they would rather defend Los Angeles than they would Taipei.'' That has to be at least an indirect threat at the United States. The threat is real. The danger is real. We are living in a time when the threat is greater than it has been at any time in this country's history. We, as a body, are trying to do something about it against the wishes of the administration, and we have to prevail in this effort for our kids' sake. Lastly, I am from Oklahoma, and those who saw the Murrah Federal Office Building and saw the television accounts of it--you almost had to be there to get the full impact of the tragedy that was there. It was just indescribable. The power of that bomb that blew up the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City was equal to 1 ton of TNT. The smallest nuclear warhead known to man is 1 kiloton, 1,000 times the explosive power. So the threat is there, Mr. President. We need to deal with that and do something about it. After all, is that not what Government is for? I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Brown]. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, would the chairman support my request that the General Accounting Office review this project, including the questions I have raised in this letter, and report back to this committee and to the House National Security Committee within 30 days?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask that a copy of a letter from myself and Senator Nickles to GAO dated 20 June 1996 be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, when the 1995 Base Realignment and Closure Commission [BRAC] recommended closure of Fort McClellan, AL, and relocation of Fort McClellan's Military Police and Chemical Schools to Fort Leonard Wood, MO, that decision was based in part on the Defense Department's recommendation to the Commission that basic training being conducted at Ft. Leonard Wood be moved elsewhere in order to make room for the additional personnel and activities associated with MP and chemical training. Subsequent to the adoption by Congress and the President of the BRAC '95 recommendations, the Army changed its position and has now opted to keep basic training at Fort Leonard Wood. In this regard, I am concerned that the FY97 Defense Authorization bill contains $58 million in BRAC IV military construction funds for ``unaccompanied enlisted housing'' at Fort Leonard Wood, one of four projects totaling $118 million in similar BRAC IV funding for that post. While it is possible that some of these funds are necessary to accommodate BRAC-directed moves, it is my understanding that this $58 million project is being undertaken partly to enable Fort Leonard Wood to continue to accommodate its existing basic training load.

Mr. INHOFE. May I ask of the Armed Services Committee chairman and the Readiness Subcommittee chairman, respectively, if they will agree to consider modifying or eliminating this project during the joint conference on the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense authorization bill, if the GAO's conclusions indicate that doing so would be in the best interest of the American taxpayer?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Vance Air Force Base continues to be the preeminent pilot training base within the Department of the Air Force. Unfortunately, the Department of the Air Force has historically underfunded this installation in its military construction request. I have brought to your attention three projects which will assist Vance in meeting its infrastructure needs in the future. These projects include a base engineering complex, a consolidated logistics complex, and a project to add to and alter the Physical Fitness Training Center. It is my belief that planning and design funds for these projects, if identified, will allow the Department of the Air Force and Air Education and Training Command to consider these projects for inclusion in the fiscal year 1998 budget request. I might point out to the distinguished chairman that these projects have wide support elsewhere in Congress. The Senate Committee on Appropriations' fiscal year 1997 military construction appropriations bill directs that not less than $1,695,000 be made available for design of these projects from the ``Military Construction, Air Force'' account. Moreover, the House National Security Committee's fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill ``directs the Secretary of the Air Force [to] conduct planning and design activities for the following projects: $288,000 for a physical fitness training center at Vance Air Force Base, OK; and $512,000 for a consolidated logistics complex at Vance Air Force Base, OK.'' Finally, the House Appropriations Military Construction Subcommittee's markup of the fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill directs the Air Force ``to report to the committee on the need for these projects and its plans for construction by September 16, 1996.'' Can the Chairman assure me that he will work with me to ask the Air Force to consider identifying funds for reprogramming in the coming months for planning and design purposes for these projects, which are so crucial to the future of Vance Air Force Base?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator for yielding. I do not think I will even take that much time. I know time is very precious right now. I have been listening to the debate, and I am the first one to say I am not on any of the committees that deal with this, so it is not that I have been entrenched in this issue. I agree with one thing the Senator from Connecticut said, and that is it is very transparent, the things that are going on around here. The Senator from Utah was very specific and I think very articulate in the way that he addressed how this would affect labor unions. It is my understanding that even in the reporting aspects of soft money each local could give up to $10,000 without even reporting it. So let us assume that they report accurately and that someone who says that a local says it is contributing less than $10,000 is in fact correct. I am not ready to accept that. But let us assume that is right. If you have a hundred locals, you are talking about a million dollars. No one will ever know where it came from. This is money that is used very effectively in campaigns. So as far as I am concerned, one of the big areas that should be regulated is left out of this thing, and that is labor unions. And then there is trial lawyers. I have to tell you that every time I run for office there are thousand-dollar checks coming from all over, from trial lawyers from all over America because I am the one who has on his agenda a desire that I am going to fulfill to see to it we have real meaningful tort reform in this country, to make us competitive again. So we have the trial lawyers out there with the ability to send in, on their own contributions of $1,000 apiece, to maybe six different campaigns. Maybe there are 100 of them who are out there. All you have to do is look at an FEC report and you can see that they are doing it. Let me make one comment about PAC's. Everyone assumes that political action committees are something evil. Political action committees allow small people to get involved, people who are of low incomes to get involved in the process, and there is not any other way they can get involved. I have been a commercial pilot for I guess 38 years. I have been active in aviation. I believe that aviation makes a great contribution to the technology of aerospace and many other things, and consequently I am supported by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, AOPA, 340,000 members. Each one puts in about $5 and they do contribute to people who are supportive of the industry that they believe in. The NRA, they have taken a lot of hits recently. Who are the NRA? When you sit up here, you are looking at millions of dollars in Washington, but if you were with me last weekend in Hugo, Cordell, Lone Grove, Sulphur, those are people who belong and they might give $5 a year because they honestly in their hearts believe in the second amendment rights to the Constitution. I do, too. They contribute. These are not big fat cats, wealthy people. So I think to categorize PAC's as being something that is evil in our society is wrong. The third thing I do not like about this legislation that is coming up, and I will be opposing it, is the arrogance that is there. We have reduced postage for us--not for you, not for anybody else but for us. Now, what happens when you reduce our postage? It is all out of one fund. So other postage is going to end up going up. It is just sheer arrogance that we should be treated differently than everybody else. We passed legislation, a very good bill through this Chamber at the very first of this Congress and that was the bill which made us live under the same laws as everybody else. All of a sudden people around here are looking, pointing fingers, saying, should we have done that? Here we are again, coming right on the heels of that, saying we are going to give us a benefit nobody else has. The Senator from Massachusetts a minute ago stood up and said we ought to have more free time on TV. Who are those broadcasters out there? Are they all fat cats? I go around Oklahoma. We have small stations. They are going to give time, and if they do not give free time, they are going to have to give a reduced rate, 50 percent of the lowest rate. That is for us because we are in Congress. We are important people. We are supercitizens--not everybody else, just us. The arrogance in the way we are approaching that, saying we are entitled to things other people are not entitled to I find to be very offensive. Mr. President, I conclude by saying I agree with the Senator from Connecticut. This is transparent. The two biggest offenders, the ones who contribute the most to campaigns--and I would categorize them as organized labor and trial lawyers--are not going to be inhibited in any way by this bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to engage Senators Warner, Smith, and Kennedy, who are my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, in a colloquy for the purposes of clarifying and correcting provisions in the committee's report with respect to the committee's funding of the air-to-air Starstreak missile evaluation, to be conducted by the Army. Senator Kennedy and I, along with other members of the committee, have supported continued evaluation of the Starstreak missile in an air-to-air role, to provide self-protection capability for the Apache helicopter. I understand that it has been the committee's intent to provide $15 million in fiscal year 1997 for the completion of the air- to-air Starstreak live fire phase test, to be carried out by the Army's applied aviation technology directorate. This test phase is to be completed prior to conducting a side-by-side evaluation with the air- to-air Stinger missile. It is also my understanding that to achieve the committee's intent, these funds should be placed in program element 63003A, an account used in prior years for this program. However, the committee report placed it in a different line item--PE No. 23801A--and contains language that suggests an alternate use of these funds. I would like to correct the record in this matter.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Thurmond and Nunn for agreeing to include this provision in the Defense authorization bill. I also want to thank the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee for their patience and understanding in working with Senator Nickles' and my staff on this issue. This land transfer will allow Oklahoma to move forward in its attempt to establish a new national veterans' cemetery. This process has taken almost a decade to get to this point, but I believe we now have a satisfactory solution in using available land at Fort Sill, in Lawton, OK. Finding property for this veterans' cemetery has been a major struggle, and, obviously, this land transfer will mean a great deal to many Oklahoman veterans. I am pleased to be a part of this solution, and I thank the other Senators who have helped to make this happen.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank my colleagues for their assistance in clarifying this important matter. amendment no. 4049

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a few years ago I became exposed to a problem that exists in the lives of thousands of Americans. It happened when one of my closet friends in Oklahoma, Buddy Martin; lost both of his legs. He was one of the fortunate ones who had the resources to purchase artificial limbs, and is able to live today a much more normal life than one could imagine. It is because of this exposure that I rise today to introduce a bill to provide relief to thousands of Americans. Everyday far too many Americans are unable to live full and productive lives like Buddy Martin because they cannot afford adequate prosthetic care. There are over 250,000 Americans who cannot afford adequate prosthetic care. While the government provides assistance through Medicare and other programs they can not meet all of the needs, and they don't have to. The private sector stands ready to help, through nonprofit foundations, but they cannot because of our country's product liability laws. That is why I am introducing the Prosthetic Limb Access Act of 1996, I am joined by my colleagues Senators Faircloth, Grams, Abraham, and Helms. In Oklahoma, a nonprofit foundation called Limbs for Life takes used artificial limbs, reconditions them, and provides them to needy people in third world countries, they do not give them to Americans. It is not because there is not the need, they do not provide them because of our country's laws regarding product liability. They would be unable to afford the necessary insurance to provide the limbs to needy Americans. One doctor in Oklahoma, Dr. John Sabolich, the Nation's foremost prosthesis expert, currently saws used devices in half before throwing them away, because of liability. He showed me a $50,000 prosthetic arm that was about to be destroyed; to make it reusable would only have required about 20 minutes of work. It is a disgrace that perfectly good artificial limbs have to be destroyed when there are thousands of Americans who could use them. My bill would provide the necessary product liability relief, while still protecting the patients by providing relief for intentional wrongdoing. This would allow hundreds of Americans to care for themselves, work, and better enjoy a more full life. There are over 3,000 new amputations each week, which amounts to 160,000 amputations each year, for a grand total of 3.8 million amputees in the United States. The number of new amputees has increased over the years because of the early detection of cancer, doctors are able to detect cancer earlier and it is better to sacrifice a limb to save a person. Therefore the demand for more limbs by needy people will only increase. I have been told that if this bill is enacted that at least 2,000 limbs per year could be made available for needy Americans. These are 2,000 people who otherwise would not have access to an artificial arm or leg. These are 2,000 people who are currently not living full and productive lives, who need assistance to care for themselves, sometimes to just accomplish tasks that we all take for granted such as eating, moving around, or even working. I have met many of these people who would benefit from this legislation and have listened to their heartbreaking stories. And for everyone I've heard of there are hundreds more who go daily without a prosthetic device, depending on others. There is Nestor, a man who is missing both arms. He states: My prosthesis is broken and I am unable to eat or do any activities of daily living such as personal care or cooking. I live alone and have no friends to help, so I must do things for myself. There is Pearl, a 46-year-old woman with one leg missing, who lives in a nursing home. She said: I slip and fall so often when my crutches slip away from me--and it hurts a lot when my wrist or neck or other body parts are throbbing with pain for weeks due to my falls--and although I try to be careful and watchful, the crutches still can slip away from me when encountering the mopped floors or wet spots that are in a nursing home. There is Dalia, she was fitted with her current prosthesis in 1983, but since then her body has changed and it no longer fits properly. She says: When I changed prosthesis, my whole body changed, my balance is off especially effecting my back. I have fallen down, have worsening osteoporosis and am very frustrated because I can't do the things I used to do. Mr. President, I know these are sad stories, and I know we as Members run across sad stories every day. But here we can do something positive for them, which will solve their problems, at no cost to the taxpayers. We can provide them the same medical services we are now giving poor people in third world countries, and we can do this through the nonprofit sector. We have needy people and a willing organization ready to help. Mr. President, we should at least treat our own citizens as well as we treat those in other countries. Mr. President, my legislation is supported not only by the Limbs for Life Foundation, but also: Goodwill Industries, National Amputee Fund, National Association for the Advancement of Orthotics and Prosthetics, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Mr. President, this is a simple bill which would create major relief for a number of needy people. It is not a broad product liability bill, so therefore it should not draw the opposition that other bills have received this Congress. It corrects a small problem that literally means the world for a large group of disabled Americans. I hope we can move this bill forward this year.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his leadership in this issue that we are discussing. Nothing new can be said on this subject. I know what the final remarks will be from the Senator from North Dakota. I want to talk about two things. No. 1, the threat; No. 2, the cost. If anybody out there believes it is going to cost so that we will ultimately have the ability to save ourselves, protect ourselves from missile attack--look at the CBO report and the figures that they are batting around, $30 to $60 billion over 14 years, and that has now been downgraded. It is quite obvious that we wanted to have an Aegis ship with the space sensors. We already have a $50 billion investment in 22 Aegis ships that are out there. We can upgrade those, and reach into the upper tier for about $3 to $4 billion over 4 years. If you add the $5 billion for sensors we could have a system in place that will stop an incoming ballistic missile for the United States. Right now we have nothing. The vast majority of American people believe that after we have spent all of this money that we have a system but we do not. We are almost there. It is 90 percent paid for, and the threat is real. For those who question the threat, remember the words of James Woolsey who was the CIA Director for President Clinton. He said 2 years ago that we know of between 20 and 25 nations that have or are in the final stages of developing weapons of mass destruction and the missile means of delivering those weapons. One expert after another expert testified that threat is out there, that threat is real. So, I would only say when you are considering taking out this little bit of money that we have to try to go forward with this program, stop and realize and stop and ask yourself the question. What if all of these experts are right? Look at Oklahoma City. The Presiding Officer and I represent the State of Oklahoma. We saw the devastation that took place there. That was what is comparable to one ton of TNT. The smallest nuclear warhead known is a kiloton, 1,000 times that power. So if you are wrong, we are making a terrible mistake if we pass this amendment.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a few years ago I became exposed to a problem that exists in the lives of thousands of Americans. It happened when one of my closet friends in Oklahoma, Buddy Martin; lost both of his legs. He was one of the fortunate ones who had the resources to purchase artificial limbs, and is able to live today a much more normal life than one could imagine. It is because of this exposure that I rise today to introduce a bill to provide relief to thousands of Americans. Everyday far too many Americans are unable to live full and productive lives like Buddy Martin because they cannot afford adequate prosthetic care. There are over 250,000 Americans who cannot afford adequate prosthetic care. While the government provides assistance through Medicare and other programs they can not meet all of the needs, and they don't have to. The private sector stands ready to help, through nonprofit foundations, but they cannot because of our country's product liability laws. That is why I am introducing the Prosthetic Limb Access Act of 1996, I am joined by my colleagues Senators Faircloth, Grams, Abraham, and Helms. In Oklahoma, a nonprofit foundation called Limbs for Life takes used artificial limbs, reconditions them, and provides them to needy people in third world countries, they do not give them to Americans. It is not because there is not the need, they do not provide them because of our country's laws regarding product liability. They would be unable to afford the necessary insurance to provide the limbs to needy Americans. One doctor in Oklahoma, Dr. John Sabolich, the Nation's foremost prosthesis expert, currently saws used devices in half before throwing them away, because of liability. He showed me a $50,000 prosthetic arm that was about to be destroyed; to make it reusable would only have required about 20 minutes of work. It is a disgrace that perfectly good artificial limbs have to be destroyed when there are thousands of Americans who could use them. My bill would provide the necessary product liability relief, while still protecting the patients by providing relief for intentional wrongdoing. This would allow hundreds of Americans to care for themselves, work, and better enjoy a more full life. There are over 3,000 new amputations each week, which amounts to 160,000 amputations each year, for a grand total of 3.8 million amputees in the United States. The number of new amputees has increased over the years because of the early detection of cancer, doctors are able to detect cancer earlier and it is better to sacrifice a limb to save a person. Therefore the demand for more limbs by needy people will only increase. I have been told that if this bill is enacted that at least 2,000 limbs per year could be made available for needy Americans. These are 2,000 people who otherwise would not have access to an artificial arm or leg. These are 2,000 people who are currently not living full and productive lives, who need assistance to care for themselves, sometimes to just accomplish tasks that we all take for granted such as eating, moving around, or even working. I have met many of these people who would benefit from this legislation and have listened to their heartbreaking stories. And for everyone I've heard of there are hundreds more who go daily without a prosthetic device, depending on others. There is Nestor, a man who is missing both arms. He states: My prosthesis is broken and I am unable to eat or do any activities of daily living such as personal care or cooking. I live alone and have no friends to help, so I must do things for myself. There is Pearl, a 46-year-old woman with one leg missing, who lives in a nursing home. She said: I slip and fall so often when my crutches slip away from me--and it hurts a lot when my wrist or neck or other body parts are throbbing with pain for weeks due to my falls--and although I try to be careful and watchful, the crutches still can slip away from me when encountering the mopped floors or wet spots that are in a nursing home. There is Dalia, she was fitted with her current prosthesis in 1983, but since then her body has changed and it no longer fits properly. She says: When I changed prosthesis, my whole body changed, my balance is off especially effecting my back. I have fallen down, have worsening osteoporosis and am very frustrated because I can't do the things I used to do. Mr. President, I know these are sad stories, and I know we as Members run across sad stories every day. But here we can do something positive for them, which will solve their problems, at no cost to the taxpayers. We can provide them the same medical services we are now giving poor people in third world countries, and we can do this through the nonprofit sector. We have needy people and a willing organization ready to help. Mr. President, we should at least treat our own citizens as well as we treat those in other countries. Mr. President, my legislation is supported not only by the Limbs for Life Foundation, but also: Goodwill Industries, National Amputee Fund, National Association for the Advancement of Orthotics and Prosthetics, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Mr. President, this is a simple bill which would create major relief for a number of needy people. It is not a broad product liability bill, so therefore it should not draw the opposition that other bills have received this Congress. It corrects a small problem that literally means the world for a large group of disabled Americans. I hope we can move this bill forward this year.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator and I certainly concur in the comments that he is making. It is a very frustrating thing to have knowledge of the threat that exists out there and merely because the American people are not aware of it, we are ignoring the defense of our country which I have always understood when I was growing up should have been the primary concern or function of Government, to protect its citizens. In a few of the things that have been said by a number of those who are on the opposite side of defending America was the discussion about the threat of suitcases, of carrying around bombs, of terrorist activities. Being from Oklahoma, nobody needs to tell me about terrorist activities. I understand. It is almost as if to say that because there are crazy people out there that burn churches and carry around suitcases, we need to address that and not address the potential of an attack on the United States of America by an ICBM, armed with a warhead that can be a weapon of mass destruction, chemical, biological or nuclear. It is like saying you do not want to have car insurance because you want to have insurance on your home. You want to have a comprehensive policy that insures you against everything. There is a threat out there and I think we need to talk about that, and certainly now is the appropriate time because we have heard Senator after Senator stand up and allege there is no threat out there; the cold war is over. It was 2 years ago that James Woolsey, who was the CIA Director under President Clinton, made a statement, and his statement 2 years ago was we know of between 20 and 25 nations that either have or are in the final stages of completing weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical or nuclear, and are working on the missile means to deliver those weapons. That was 2 years ago. He updated that statement and said there are somewhere closer to 30 nations now. Let us look at who those nations are, the type of people, the mentality of those individuals who are potentially armed with this type of destruction, countries like Iraq and Iran and Libya and Syria, North Korea, China, Russia, countries where just not too long ago, for example, Saddam Hussein, a guy who murdered his own grandchildren, made the statement back during the Persian Gulf war that if we had waited 5 more years to invade Kuwait, we would have had the capability of sending a weapon of mass destruction to the United States. Well, here it is. It is now 5 years later. So let us assume that some of these guys might be right. They come up and they say, well, we do not want to do it because it might in some way affect adversely the ABM Treaty. The ABM Treaty was put together back in 1972, and we cannot say this was done in a Democrat administration. It was not. I am a Republican. Richard Nixon was a Republican. Henry Kissinger, I assume, was a Republican. At least he worked for a Republican. And he put together a plan. The ABM Treaty at that time was designed to address the problem of two superpowers in the world environment. Those superpowers were the U.S.S.R. and the United States, and so they put together a plan that said we will restrict our nuclear capability bilaterally. So let us assume that they would do it. I never believed they would. Let us assume they would. If you bring that up to today, there is no longer a U.S.S.R. It is now Russia. Let us assume that Russia would agree to stepping into this issue as the former U.S.S.R. And live up to the expectation of the ABM Treaty. What about these other 25 or 30 nations out there? Let us assume that the United States and Russia are downgrading their nuclear capability. At the same time what is Iraq doing? What is China doing? What are the other countries doing? They are certainly not a part of this treaty. It was brought out by one of the Senators in the Chamber a few minutes ago that these people are not part and parcel to the treaty so they could continue to increase their nuclear capability, the weapons of mass destruction, and their capability to develop a missile means of delivering them. If we do not want to take the word of somebody who is not here as to how significant and how applicable today is the policy of a mutually assured destruction, listen to what Henry Kissinger said just the other day. I had lunch with him. I asked him if I could quote him. He said yes. His statement was, ``It is nuts to make a virtue out of our vulnerability.'' And that is exactly what we are doing. Let us for a minute talk about the cost. I have never heard anyone throw around figures like I have heard in the Chamber of the Senate--talking about another $30 billion to $60 billion. The CBO estimate of $30 to $60 billion over 14 years was taking every system that is out there right now and saying we want to deploy all of these systems by a date in the future. No one has ever suggested that. Right now, we are talking about in this bill looking at what options are there. Let us take the Aegis system. We have a $40 to $50 billion investment in 22 ships that are floating out there right now. They have missile launching capability. They are there. They are already bought and paid for. We need to spend about $4 billion more to give that system capability of reaching up into the upper tier and giving us a defense from an attack of a missile that might be coming from North Korea or from someplace else. In that, we already have an investment. Mr. President, 90 percent of it is already paid for. We have some estimates here that were made by the team B of the Heritage Foundation. That is made up of people like Hank Cooper, the former director of the Strategic Defense Initiative, and several others. All of them are acknowledged experts. No one has ever questioned their credibility. They say that a Navy-wide area defense system on Aegis cruisers would cost between $2 and $3 billion over the next 6 years, plus $5 billion for a sensor satellite. We are talking about, now, not $70 billion, we are talking about somewhere in the neighborhood of $7 to $8 billion over the next 6 years. So let us get this in perspective. Let us assume there could be some truth to the statements that these experts like James Woolsey are making, and, in fact, the threat is out there. Let us assume the Russians already have one. This morning in a speech on the floor I used several articles, four or five of them. I wish I had them with me now. I did not think this subject would come up again. But we talked about how China is now selling technology to Pakistan, how Syria and Libya have a new, cozy arrangement with each other. Here is an article right here that I did not use. The headline of this article, found in the Washington Times, dated May 20, ``China's arsenal gets a Russian boost. Deal for ICBM technology a threat to U.S., classified Pentagon report says.'' Then it says: China, under the guise of buying space launchers, is enhancing its strategic arsenal with technology and parts from Russia's most lethal intercontinental ballistic missile, the SS-18, [that is the MIRV'd missile with 10 warheads] says a classified Pentagon intelligence report. Further quoting, Incorporating the SS-18-related military guidance or warhead technologies into China's strategic missile forces would greatly improve Beijing's ability to threaten targets in the United States. . . Now, that is in a confidential report that so far no one has refuted. Let us keep in mind that was about the time that a high Chinese official said--during the time they were experimenting with missiles in the Strait of Taiwan, the Chinese were conducting experiments--they said, ``We don't have to worry about the United States coming to their aid because they,'' the United States, ``would rather protect Los Angeles than they would Taipei.'' I would characterize that at the very least as an indirect threat at the United States. It is like the Senator from South Carolina said, the honorable chairman of this committee, he said, ``We are being held hostage.'' Threats like this: ``They are not going to do that, because if they do that we will go after them.'' Do they have the capability? According to the reports, yes, they have the capability. So I just think we need to look at this in terms of the costs that have been grossly, dramatically inflated into something that is totally unrealistic--the constant use of terms like ``star wars'' and other things to put this into some kind of fiction environment so people will think this thing is not real. Keep in mind what was started in 1983 and was right on target all the way up through about last year, when the President vetoed the DOD authorization bill from last year, and in his veto message said he did not want to spend any more money on a national missile defense system. In light of that, since that has happened, we have probably had more threats that have come to the United States than we have at any other time. We have talked about the cost. I am from Oklahoma. The cost of the damage that was done to the building itself in Oklahoma City was $500 million, half a billion dollars. That is just a drop in the bucket as to the total cost. The bomb that caused so much damage in Oklahoma had the power of 1 ton of TNT. The smallest nuclear warhead known at the present time is 1 kiloton, 1,000 times bigger than that bomb. So I would like to have anyone, any of these Senators who seem to be so passive in their interest in protecting ourselves from a missile attack, to stop and look and remember, recall what happened in Oklahoma City on April 19 of last year and multiply that by 1,000. It does not have to be just in New York City. It does not have to be in Los Angeles. It could happen in North Dakota, it could happen in Nebraska, or anywhere. I will conclude by saying if all these experts say the threat is out there, if all of them say the Taepo Dong 2 missile will have the capability of reaching the United States by the year 2000, and there are missiles in existence today that can already reach us, and this missile technology is permeating all the way through the various countries like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Pakistan and other nations, if this is out there, just ask the question--we are talking about $300 million right now. We are talking about $300 million, far less than just the damage to the building in Oklahoma City. Ask yourself the question: What if we are wrong? I challenge any of those on the other side of the aisle who want to take this money and put it into social programs, to ask themselves: What good are these social programs if we were wrong on this, on our estimate as to the extent of the capability of these countries to reach the United States? I see this as a very difficult time for us. It is difficult because it is very difficult for us to convey to the American people the truth, and the truth is, we have threats from many, many nations now. It is something that we should have as our single highest priority in this body, and that is to protect the lives of Americans. That is what we are attempting to do. I said this morning I am supporting this bill. I think we got the very most we could out of a defense authorization bill. It is still not adequate. We should be moving forward in a more rapid pace to put ourselves in a position to spend this other 10 percent of the investment we have already spent and give ourselves some type of defense for a missile that comes over, outside the atmosphere, to the United States. The technology is there. We saw it during the Persian Gulf war. We know you can knock down missiles with missiles. This is our opportunity to go forward with this program in a very minimum that we must do to fulfill our obligation to the American people. Last, let us look at this in terms of a nonpartisan or bipartisan priority. Back during the years that John Kennedy was President of the United States, regarding our budget to run the entire Government of the United States, 60 percent of that was on defense, 17 percent on human services. Today, approximately 17 percent is on defense and 60 percent on human services. I think we have this completely turned around. This is our opportunity to try to get back on track to making America strong again, defending ourselves against a very serious threat. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, the chairman of the committee, Senator Thurmond, for all of his hard work. I really believe that our committee has spent a lot of time, has had a lot of bipartisan cooperation in coming up with a product, which I think is still inadequate but is still the very best that we could come up with at this time. I think it is very unfortunate that most American people do not realize what a crisis our country is in in terms of our defense. I was very proud the other day before Senator Thurmond's committee when the four Chiefs of the four services came in and made the statement that we are $20 billion underfunded in our procurement accounts. I think this is something that we have to listen to because this is unprecedented. At least I do not recall any time in history when the Chiefs themselves have come in and said that the President's budget is underfunding procurement by $20 billion. They said that we need to get it up there in order to have the very minimum requirements the American people expect to defend our country. The administration's request is almost $20 billion less, in real terms, than we are spending this year, and there are several of us who are trying to do something about this by adding back an amount of money. So I guess what I am trying to say is that the authorization that we are dealing with in this bill is still, in my opinion, inadequate. Yet, I think it is the best that we can do at this time. Our budget has actually decreased for 12 consecutive years. There is a lot of talk about what to do about the deficit. All of the liberals will point toward defense and say, ``We need to cut defense spending,'' when we have done nothing but cut defense spending for the last 12 consecutive years. Back during the Kennedy administration, 60 percent of our budget went to defending America and 17 percent to human services. Now, 17 percent of our budget goes to defending America and 60 percent goes to human services. It just shows the change that has taken place in the attitude of the function of Government. We talked about the balanced budget amendment not long ago, and the fact that we need to do something to bring it into balance. So they always point toward national defense, when we have already taken cuts there. It is kind of interesting that there is a study documented --and it has not been refuted on the floor of the Senate, and I brought this up several times--that shows that if we were to put growth caps on Government--one was a 2-percent cap, and one was a 2.5-percent cap--we could actually balance the budget without cutting one Federal program. I can assure you that I would be delighted to have that kind of treatment in our defense budget because it has deteriorated and consistently gone down over the years. Since World War II, there have only been 4 years that have been lower than we are right now--1947, 1948, 1949, and 1950. This is the lowest budget since 1950. So it gets down to the question, is there a reason for this? Is it because the threat is not as great out there as it was in previous years? I suggest that that is a matter of interpretation. You will get a lot of difference of opinion on this floor. To me, it is incontrovertible. I have some articles I will submit for the Record. I am going to paraphrase these. The first one--this is just in the last few days--was in the Washington Times. The last paragraph of this is: In a report released ahead of publication today, Stern-- That is the German magazine. Said the plant was similar to one in Tarhunah, Libya. The United States says that complex is a chemical weapons factory. Libya says it is an irrigation plant. Then we have what appears to be a new relationship between Syria and Iraq. This was an article in the Washington Times on June 5. The third article I will submit is ``U.S. Investigates Ukraine-Libya Alliance.'' This is kind of a scary thing that is going on right now. All of these are recent. The fourth article is, ``Report Cites China-Pakistan Missile Links.'' A new, draft U.S. Government report states that all intelligence agencies believe with ``high confidence'' that Pakistan has obtained medium-range ballistic missiles made by China, and says for the first time that Pakistan probably has finished developing nuclear warheads for these missiles, U.S. officials said yesterday. Of course, we have been talking, time and time again, about the threat that is out there that is different than it has been before. I understand that we are not going to be really addressing the national missile defense problem that we have. We tried to do that with the Defend America Act. We have a President in the White House who vetoed last year's authorization bill because his veto message was that he did not want to spend more money on national missile defense. Time and time again, we have Members of this body stand up and talk about, well, we cannot spend another $50, $60, $70, or $80 billion more on star wars. Star wars is just a term to try to make it appear as if there is not any real threat out there. I suggested that back in 1983. We recognized that, in the medium term, we were going to have to defend America against ICBM's, a missile attack with weapons of mass destruction. Now, everything has gone in accordance with the schedule that was articulated at that time by President Reagan. So that here we are today with a system that was to be in place by the year 2000, and we have an investment of approximately $50 billion in a national missile defense system. Yet, we stopped it dead in its tracks in spite of the fact that the Russians have missiles, that China has missiles, and the Taepo Dong II missile from North Korea is one that will be able to reach the United States by somewhere around between the year of 1999 and 2002. So the threat is very real. It is out there. And we have people that are of the caliber of Saddam Hussein who made the statement back at the time of the Persian Gulf war. He said, ``If we had waited to invade Kuwait for 5 more years we would be able to have the missile capability of reaching the United States.'' Would he do it? Sure he would. Anyone who would kill his own grandchildren would do something like that. Look at what is happening in Libya. Qadhafi is developing weapons of mass destruction, and they have a new alliance with the Ukraine. We have very real problems that are out there. The Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, mentioned the crisis, the disaster, the bombing of the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City and all the tragedy that was linked to that. It is something--that unless you are there to see not just the loss of lives of 168 innocent people but the brutality that was with it; the fact that all that happened with one bomb that is the equivalent of 1 ton of TNT. The smallest nuclear warhead known is 1 kiloton--1,000 times that power; that explosive power. So just imagine. No one is immune from that type of threat. We saw just recently China and how overt they are getting right now in the Taiwan Straits with their missile testing that is taking place. Then the statement that was made by a high ranking Chinese official--it has been verified that he did say it. He said, ``We are not concerned with the United States coming in and defending Taipei because they would rather defend Los Angeles.'' At a very minimum it is an indirect threat. Are we being held hostage? I think we are. We see the new developments in Syrian-controlled Lebanon and throughout the Middle East; that when Jim Woolsey 2 years ago--it has been 2 years now since. He certainly would not be considered a Republican. He was a CIA Director under two Democratic Presidents including President Clinton--said 2 years ago that we know of between 20 and 25 nations that have or are developing in the final stages weapons of mass destruction, either biological, chemical, or nuclear, and working on the missile means of delivering it. That was 2 years ago. He has come out since then and expanded that up to 30 nations. So we are not talking about the days when we had two superpowers. Of course, we are looking at elections taking place right now in Russia. We do not know how they are going to come out. But we see a change in attitude in the former Soviet Union. We saw what happened in the newest elections last December when the Communists took over 153 seats to Yeltsin's 54 and Zhirinovsky roughly 53 or 54 seats. So we are seeing a change there. But let us assume that there was tranquillity and there was no problem between the United States and the former Soviet Union, as we talked about, during the cold war. The threat was there. I have always contended that the threat during the cold war was not as great as the threat is now because at least we could identify who enemy was at that time. We had the Soviet Union and we had the United States. We had at that time a treaty, an ABM Treaty, and said that we were going to agree to downgrade our nuclear capability. That was called mutually assured destruction. ``You shoot at us. We shoot back at you. Everyone dies, and everybody is happy.'' That is no longer the case. I did not agree with the policy. That was not a Democratic policy. It came under Nixon and Kissinger. That did not make any sense. But there were those who did believe it was worthwhile. I talked to Kissinger about it. He said, ``It's nuts to make a virtue out of our vulnerability.'' That is what we have done. So here we are out there adhering to a policy through START II, which in my interpretation puts us back with the ABM Treaty where we are downgrading our nuclear capability with one other nation while the rest of the 25 or so rogue nations are increasing their nuclear capability. So I think that we do not address that in this. We should be addressing that in this authorization bill. But I know what would happen if we did. We would not get it passed and the President would veto it because he said that he would. So I say, Mr. President, that this bill does not go far enough. We have real serious problems today. During the Persian Gulf war we had 26 divisions. We are going to be down to 15 divisions with this. I think that it is a very serious threat. We are right now No. 9, as I understand it, in ground forces, having been passed by Pakistan. So America is not at the strength level that America should be. While I say that, I am supporting this bill because it is the only dog in the fight. We need to have an authorization bill. I support this. Since the beginning of our country's history, national security has been the most solemn obligation our Government holds with its citizens. In order to honor this obligation, top priority must be given to the forces that guarantee our national security. These forces do not ask much of us for their service. But they do need a certain amount of support from their Government in order to carry out their duties and protect the security of the United States as well as maintain our status as the world's preeminent military power. However, in order to allow our military to honor their sworn duty, we have to provide them with the means to do many things. We must give them the authority to retain ample manpower in the form of adequate end strengths. Our military must have the means to recruit high-quality personnel to carry us into the 21st century. In addition, in order to keep our high-quality personnel, and protect their quality of life which is so important in maintaining morale, we must provide them with equitable pay and benefits--including a 3-percent pay raise to protect against inflation--and appropriate levels of funding for the construction and maintenance of troop billets and military family housing. We must keep the battle sword sharp by providing enough resources to maintain readiness and continue modernization efforts to provide the capabilities needed for future wars. Our military must also be given the means to field the type and quantity of weapons systems and equipment needed to fight and win battles decisively, with minimal risk to our troops, just as they did in the gulf war. Another important lesson learned in the gulf war was that we need to be able to protect our troops from ballistic missiles, missiles that are capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction. Whether it is nuclear, chemical, or biological, we must protect our forces while they are in the field and we must protect their families at home. The way we do this is through the development and deployment of missile defense systems: land and sea-based theater missile defense systems, which can protect United States and allied forces against cruise and ballistic missiles while deployed in the field; and a national missile defense system to defend American families at home. We will have a ballistic missile defense, it will either be before--or after--we first need it. I have spoken about what we must provide for our military, now I would like to point out what we can take away. To begin with, we can eliminate defense spending that does not contribute directly to the national security of the United States; such as policing of the Olympic Games. More importantly, we should stand back and evaluate U.S. involvement in nontraditional military operations, and its impact on combat readiness, budgeting, and our national interests. Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti; these and other police actions continue to drain defense funds and put a strain on personnel who are already being stretched beyond their breaking point--the breaking point that our military as a whole is rapidly approaching. Bosnia alone is going to cost American taxpayers $3 billion in defense dollars. Some people never seem to see a breaking point, however. They say we are spending enough on defense. Some say that we are spending far more money on defense than other countries. Well--of course we spend more money on defense than other countries. In fact, in 1996 the United States will spend three times as much on defense as any other country on Earth, and more than all its prospective enemies and neutral nations combined. There are two problems with this comparison, however: it assumes that all countries are equal, and it suggests that the comparison between how much the United States spends versus other nations is a legitimate measure of which side will prevail in a conflict. But because of geography, all things aren't equal. We are separated from our potential enemies by two great oceans. And rather than fighting wars in our own backyard, Americans prefer to fight ``over there.'' Because we prefer to fight abroad, it will naturally cost us much more than it costs our enemies to field the same force, since we have to transport, sustain and operate our fighting force in a place where his already is. Each of these activities--moving, sustaining and fighting far away--increases the cost of our military without significantly changing the friendly- to-enemy force ratio. This cost is raised further if we want to field a force that is not just equivalent to our enemy's, but one that can defeat his force, again, with minimal casualties as in the gulf war. The question, therefore, is not whether we will be paying more for our armed forces than our enemy does, but rather how much more we must pay. Is the right number three times as much, as with Russia, or more? More than 2,000 years ago, Sun Tzu said you should have five times the strength of an enemy to assure success. Well, there have been some changes in warfare since Sun Tzu's time. We now have tanks, and planes, and submarines, so the ratio has changed a little. And we can stand here and argue till we are blue in the face over what the proper force level is; two times, three times, five times as much as the other guy. But the cost of our unique geography makes any comparison between what we pay and what our enemies pay irrelevant. The point is: if you want to fight, ``over there,'' and win, decisively, with minimal losses, then you can expect to pay many times what the enemy pays for his military. Now, the people who complain that we spend three times as much on defense as any other country on Earth are smart people. They know that we must cross our oceans to fight. They know that what we consider defense spending may not be what our enemies consider defense spending: First, there is the high cost of our high-quality volunteer military: recruiting, paying, providing medical care and retirement. Many people do not realize it, but two-thirds of our defense budget is spent on paying people. Then there is the cost of supporting our worldwide surveillance network, our nuclear deterrent and so on. They know these costs are unique to the United States but they choose to ignore it in their arguments. Why? Because it supports their view of proper levels of defense spending. We can disagree on what it takes to field a given capability, but let us drop these invalid comparisons and let us deal with the facts. And with the facts in hand, let us spend no more than necessary to get the job done, and let us spend enough to fight, ``over there,'' and win, decisively, with minimal losses. In this regard, I have to say I was disappointed by the administration's budget request for 1997 defense spending. The administration's fiscal year 1997 budget request was $18.6 billion less in real terms than the level enacted for fiscal year 1996. Now, let me put that another way; in real terms, since the end of WWII, there have only been 5 years that the United States has spent less than the Clinton administration is recommending for fiscal year 1997. Only in fiscal year 1947, fiscal year 1948, fiscal year 1949, fiscal year 1950, those years immediately following WWII, and fiscal year 1955 immediately after the Korean War, has defense spending been so low that it is less than the President's recommendation for this year. Not even during the hollow force years of the 70's have we spent so little on defense. Clearly, it is time that we address these shortcomings. As we prepare to vote on the fiscal year 1997 defense bill, it should come as no surprise, that I am truly concerned about the effects that decreasing levels of defense spending have had upon our Armed Forces. If the general public fully understood the severity of defense cuts under the Clinton administration, I believe that they would also be very concerned. In my State of Oklahoma, I have heard this message already. We can see the cuts all around us and it is time to put these reckless defense cuts to an end. History has demonstrated that superpower status cannot be sustained cheaply, nor can it be sustained by budget requests which do not provide for adequate funding of our forces. I am committed to maintaining America's superpower status. However, I am skeptical about the administration's commitment to this goal. Right now our military--the finest fighting force on this Earth--is being torn in two directions. Our spending on defense is decreasing, while at the same time, the demands on our personnel are increasing. We are stretching the rubber band tighter and tighter, and if defense funding levels do not increase, I fear the rubber band will break and this dangerous combination may result in an exodus of high quality, trained-personnel and, ultimately, a military crises. It is our duty, as Senators of the United States, to do our part in providing for our national security. In doing our part, we must vote for a defense bill which gives our military the means to do their part. Our forces do not ask much of us for their service, but they do need a certain amount of support from their Government in order to carry out their duties and protect the security of the United States of America. I feel it is time we take a more responsible approach to defending this Nation, and I therefore urge my colleagues to support the fiscal year 1997 DOD authorization and its modest increase over the administration request. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced legislation to reauthorize the National Environment Education Act. I am joined by most of the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee and will probably have all of those Members as cosponsors of this legislation in a very short time. The reason I am doing this is that there has been a lot of criticism that we are getting that there is too much emanating from Washington on our environmental laws and environmental education. People have said we are brainwashing our children. I feel that the better way to do this is to have this money going to the local level so that the curriculum can be determined by the local level. I can remember several scary stories about students coming home from school in the Northwest who happened to be sons or daughters of people working in the lumber industry saying that it is sinful to cut down any tree, and this type of thing. This is the type of thing that has to be stopped. I believe the only way we are going to be able to successfully do this is to reauthorize this legislation so that the safeguards are built in that anything that is used in the education of our young people has to be based on scientific facts and not just the normal scare type of things that we have been getting. So I believe we will be able to control this program. This, incidentally, was introduced at the same time by Congressman Klug in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced legislation to reauthorize the National Environmental Education Act. I am joined by my colleagues Senators Chafee, Lieberman, Faircloth, Kempthorne, Moynihan, and Reid. And I am joined on the House side by my colleague, Congressman Scott Klug of Wisconsin, who introduced an identical bill in the House yesterday. This bill will reauthorize the educational efforts at the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation and the EPA's Office of Environmental Education. These programs support environmental education at the local level. They provide grant money and seed money to encourage local primary and secondary schools and universities to educate children on environmental issues. With the importance of the environment and the continuing debate on how best to protect it, it is vital to educate our children so that they truly understand how the environment functions. Over the last few years environmental education has been criticized for being one-sided and heavy-handed. People have accused environmental advocates of trying to brainwash children and of pushing an environmental agenda that is not supported by the facts or by science. They also accuse the Federal Government of setting one curriculum standard and forcing all schools to subscribe to their views. This is not how these two environmental education programs have worked, and I have taken specific steps to ensure that they never work this way. In fact, this legislation will prevent this from happening. The programs that this act reauthorizes have targeted the majority of their grants at the local level, allowing the teachers in our community schools to design their environmental programs to teach our children, and this is where the decisions should be made. In addition, the grants have not been used for advocacy or to lobby the Government, as other grant programs have been accused of doing. This legislation accomplishes two important functions. First, it cleans up the current law to make the programs run more efficiently. And second, it places two very important safeguards in the program to ensure its integrity in the future. I have placed in this bill language to ensure that the EPA programs are balanced and scientifically sound. It is important that environmental education is presented in an unbiased and balanced manner. The personal values and prejudices of the educators should not be instilled in our children. Instead we must teach them to think for themselves after they have been presented with all of the facts and information. Environmental ideas must be grounded in sound science and not emotional bias. While these programs have not been guilty of this in the past, this is an important safeguard to protect the future of environmental education. Second, I have included language which prohibits any of the funds to be used for lobbying efforts. While these programs have not used the grant process to lobby the Government, there are other programs which have been accused of this and this language will ensure that this program never becomes a vehicle for the executive branch to lobby Congress. This bill also makes a number of housekeeping changes to the programs which are supported by both the EPA and the Education Foundation which will both streamline and programs and make them more efficient. The grants that have been awarded under this program have gone to a number of local groups. In Oklahoma alone such organizations as the Stillwater 4-H Foundation; Roosevelt Elementary School in Norman, OK; Oklahoma State University; the Kaw Nation of Oklahoma; and the Osage County Oklahoma Conservation District have received grants for environmental education under these programs. This is an important piece of legislation, and I hope both the Senate and the House can act quickly to reauthorize these programs.

Mr. INHOFE

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