[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 151 (Monday, November 1, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13589-S13591]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            NATIONAL DEFENSE

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator from 
Wyoming taking the time to show some of the differences and some of the 
accomplishments of this session of the Senate. While I was watching him 
do that, it occurred to me that something else constantly needs to be 
brought up before the American people because a lot of times people 
look at Democrats and Republicans and do not realize that we do stand 
for different things.
  In the case of the Republican Party, I have had the honor, since I 
have been in the Senate, of serving on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. I originally discovered when I was in the House of 
Representatives--and it was a shocker--why there is such a difference 
in the approach to national security between the Democrats and 
Republicans.
  To put it very bluntly, the Republicans have always believed that the 
primary responsibility of Government was to give America a more secure 
country and to promote our national security. Yet time and time again, 
it is quite obvious that there is a difference between Democrats and 
Republicans.
  To document this or to quantify it, there is a group called the 
Center for Security Policy. I think this is kind of interesting because 
people need to know what we are doing here. All too often people will 
read the mail of their Senators and assume that is everything that is 
going on here, when, in fact, there are some things that may not be 
accurately expressed in that mail. For example, if a constituent is 
concerned with how his particular Member is voting on tax issues, the 
National Tax Limitation Committee and National Taxpayers Union rank us 
so they can tell who is for more taxes and who is for less taxes. If a 
constituent is concerned about what is happening in terms of family 
values, they have a number of organizations that will tell how Members 
voted on issues such as abortion. If they are concerned about how much 
regulation is disturbing people who are trying to run small businesses, 
the NFIB, National Federation of Independent Business, actually does a 
rating.

  As far as national security is concerned, the Center for Security 
Policy is an organization that takes all these votes we cast having to 
do with a strong national defense, having to do with test ban treaties, 
a national missile defense system, defense spending, and they rank us 
to see who the good guys and the bad guys are in their eyes; that is, 
who is promoting a stronger national defense and is more concerned 
about national security or who legitimately believes there is a threat.
  The average Democrat is ranked, in accordance with the Center for 
Security Policy, at 12 percent; the average Republican is 94 percent. 
That tells us something. It tells us there is a basic difference in the 
policy of the Democrat versus the Republican Party.
  This is significant because we just completed debate on the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and we heard a lot of dialog on both 
sides. To the last one on the Republican side who voted in opposition 
to this treaty, it was a recognition that there is a real threat out 
there. By unilaterally disarming, which is essentially what we would 
have done under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, we would have 
allowed those nations to go ahead and test their nuclear arsenal, even 
though there is no way of verifying whether or not they were testing, 
of course.
  Good old America, we do what we say we are going to do. If we say we 
will not do it, then we don't do it. I remember several times 
Secretaries of Defense would actually testify: We know we are not going 
to do it, but there is no way of knowing whether the other side is 
doing it. I had no doubt in my mind that both China and Russia would 
continue to test their nuclear weapons, even if they had ultimately 
ratified. By the way, they kept using the argument that we are going to 
have to ratify this because if we don't do it, Russia won't do it. I 
remember that same argument in the START II treaty. Russia still hasn't 
done it. We need to look at these things. Unfortunately, it does become 
a partisan issue.
  In talking about our national defense, I come from the background of 
chairing the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. There is a huge issue taking place right now. I will make a 
couple of references to it because I have introduced a Senate 
concurrent resolution, with several Members who are cosponsoring it, 
which calls upon the President and the Secretary of Defense to reopen 
the Vieques training bombing range off the island of Puerto Rico.
  This is what the range looks like. This is the island of Puerto Rico. 
It is about 22 miles from here to there. This part represents a live 
bombing range. It only constitutes 2.7 percent of the entire island.
  This bombing range has been hot range active for 58 years. During the 
time period it has been active, there has only been one death on the 
ground as a result of the use of the range. That was last April 19. As 
a result, everyone in Puerto Rico who is running for office, whether it 
is for delegate or for the Governor of Puerto Rico, is using as his or 
her platform: We are going to do the most we can to shut down this 
range.

  This is the range over here. It has been used for 58 years. There is 
live ordnance all over the range. There are protesters there right now, 
illegally trespassing, who are picking up and throwing around these 
live pieces of ordnance.
  I have written twice to Janet Reno and told her she should go down 
there

[[Page S13590]]

and enforce the trespassing laws, if for no other reason than just to 
keep someone from getting killed. She has refused to do that. 
Unfortunately, it has been politicized.
  We had a committee meeting where we had the Governor of Puerto Rico 
and others testify. They take the position that if you want to keep 
this training range active so we can properly train our American 
soldiers, which include Puerto Rican soldiers, somehow you don't like 
Puerto Ricans. I think it is very important to realize that that little 
training range offers three components of training that cannot be 
duplicated anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere.
  First of all, it is high-altitude bombing. Why is that necessary? It 
is necessary because, as in the case of Kosovo, when we sent our pilots 
in there with cruise missiles, it was necessary that they be above the 
range of the surface-to-air missiles. They were very successful in 
Kosovo in doing that. There is no place else we can get that training 
because of airspace restrictions.
  I went, the weekend before this last weekend, to the U.S.S. 
Eisenhower, which is scheduled to go to the gulf, where they very 
likely could see some kind of combat. The Navy pilots were actually 
from that aircraft carrier conducting their training exercises in two 
different places in the United States.
  Here is the problem. I say this as a professional pilot of 40 years. 
To do that, they have to go through normal commercial airspace. In 
other words, they take off in an F-14 or F-18 from the U.S.S. 
Eisenhower. They go to drop their load of either real or not real 
ordnance. To do this, they have to fly through civilian airspace as if 
they were a general aviation pilot or a commercial pilot flying a 
commercial airline. In doing this, it is a totally different set of 
rules. Then when they come up to the range, where they can drop their 
ordnance, they have to all of a sudden be tactical. It is totally 
disruptive, and they can't do it at an altitude high enough to give 
them the actual training. What it will mean is, if these guys are 
deployed in the Persian Gulf on February 18, many of them will go over 
there and will be called upon to do things they have never done before.
  At the same time, you have your marine expeditionary units, that 
would not have had this training--actually landing and going on 
amphibious operations on the shores of Vieques, where they have been 
doing it for 58 years without incident. We wouldn't have the Navy being 
able to fire their guns. In fact, one of the officers said that they 
would be sending sailors out there to fire when they have never fired 
live on the ground before.
  It is a very serious problem. I bring this up not just to gain 
support for the resolution but to respond to something that is going on 
right now.
  We had a committee hearing with Governor Rossello. He came in. I will 
read some of the local press there.

       Gov. Rossello on Friday called Republican Senator James 
     Inhofe a ``backward and reactionary'' member of the ultra 
     right wing of the Republican Party, while several island 
     legislators called him an ``Ugly American'' following 
     comments the Oklahoma Senator made about Puerto Rico this 
     week.
       [Senator Inhofe] upholds the same tradition of other people 
     who have made similar statements, which is an anti-Hispanic, 
     anti-minority. . . .

  It goes on. I think this is a further demonstration that they must 
not have a case, if they are going to have to resort to these kinds of 
insults.
  I say, in my own defense, that it wasn't long ago--it was 1996--I, 
along with the Democrat over on the House side, was the recipient of 
the Award for Freedom and Democracy from the International Foundation 
for Election Systems. The statement that was made when I was being 
introduced was: Senator James Inhofe has done more to promote freedom 
and democracy in Central America; he has done more to promote trade 
with Mexico and more to provide humanitarian assistance to the 
Caribbean than anybody else and is hereby awarded the Freedom and 
Democracy Award by the International Foundation of Election Systems.
  That was due to a couple of things I have done. One time, not too 
many years ago, when a devastating hurricane wiped out the lower 
Caribbean, I led a group of 10 airplanes through two hurricanes to take 
down humanitarian goods, doctors, two nurses, and food for the victims 
on those islands. In the case of promoting trade with Mexico, in 1981 I 
promoted the first trade where we actually flew to San Luis Potosi, 
Mexico, and made, not a cultural exchange but an industrial exchange, 
where we computerized things they can do down there and things we were 
doing in my home city of Tulsa, OK. And they now have established trade 
with that country, and relationships and contracts are still alive 
today.

  I had occasion to be involved in Central America during the problems 
that were taking place down in Nicaragua and some of the other Central 
American countries. So I say that in my own defense. I appeal to people 
to start looking at the real problems that exist in Puerto Rico right 
now, in terms of that range. I wish there was someplace else we could 
train other than this island of Vieques. When they say it is an 
inconvenience and it is noisy and it is just 10 miles--this is the 
range. This is where the population is. It is 9.7 miles between here 
and here.
  I want to show you, by contrast, if you hold up the other chart, the 
two red areas are the live ranges that are where? In Oklahoma, Fort 
Sill, which is an artillery training range, a hot range. When I fly 
over the area, the controller tells me whether their range is hot or 
not. So there it is, these two ranges. Here is the population of 
Lawton, OK. So you can see the hot range goes within 1 mile of a 
population of 100,000 people, as opposed to Vieques, where the range is 
9.7 miles from 9,000 people.
  Hold up the other chart, if you will. To give a comparison between 
the two, at Vieques, they use 9-inch guns. We use 6.1-inch in Fort 
Sill. The days of training average 164 live days a year in Vieques, and 
at Fort Sill we average 320 days per year. The range at Fort Sill is 
open and is hot and used twice as many days per year as it is in 
Vieques.
  Thirdly, the distance from the population is 9.7 miles in Vieques, 
and it is only 1 mile at Fort Sill. The population, instead of 9,000, 
is 100,000 people. They talk about the danger that imposes. There have 
been three fatalities. One fatality in Vieques was an F-18 that went 
down and both pilots were killed. They have had 1 ground fatality 
there, and we have had 26 (34 including air fatalities) at Fort Sill 
over a period of time.
  So when people accuse us of having two standards, one for those 
ranges in the United States and one for the range that happens to be in 
a territory, I think those people have to stop and realize: aren't they 
asking for something that is more than what we find to be perfectly 
acceptable in Kansas or in Oklahoma? So I hope people will keep in mind 
that several of our officers have made the statement that if we send 
and deploy, on February 18, as is currently scheduled, those sailors 
and airmen and marines, they will have to go by way of the 
Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. The chances are better than 2-to-1 
that they will see combat in the Persian Gulf because that is what 
history shows us right now. We would be sending them there without the 
benefit of any training at all.
  There is another resolution that was introduced by Senator Warner, 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, last week. He was admonishing 
the President not to deploy the U.S.S. Eisenhower if they don't have 
that training range opened up so they can get the training. I am going 
to support that resolution as well as mine. The problem I see with it 
is that we have already deployed the U.S.S. Roosevelt. They are already 
returning. The U.S.S. Kennedy is out there right now, and only half of 
its personnel have had proper training. We would be asking them to make 
a second 6-month deployment. That would have a terribly negative effect 
on an already-eroding problem that we have with retention in the 
military.
  So I have two points I wish to make. One is that we need to do all we 
can to protect our young people whom we are asking to go into combat by 
giving them the proper training, and also to point out that there is a 
difference between the Democratic and the Republican Party when it 
comes to our support of national defense.
  I will repeat one more time the statistic I used from the center for 
security policy. The average Democrat rates 12 percent; the average 
Republican rates 94 percent. I don't think the American people would 
expect that the

[[Page S13591]]

defense of our country and national security should be a partisan 
issue, but it is.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________