Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Up here.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, would you like me to yield time to you? I am trying to finish this.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I have filed an amendment at the desk which I had hoped the Senate would vote on prior to passage of this bill. Unfortunately given the current parliamentary situation, the only way for a vote to occur on the important issue of fiscal responsibility is by suspending the rules. My amendment would not be in order at this time and therefore my option is to move to suspend rules XVI and XXII. Although clearly that motion is within my rights as an individual Senator, I do not believe that is the best way for this body to proceed. Our rules and precedents govern how we operate on these appropriations, bills and I think that we should work within that framework. Therefore, I am not going to make that motion because it is not an appropriate way for the Senate to address this amendment. I will say, however, that the Senate will vote on this issue. I will be back on this floor at the first opportunity available to this Senator and the Senate will work its will on this language.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, what I would like to do is urge the adoption of the Warner amendment to the underlying bill.

Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate that. The reason I cannot stay, I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. We have a very large hearing. I will be there for the rest of the afternoon.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I have been trying for some time to get an amendment in, and it is at the desk. I am not going to ask that it be brought up right now, but I am going to announce that regardless of the procedure that is used, I am going to get a vote on it between now and the passage of this bill. It is a one-sentence amendment that says: Beginning with fiscal year 2007 and thereafter, all nondefense, nontrust fund discretionary spending shall not exceed the previous fiscal years without a two- thirds vote of the Members. It is very simple and straightforward. I am not going to do it right now, but I will do it before final passage.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, would the Senator from Pennsylvania yield just for an announcement?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there is an easy way out of this. Let's don't make it complicated. Let's go ahead. He will have an amendment to this bill, have a vote on that. I will record myself as voting no. It will pass. I am sure it will pass. Everybody agrees, as far as Judge Bryant and Rosa Parks are concerned, that we want this to happen today. But I will object to that in terms of UCing it. I want to have a vote, and I will be recorded no. That solves the problem.

Mr. INHOFE. I have already objected to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me state the position we have on the committee. I have chaired this committee for 3 years. As the distinguished Senator from Virginia knows--he used to chair the same committee, as did the minority leader--we have a rule that we don't name courthouses after anyone who is living. I am going to object to this. However, if you want to have a vote on this, I will record myself as opposing it because I am not going to break the record. I think it is a good rule to keep. That is my position.

Mr. INHOFE. All right. Let's do it by voice vote.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on October 6, 2005, I introduced S. 1832, the ``Fort Reno Mineral Leasing Act''. At that time I introduced letters of support for this legislation. Since then I have received a letter from Mrs. Donna Von Tungeln that I would like to submit for the Record. Mrs. Von Tungeln and her late husband Henry Jo have been active supporters of preserving the historical buildings at Fort Reno. Their dedicated work to this project is greatly appreciated. I ask unanimous consent the following letter be printed for the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me recognize that Minnie Pearl is a tough act to follow. Nonetheless, we must move on. Today, I am going to announce a one-sentence initiative that I will try to put on the Labor- HHS appropriations bill. I won't be successful because there are some procedural reasons. It would take a supermajority. But at least we will get a vote down so we will have an idea about who in this Chamber is really serious about doing something about the deficit. I had to oppose my dear friend and junior Senator from Oklahoma last week because of the unintended consequences of interfering with local self-determination, and I caution any effort that would substitute or preempt States' sovereignty in favor of centralized control in the Federal bureaucracy unless substantial cuts in spending are accomplished. The Framers of the Constitution feared one thing above all else, and that was a tyrannical central Government made up of unaccountable Federal bureaucrats would someday be able to supersede States' rights in decisionmaking by locally elected representatives. There is nothing more conservative than this very principle of preserving local control against the centralized Government. As the author of the Transportation reauthorization bill, I was very pleased at the way we drafted the legislation. We took a formula so that we could allocate funds to the States but then didn't tell the States what to do with them and said: You determine what your priorities should be at the State level. I believe it is a very good process. I was proud to be a part of that process. There is a mentality in Washington, DC, that if a decision isn't made in Washington, it is not a good decision. The controversial Ketchikan to Gravina Island bridge in Alaska has become a rallying point about boondoggles, and maybe it is a boondoggle, but the people in Alaska didn't think so. They have 100 projects. All States do it differently. But in Alaska, they list 100 projects that are the projects they want to have someday. That particular bridge is ranked in the top 4 of those 100. I think also that we have to recognize that we in Washington do not really know what is the best thing for them. The other thing that is very important is that most of the money, had this amendment passed, is in accordance with the formula. So if we directed them not to build their bridge, that money could still be spent in Alaska on other projects. We would just be saying that you have to spend the dollars in a way that we in Washington say is best for you. I will support future amendments that will save taxpayers' dollars. In the meantime, there is something we can do: support the one-sentence amendment that I will introduce. Beginning with fiscal year 2007 and thereafter nondefense, nontrust fund discretionary spending shall not exceed previous years without a two-thirds vote. That is very simple, very straightforward, and something that will work. I recognize that we are only talking in this case about 20 percent of the budget because we have so many entitlements and, of course, the defense spending. But those entitlements are being addressed right now in the budget reconciliation. We need to wait and see how that washes out. I had this as kind of a mission for a lot of years. I introduced the first amendment in 1987, the first year that I was here over in the other body at that time. But it goes all the way back to 1969 when then Senator Carl Curtis from Nebraska came up with the idea. He was the one who always wanted to the pass the amendment as an amendment to the Constitution. So he said, Why don't you out in Oklahoma preratify a constitutional amendment, so if we get enough States to do it, that would give us the power needed to try to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It never worked. I think the idea was right. I think this very simple solution is one we can address today. It will be something that will take care of these problems in a much simpler way and will maintain the authority out in the States where I believe it belongs. I have served as a mayor of a city, I have served in the State legislature, and I have served here. It has been my experience that the closer you get to home, the better the decisions, and that is consistent with what I am asking for today. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not have a better friend than my colleague from Oklahoma, but it does not mean we always agree with each other. I have had a policy in voting for amendments on bills that I have adhered to for a long time, and it is if a Senator has a bill or an amendment that takes authority from an elected official and places it in the hands of an unelected bureaucrat and it does not save money, then I think it is not good policy. Unfortunately, I think that is what this does. My good friend Senator Coburn and I have talked about this. I know it is a difficult thing for a lot of people to understand. Many people are watching this. I happen to be the person with the No. 1 most conservative rating in the Senate and yet I am not about to put myself in a position where I am going to take authority away from someone who has to stand for election in a particular State and give it to someone who does not have to stand for election, period. I do not think that is a good idea. If it were something that saved money, I would have a different position on it, but in that respect I will oppose this.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Fair Access Foster Care Act of 2005. Therapeutic foster care is foster care for children with special medical, psychological, emotional, and social needs. These children need comprehensive support and attention, requiring a great deal of commitment and sacrifice from foster care parents. Prior to the placement of a child, a potential therapeutic foster care parent must complete a certification process that involves a background check, a training program, and at least two home studies. At Choices for Life Foster Care, Inc., a for-profit provider in Oklahoma City, counselors are in the home a minimum of 2 hours every other week once a child has been placed. Generally therapeutic foster care children are not permitted to attend daycare and require ``line of sight'' supervision. That is, therapeutic foster care children must be in view of the foster parents at all times, except when attending school and other approved activities. Recruiting parents to provide therapeutic foster care is a never- ending job. There are always children waiting for a match to be found. Therapeutic foster care children stay in crisis shelters for the transition period, adding a great deal of stress to their lives. Each State has a different standard for determining whether children need therapeutic foster care. Once a child is identified, most State governments contract with private agencies to place the child in a home. In my State of Oklahoma, fifteen agencies contract with the State government to provide therapeutic foster care services. Of those 15 agencies, 5 operate under a for-profit status, 10 operate under a nonprofit status. The bottom line is that 62 percent of therapeutic foster care children are managed by for-profit agencies, and we must maintain the availability of care for these children. Therapeutic foster care agencies receive funding from Medicaid and Title IV-E maintenance payments from the United States Department of Health and Human Service, HHS. The 1996 Welfare Reauthorization Act attempted to correct a discrepancy between treatment of children managed by for-profit agencies and by nonprofit agencies via removing the word ``nonprofit'' from title 42 of the United States Social Security Code. Unfortunately, the deletion was only made in one of the three sections addressing this issue, thus causing therapeutic foster care agencies to remain subjected to arbitrary regulation. Only recently was it brought to the attention of Oklahoma's Department of Human Services that additional legal changes were needed. Most State governments face the same problem. My bill amends the United States Code to allow all therapeutic foster care agencies to receive maintenance payments from the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that any costs associated with this legislation would be insignificant. There are over 500,000 children in foster care today. A large number of these children require therapeutic care. The business model of for- profit agencies should not prohibit Title IV-E maintenance cost reimbursement. Now is not the time to prevent highly qualified agencies from placing these children in safe homes. I have long been dedicated to quality care for my constituents in Oklahoma and across America. My bill to help alleviate the flu vaccine shortage, my work to expand access to life-saving cardiac defibrillators, and my bill to freeze the Federal medical assistance percentage for 10 years to ensure that States continue to receive adequate Federal funding highlight this commitment. I thank Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Craig, and Ms. Landrieu for cosponsoring this bill. Please join me in supporting this bill to assist on out States in the endeavor to serve these five-hundred-thousand-plus vulnerable children.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time under the quorum calls be counted equally on both sides.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend from Arizona. Because of the unique circumstances that exist today, I am going to be doing something that is totally different than I normally do on this the annual hypocrisy day in the Senate. I am actually going to vote for this. Normally, I vote the other way. The reason I am is because--the Senator from Arizona and I both came here in the same year; we have been here 19 years--I have never seen a situation like there is today. We have a President who inherited a military that needed to be built up again. At the same time, we go into a war, and then Katrina happens. I think everywhere we can we need to tighten belts. For that reason, I will go ahead and support it this time, which normally I don't. I say this in almost a humorous way. It is the annual hypocrisy day. Everyone is always down here so they can go home and say: Look what I have done. I have stopped us from having a pay raise. Aren't I wonderful? I need to be reelected. There are several dynasties in the Senate. They have been here for many years. We have the Rockefeller dynasty, the Kennedy dynasty. I love the people. I disagree politically with them most of the time, but we have these. It is a fact. But the question I would ask is, Should you have to be a Kennedy or a Rockefeller to join the Senate? I don't have this problem. I have other sources of income. I am very thankful for that. I have other things I put this money into, other than salary. But I would say this: We have had a lot of colleagues, top-notch people. I remember Dan Coats. He was a Senator from Indiana. Democrats and Republicans alike would say that he made some of the greatest contributions to this body that anyone has ever made. Senator Dan Coats was limited in his income. He found that each year that went by, they would stop a cost-of-living increase. With his kids going to college, he resigned. He had to retire from the Senate because of that. Do we want the Dan Coatses here, or do we want just people who are wealthy in their own right? I say this in a friendly way. I love everybody who is going to vote for or against this thing. But in the future, we are going to change it. I came down last night. I was looking at my monitor in my office. I saw that this amendment was coming up. I ran down to put in a second- degree amendment. That second-degree amendment would have read, because this is the last free ride a lot of these people are going to get around here, we are going to make it out in the open so everybody knows what is really going on. This idea of saying ``no but take the dough'' is going to be a thing of the past. My amendment read: To provide that any Member of Congress who votes for any amendment (or against the tabling of any amendment) that prevents a cost of living adjustment for Members of Congress shall not receive the amount of that adjustment. That is a very logical and responsible thing to do. I am looking for something else to put this on so that next year, when the annual hypocrisy day comes, we will be able to be a little bit more responsible. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I proudly rise to introduce the ``Fort Reno Mineral Leasing Act''. Fort Reno was established as a frontier cavalry post in 1874, and it played a key role in the settlement of the west. It is a historic site of National significance and it is listed on the National Register of Historic places. Over 9,000 visitors view the fort each year. In 1948 the U.S. Army turned its lands and buildings, at Fort Reno, over to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Today, the original site remains intact as a complete frontier post. Dozens of buildings constructed by the military, as early as the 1880's, still stand around the Historic District. The Agricultural Research Service administers the fort site which includes the Grazinglands Research Facility, the Fort Reno Historic District, and the Fort Reno Science Park. Many of the historic buildings are in desperate need of restoration. A small agency like the Agricultural Research Service is not financially able to keep up with the continued costs of maintenance of so much aged infrastructure. Independent studies show that over $18 million is now needed to restore the most important of the many old officers' quarters and other key buildings. I have been an active supporter of Fort Reno and its facilities. For instance, several years ago I helped secure a Save America's Treasures Grant of $300,000 to assist a local historical organization with the costs of stabilization of exteriors on those deteriorating buildings that are most in need of renovation. In fiscal year 2004, I arranged for an appropriation of $2.1 million for construction of two greenhouses for use in research on forage grasses that is conducted by the Agricultural Research Service at the Fort Reno site. The legislation I am introducing today will provide a revenue- neutral, non-appropriated source of funding which will be adequate to restore the historical buildings of Fort Reno, so that they will be here for future generations. In addition, this bill authorizes the development of the oil and gas that lies beneath Fort Reno's 6,737 acres and places those funds in a special account in the U.S. Treasury that will be utilized for restoration and maintenance of those facilities. These funds will also be used to assist with handling visitors to the fort, historic interpretation and related activities. The remaining funds will be used to pay down the national debt. The Fort Reno Mineral Leasing Act is fully supported by State legislators, local municipalities, the Chamber of Commerce, farm groups, the USDA, and the ARS Administrator at Fort Reno. I look forward to seeing this Oklahoma-specific legislation enacted and am proud to have Senator Coburn as my original cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I proudly rise to introduce the ``Fort Reno Mineral Leasing Act''. Fort Reno was established as a frontier cavalry post in 1874, and it played a key role in the settlement of the west. It is a historic site of National significance and it is listed on the National Register of Historic places. Over 9,000 visitors view the fort each year. In 1948 the U.S. Army turned its lands and buildings, at Fort Reno, over to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Today, the original site remains intact as a complete frontier post. Dozens of buildings constructed by the military, as early as the 1880's, still stand around the Historic District. The Agricultural Research Service administers the fort site which includes the Grazinglands Research Facility, the Fort Reno Historic District, and the Fort Reno Science Park. Many of the historic buildings are in desperate need of restoration. A small agency like the Agricultural Research Service is not financially able to keep up with the continued costs of maintenance of so much aged infrastructure. Independent studies show that over $18 million is now needed to restore the most important of the many old officers' quarters and other key buildings. I have been an active supporter of Fort Reno and its facilities. For instance, several years ago I helped secure a Save America's Treasures Grant of $300,000 to assist a local historical organization with the costs of stabilization of exteriors on those deteriorating buildings that are most in need of renovation. In fiscal year 2004, I arranged for an appropriation of $2.1 million for construction of two greenhouses for use in research on forage grasses that is conducted by the Agricultural Research Service at the Fort Reno site. The legislation I am introducing today will provide a revenue- neutral, non-appropriated source of funding which will be adequate to restore the historical buildings of Fort Reno, so that they will be here for future generations. In addition, this bill authorizes the development of the oil and gas that lies beneath Fort Reno's 6,737 acres and places those funds in a special account in the U.S. Treasury that will be utilized for restoration and maintenance of those facilities. These funds will also be used to assist with handling visitors to the fort, historic interpretation and related activities. The remaining funds will be used to pay down the national debt. The Fort Reno Mineral Leasing Act is fully supported by State legislators, local municipalities, the Chamber of Commerce, farm groups, the USDA, and the ARS Administrator at Fort Reno. I look forward to seeing this Oklahoma-specific legislation enacted and am proud to have Senator Coburn as my original cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. The unanimous consent agreement was to set aside the quorum call. I wanted to find out if the Senator is going to be offering it now. I wanted to get the floor if he is. If not, I will not object.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.