Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. It is my intention, Mr. President, to come down here and share something that happened last Tuesday that has never happened before in the history of this institution. I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. We had a confirmation hearing for Governor Leavitt from Utah, a highly qualified nominee by the President to be administrator of the EPA. The Democrats boycotted the meeting. They obstructed the meeting just by boycotting it, not showing up. I am going to be talking later on today about that, but it is my intention now to talk about the subject the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Texas have before us, because it has such great ramifications to our Nation's security.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. The whole issue of the $87 billion is so misunderstood by most of the American people, I would like to try to put it in a context that is more understandable. First of all, you are talking about $87 billion, of which $66 billion is going back into the military. Most of that is rebuilding the military for what happened to the military during the 1990s, and to rebuild it, to get us up to be able to meet the challenges that are very serious today. I would like to go into more detail on that, but there is not time in this 5 minutes. But I would say this, of the $87 billion--and you take away the $66 billion--we are talking about $20 billion, less $5 billion. It is very important we understand this; $5 billion of this will be going toward border security, having nothing to do with rebuilding infrastructure, rebuilding any of the water systems, electrical systems, the highways, the other infrastructure systems we are going to have to get done. It leaves $15 billion. The big discussion here is--and I know it sounds good to the American people and it sounds good to my wife--with all of the potential oil revenues, why don't we restructure this as a loan as opposed to a grant? There is very good reason for that. CSIS has come up with an analysis of the debt that is owed currently by Iraq. It is not just $140 billion or the $200 billion figure you have heard. When you put the claims in there that would have to be subordinate to the $383 billion, if we do restructure this as a loan, it would come in only after $383 billion has been repaid by some source. We all know logically that would never ever happen. But the rewards of expending this $15 billion and doing it quickly, as the President is requesting, are immense. To have a friend in that country of Iraq in the Middle East would have a great benefit for us. When you stop to think about just the cost of petroleum for the no- fly zone, that amounts to $15 billion each decade. If we don't do this, we are going to be right back in that box where we didn't finish the job we should have finished in 1991 and 1996. Now is the time to finish the job. I suggest to you that the greatest disservice we could do to our troops on the ground over in Iraq would be to stall this thing, to not get over there and put the necessary money in to fix the infrastructure. I am not sure how many people in this body know how much our troops are doing. They are actually putting roofs on buildings, they are actually constructing houses, and they are doing things on their own with their own labor. They desperately need to have us come in and make the necessary fixes. We have had a success story. My gosh, we have had over 5,000 businesses started. The hospitals and clinics are now open. The schools opened 2 days ago, and 56,000 Iraqis are now working in the security control system. All of this can continue only if we get the $15 billion over there for the reparations and to take care of the infrastructure. If we don't do that, we are leaving our troops out there in a very dangerous situation. I would like for everyone to remember their history a little bit. The Treaty of Versailles was in 1919, at the end of World War I. France insisted on leaving $32 billion in debt for the Germans to pay. As a result of being covered up with debt and knowing there was no possible way out, they became ripe for Hitler to come along. And we know the rest of the story. That is the same situation we are facing in Iraq right now. If we don't come to the table with the $15 billion and get in there and start repairing the infrastructure and continue the success we have had so far, and do it immediately, then we are going to leave our troops hanging out there to dry. For the sake of national security, the most significant thing we probably will be dealing with--certainly in this year and maybe during our entire careers--is to get the money in there and get the job done, and this time not do what we did in 1991 or 1996 but finish the job and bring this country back up so it can be our ally in the Middle East. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to require parental consent for intrusive physical exams, genital exams, administered under the Head Start program. Young children attending Head Start programs should not be subjected to these invasive exams without the prior knowledge or consent of their parents. While the Department of Health and Human Services has administered general exam guidelines to agencies, the U.S. Code is not clear about prohibiting them without parental consent. My bill will clarify the Code by not allowing any non-emergency invasive genital exam by a Head Start agency without parental consent. As a father and grandfather, I believe it is vital for parents to be informed about what is happening to their children in the classroom. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to require parental consent for intrusive physical exams, genital exams, administered under the Head Start program. Young children attending Head Start programs should not be subjected to these invasive exams without the prior knowledge or consent of their parents. While the Department of Health and Human Services has administered general exam guidelines to agencies, the U.S. Code is not clear about prohibiting them without parental consent. My bill will clarify the Code by not allowing any non-emergency invasive genital exam by a Head Start agency without parental consent. As a father and grandfather, I believe it is vital for parents to be informed about what is happening to their children in the classroom. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing this bill to reauthorize the Adoption Incentives Program. The Adoption Incentives Program was created in 1997 as a part of the Adoption and Safe Families Act to encourage and expedite adoptions for children in foster care. Under the current program, States are given incentive payments for increased adoptions of all foster children, as well as for adoptions of children with special needs. This reauthorization bill will continue that program, while offering new, targeted incentives for adoptions of older children. There is an overwhelming need for adoption of foster children. Over 550,000 children are currently languishing in foster care in the United States. Of this number, more than 165,000 are children who will never be adopted. Only half of the children in foster care graduate from high school and only 11 percent of that number go to college. Within 1 year of leaving foster care, 49 percent of these young people are unemployed and within 3 years of leaving foster care, up to 45 percent have been arrested and almost 75 percent have been arrested at least once. Providing these children with a permanent, stable family helps them become successful, contributing members of society. I am proud to lend my support to this important legislation that will help give these young people a home.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing this bill to reauthorize the Adoption Incentives Program. The Adoption Incentives Program was created in 1997 as a part of the Adoption and Safe Families Act to encourage and expedite adoptions for children in foster care. Under the current program, States are given incentive payments for increased adoptions of all foster children, as well as for adoptions of children with special needs. This reauthorization bill will continue that program, while offering new, targeted incentives for adoptions of older children. There is an overwhelming need for adoption of foster children. Over 550,000 children are currently languishing in foster care in the United States. Of this number, more than 165,000 are children who will never be adopted. Only half of the children in foster care graduate from high school and only 11 percent of that number go to college. Within 1 year of leaving foster care, 49 percent of these young people are unemployed and within 3 years of leaving foster care, up to 45 percent have been arrested and almost 75 percent have been arrested at least once. Providing these children with a permanent, stable family helps them become successful, contributing members of society. I am proud to lend my support to this important legislation that will help give these young people a home.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I don't think there is any doubt but Ronald White is one of the most qualified nominees that we have been able to act on and confirm. In addition to that, he comes from my hometown of Tulsa. I know him well and I know what he does. This is a generous person. He is famous for taking indigent cases and not charging fees. The Margaret Hudson Program is a program to give alternatives to pregnant teens, and he gives his free legal counsel to that. He is the type of person certainly deserving from his own personal lifestyle as well as his professional qualifications. I heartily endorse him.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3087, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003, which extends the expiring Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century for an additional 5 months. As my colleagues are aware, we are just days from the expiration of TEA-21. We continue to make progress in our negotiations on a comprehensive 6-year bill, but we need more time. Earlier this year, 79 Senators voted for the Bond-Reid amendment to the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution which stated clearly that the Senate wanted the funding for a 6-year highway bill at $255 billion. I believe $255 billion is a reasonable and responsible level given the pressing transportation infrastructure needs that are out there. Now the challenge is to get to that level. My colleagues on the Committee on Environment and Public Works and I have been working closely with Senators Grassley and Baucus to find the money. In the meantime, we have to address the imminent expiration of TEA-21. H.R. 3087 provides 5 months worth of the $35.5 billion allowed under the budget resolution of $14.8 billion and a corresponding amount of obligation limitation. This is a significant, 7 percent increase in highway funding over 2003. This additional $2.2 billion in highway funding will translate into over 100,000 new jobs. Of course, the best thing we can do to create economic opportunity is enact a comprehensive, 6-year reauthorization. As we all know, highway bills are job bills. A highway bill drafted at $255 billion over 6 years will create about 2 million new American jobs. This combined with the tax cuts signed by President Bush is the best stimulus the economy can receive. Let me be very clear that my preference is that we would be considering a 6-year comprehensive bill today, not a 5-month extension, but reality is that the funding needed to do a comprehensive 6-year bill at $255 billion has not yet been identified. Because of that, I believe the best outcome for the long-term is to do a 5-year month extension and continue to work on a comprehensive 6-year bill. Again, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3087.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want my colleagues from Michigan, Ohio, and the many other donor States to know that I am committed to improving the return to donor States. It is my intention that any comprehensive 6-year reauthorization bill considered by the Senate include a provision that guarantees all donor States get to a 95 percent minimum rate of return at the end of the life of the bill without harming the opportunity for all States to grow. However, Members need to understand that this is only possible if we are able to fund the bill at $255 billion which means we must identify additional revenue. I also want to further assure my donor State colleagues that the next highway bill I plan to mark up is a 6-year bill.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I will work with the Senator on his concerns if we have to do a longer term extension.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President. I am introducing today the Transportation Extension Act of 2003 which will extend the expiring Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century an additional 5 months. Senators, Jeffords, Bond, Warner, Voinovich, Crapo, Chafee, Cornyn, Murkowski, Thomas, and Allard join me as original cosponsors on this short-term extension. As my colleagues may be aware, we are now 7 days from the expiration of TEA-21. Despite the best efforts of Senator Bond and myself, we have been unable to secure the necessary floor time for consideration of a comprehensive 6-year bill. This bill provide 5 months worth of the $35.5 billion allowed under the Budget Resolution and a corresponding amount of obligation limitation. This is a significant, 7-percent increase in highway funding over 2003, which will translate into over 100,000 new jobs. Of course, the best thing we can do to create economic opportunity is enact a comprehensive, 6-year reauthorization. As we all know, highway bills are jobs bills. A highway bill drafted at $255 billion over 6 years as proposed by the Environment and Public Works Committee will create about two million new American jobs. This combined with the tax cuts signed by President Bush is the best stimulus the economy can receive. Let me be very clear that my preference is that we would be completing a 6-year comprehensive bill, not working on a five-month extension, but reality is that the funding needed to do a comprehensive 6-year bill at $255 billion has not yet been identified. Because of that, I believe the best outcome for the long term program is to do a 5-month extension and continue to work on a comprehensive 6-year bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I will work with the Senator on his concerns if we have to do a longer term extension.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President. I am introducing today the Transportation Extension Act of 2003 which will extend the expiring Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century an additional 5 months. Senators, Jeffords, Bond, Warner, Voinovich, Crapo, Chafee, Cornyn, Murkowski, Thomas, and Allard join me as original cosponsors on this short-term extension. As my colleagues may be aware, we are now 7 days from the expiration of TEA-21. Despite the best efforts of Senator Bond and myself, we have been unable to secure the necessary floor time for consideration of a comprehensive 6-year bill. This bill provide 5 months worth of the $35.5 billion allowed under the Budget Resolution and a corresponding amount of obligation limitation. This is a significant, 7-percent increase in highway funding over 2003, which will translate into over 100,000 new jobs. Of course, the best thing we can do to create economic opportunity is enact a comprehensive, 6-year reauthorization. As we all know, highway bills are jobs bills. A highway bill drafted at $255 billion over 6 years as proposed by the Environment and Public Works Committee will create about two million new American jobs. This combined with the tax cuts signed by President Bush is the best stimulus the economy can receive. Let me be very clear that my preference is that we would be completing a 6-year comprehensive bill, not working on a five-month extension, but reality is that the funding needed to do a comprehensive 6-year bill at $255 billion has not yet been identified. Because of that, I believe the best outcome for the long term program is to do a 5-month extension and continue to work on a comprehensive 6-year bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Regular order.

Mr. INHOFE. Regular order.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, our amendment adds $187 million to the Impact Aid Program. If it is accepted, that will only put us at two- thirds funding. It is important to understand what this is because it seems as if we have come back every year since 1997 and had some success increasing the percentage of a program that was put on the books in the 1950s. First, I agree with most everything the Senator from New Hampshire stated. When you come up with something like this, you have to look at it in the context of fairness and the overall budget. In this case, a program came along in the 1950s that replenishes money that was to go to our schools, that the Government has taken away from our schools. It is as simple as that. They federalize land--perhaps in conjunction with an Army post or Indian lands or in conjunction with a military base of some kind--and when that happens, that takes the land off of the tax base. So the money that would have gone from that tax base to the schools is no longer there. However, the kids still have to be educated. In the wisdom of Congress in the 1950s they said: It is not fair. We will have to at least treat these kids the same as other kids have been treated. There is an insatiable propensity for politicians to take from programs and nobody will notice. This program started in the 1950s. It was fully funded. It was fully funded up to 1969. In 1969, they started dropping down. In 1996, it was down to 50 percent. In other words, money that would have been there for the benefit of the children being educated, only 50 percent was getting to the kids. In my State of Oklahoma, in Lawton, since 1966 the impact aid for Fort Sill, which is located adjacent to Lawton, OK, has dropped substantially, down to one-half in 1996 compared to 1969. This amendment would slowly bring this up to the point where we would be at two-thirds funding. Let me describe what has happened since 1996. In 1996, we were at 50- percent funding. Until 1969, we were 100 percent, and people left the program alone. But in 1969 that changed and it went to 50-percent funding. We have been successful since then, and I commend my friend, the Senator from North Dakota. We do not always agree on issues. We have disagreed on national missile defense. We have disagreed on AmeriCorps and many other issues. This issue is fairness, an issue on which conservatives, liberals, Republicans, and Democrats can agree. Due to our efforts primarily, it has gone up from 50-percent funding in 1996 to 51 percent the next year, 57 percent the next year, 58 percent 2 years later and, if adopted, it will go up to two-thirds. The kids will still not be treated fairly, nor will the school districts. They still will suffer from the fact that the land went off the tax base. However, at least we are on the right trend line, and we should, in another 3 or 4 years, get to 100-percent funding. I will relentlessly pursue this in any way we have to in order to get to that point. Fort Towson public schools in southeastern Oklahoma will gain $51,000 of impact aid if fully funded. This would bring it only to two-thirds funding. As a result, they are having serious problems in these school districts. Oklahoma is not that much different from other States. In the State of North Carolina, my information is that North Carolina actually has more impacted students than the State of Oklahoma. I don't know where North Dakota stands; I am sure we will hear in a moment. However, it is a fairness issue. Oklahoma is not treated more unfairly than any other State but equally unfairly. The students are not getting the education they need because of one thing, and that is they have had the federalized land taken off their tax base. I join my friend from North Dakota in trying to pass this amendment. In doing this, a lot of kids throughout America will be treated more fairly. Down the road, in 5, 6, or 7 years we will find this program will be 100-percent funded. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for the time he has given me and assure him I join him fully in getting this amendment passed for the kids of Oklahoma, North Dakota, and throughout the United States.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Yes. That is the type of activity for which we should reserve criminal prosecution. I also remind my colleague that the Clean Water Act clearly allows prosecution for deceitful or purposeful environmental damage, or for fraudulent efforts to conceal such damage--a provision we would not change.

Mr. INHOFE. Indeed. I also wish to draw the Senator's attention to the Clean Air Act, which has a different, and I suggest, more appropriate provision of negligent endangerment.

Mr. INHOFE. That is absolutely correct.

Mr. INHOFE. The American Waterways Operators have devoted a great deal of time to training mariners and vessel operators. Clearly, the Coast Guard goes to great lengths to ensure its officers and staff are well trained. However, unfortunately, accidents--true accidents-- happen.

Mr. INHOFE. I would like to engage the Senator in a colloquy and draw the Senate's attention to several statutes which have been, through litigation, expanded beyond what are believed was the intent of Congress.

Mr. INHOFE. Precisely. Now, I want to be clear that I do not want to suggest for a minute that we should make it easier for polluters to damage the environment or put the public at risk.

Mr. INHOFE. I agree with my colleague. States should be able to provide incentives for energy production, much like the Federal Government does including incentives in this bill. I believe that this issue is something that should be addressed by the conference committee on this bill.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes. Recent court decisions have made it clear that employees, at any level, who are involved in environmental accidents, can be prosecuted criminally, and potentially imprisoned. These are non-deliberate environmental accidents that do not threaten or harm others.