Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the Senate floor today to introduce a resolution to declare the week of September 24-30 ``National Amputee Awareness Week.'' When passed, this resolution will designate a specific time around which the Nation's amputee community can rally. Too often, we lose sight of many of those who are right in front of our very eyes. By dedicating this week to their cause, we will make certain that we no longer forget both the accomplishments and problems of the large and diverse amputee community. The loss of limb can strike anyone, at any time. Each year 156,000 people lose a limb. This equates to 13,000 amputations per month, 2,996 amputations per week, 428 amputations per day and 18 amputations per hour in the United States alone. People from all backgrounds have had to deal with the hardships associated with amputation. Over half of amputations in the United States occur among elderly citizens as a result of vascular deficiencies. From childhood to middle adulthood, the most common cause of limb loss is from traumatic injuries. Other major causes can include primary bone malignancies and congenital limb defects. Although there have been great strides in prosthetic research, many people are still limited by the financial burdens associated with acquiring an artificial limb. A new prosthetic device can cost between $8,000 and $70,000. These limbs must often be replaced every few years, adding to the burden placed on an amputee. Even when insurance does cover the cost of these new prosthetic devices, it is often a one-time reimbursement. This leaves the amputee to deal with any further care or replacement devices that are necessary. The prosthetic device is not the only cost incurred by the amputee. There are many secondary factors that must be considered. Over 25,000 people are readmitted to the hospital each year due to complications resulting from their amputation. Amputees must deal with both the physical and emotional consequences of limb loss. Physical therapy must be undertaken to learn how to perform the most basic tasks with a new, foreign limb. They must often also look for alternate occupations once limb loss has made their current occupation infeasible. As a result, amputees must often undergo counseling to help them come to terms emotionally with their altered lifestyle. According to the Amputee Coalition of America, amputees hope to one day see the elimination of barriers to their full participation in all aspects of life. In addition, they hope to see improvements in artificial limbs and prosthetic research. Finally they hope to see improved outcomes for amputees in the areas of chronic post-amputation pain and depression. There are countless locally-based organizations in the United States who provide services to amputees with very little recognition. One of those such organizations is located in Oklahoma. The Limbs of Life Foundation is a nationwide non-profit organization established in 1995 in Oklahoma City to meet the needs of the amputee community. They do this in part by providing limbs at a free or discounted rate to individuals who would not normally be able to afford such devices. To date they have provided over 4,700 amputees with a prosthetic limb. However, Limb for Life's efforts are not limited to limb provision. They also seek to raise awareness of the amputee cause. Each year this foundation holds a bike ride from Oklahoma City to Austin, Texas to raise funds for their efforts. This year's ``Project 50-2000'' will provide funds to purchase limbs for those in need and will bring national attention to the amputee community. This is the type of effort that National Amputee Awareness Week is designed to spotlight. Mr. President, declaring the week of September 24-30 ``National Amputee Awareness Week'' would serve many purposes. At this point in time amputees have only a fragmented network through which to address their concerns. This week would provide them with a point of cohesion during which all amputees can come together in response to and in recognition of their common cause. Not only will amputees benefit from this week, the general population would also have the opportunity to be informed of the unique needs and problems faced by the amputee community. The amputee community and the general population would both gain from increased interaction that this week would bring. In closing, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in creating this important awareness and outreach opportunity for the amputee community.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Let me reclaim the floor, if I may, and respond to the Senator from Iowa. For the first 30 years of this program, it was fully funded. I do not believe the Senator was in the Chamber when I first started talking about it. This is a reimbursement back to the States of money they have been deprived of as a result of Federal activity. That is a distinction between this and other programs. For the Senator's State of Iowa, for example, you are getting 20 percent of what you would get if it were fully funded. It is an equity issue. Certainly, I have the understanding from the chairman--and I talked to the Senator from Nevada--and I recognize that when this gets into conference, there is going to be a problem weaving and sorting. But I cannot imagine any other program that would have a higher priority than this, to ultimately say it is our intent to get this fully funded back to where it was prior to the 1980s. For that reason, I believe it has merit above some of the other programs that are coming. This is a reimbursement we agreed to back in the 1950s.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this amendment addresses a subject with which we are all very familiar. In the early fifties, we put together a very good and effective Federal program to reimburse the States for revenue that was lost because of Federal activities--whether it was a military base or Indian reservation--anytime those properties were taken off the tax rolls. Yet that particular type of activity brought in additional students. It was set up to reimburse the local school districts. It is called impact aid. It is one of the oldest Federal education programs dating back to the fifties. The rationale for compensation is Federal activity deprives local school districts of the ability to collect sufficient property and sales tax, even though the school district is obligated to provide free public education. Since the early eighties, impact aid has not been fully funded despite the obligation of the Federal Government to make local school districts whole. We introduced some time ago a resolution that would do that very thing. It has the support of quite a number of Members of the Senate. In fact, I have a letter signed by a large number of Senators. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, my language would actually fully fund impact aid to all school districts in the country by fiscal year 2004. The effect it would have this year would be approximately $78.2 million. In discussing this with both the majority and the minority, I realized the offset we are suggesting; that is, to take it out of administrative overhead, is something that has already been done. I recognize that once they get to conference, they are going to have to shuffle these things around and see what actually can be done. While I recognize that in the House and Senate bills there is an increase in impact aid, it does not have anything in the future that will reach full funding. I have a list here. Not one of the 50 States is 100 percent. Yet these are funds taken from the States due to Federal activities. What I would like, perhaps with the understanding and the agreement of the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, is to go ahead and adopt this amendment which says, in the 4-year period, impact aid will be fully funded; however, there is to be an understanding it has to go into conference along with some other requests to see what actually can be worked out. I want to have a colloquy with the chairman of the committee so we can have this understanding. The State of Pennsylvania is actually at 11 percent of being fully funded, which is not nearly as well as Oklahoma, which is at 37 percent. This is something that is an equity issue. It is not a distinction of 50 percent or 60 percent of full impact aid funding or 10 percent. It is an equity issue.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, even though I believe we need to have a specific time in the future when Impact Aid is fully funded, I recognize there will have to be some kind of discipline in the number of amendments that are coming up to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. For that reason, I have modified the amount down so that in the first year it will be $35 million as opposed to $78.2 million. I believe this has been agreed to on both sides.

Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3610

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I send my amendment back to the desk as modified and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, June 27, 2000, at 2 p.m., in Hart 216.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 27, 2000, at 8:30 a.m., to receive testimony on the operations of the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, Production and Regulation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 27, 2000, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct an oversight hearing. The subcommittee will receive testimony on the April 2000 GAO Report entitled ``Nuclear Waste Cleanup--DOE's Paducah Plan Faces Uncertainties and Excludes Costly Cleanup Activities.''

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Tuesday, June 27, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in SD-226.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on Reprocessing of Single Use Medical Devices during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 27, 2000, at 10 a.m.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nominations of Lieutenant General Tommy R. Franks, USA for appointment to the grade of General and to be commander-in-chief, United States Central Command and Lieutenant General William F. Kernan, USA for appointment to the grade of General and to be commander-in-chief, United States Joint Forces Command/Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 at 11:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nominations of Lieutenant General Tommy R. Franks, USA for appointment to the grade of General and to be commander-in-chief, United States Central Command and Lieutenant General William F. Kernan, USA for appointment to the grade of General and to be commander-in- chief, United States Joint Forces Command/Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 at 2:15 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr President, I am pleased to come to the floor of the Senate today to speak in support of the Enzi amendment to the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill. As my colleagues know, the Enzi amendment is necessary to prevent the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration from enacting a costly regulation without adequate scientific understanding of the very problem they hope to prevent. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, I have seen first hand how this administration refuses to conduct the proper scientific study of regulations they propose to promulgate. The reason, I fear, its rather simple: the scientific evidence does not support their political agenda. Based on my observations, the rule of thumb with this administration is ``if the scientific evidence does not support the goal, ignore the evidence.'' In this instance, we've been asking OSHA to do due diligence concerning the science behind this rule for five years. I am not necessarily opposed to an ergonomics rule, I am simply opposed to this rule because it is not backed by sound science. I find it very interesting that the National Academy of Sciences is set to release its findings on ergonomics early next year. Why then the rush. The answer is obvious, OSHA fears the science will not support its proposal and wants to rush this into effect before the NAS finishes its work. The speed at which OSHA is moving on this regulation is unprecedented; this is the single largest regulatory effort to date and OSHA appears to be bending over backwards to avoid congressional scrutiny, which of course is not new for this administration. In addition to dodging congressional scrutiny, OSHA is ignoring the over 7,000 public comments concerning the rule. In addition to the process related flaws with this rule, another problem is its unrealistic cost estimate. OSHA estimates the rule will cost approximately $4.2 billion per year which is dramatically lower than all other estimates. For instance, the Small Business Administration estimates the cost is $60 billion per year or 15 times that of OSHA's estimate. The disparity of these figures alone should give plenty of reason to rethink this rule. Yet another reason to oppose this rule is the effect of the rule on Medicare/Medicaid patients. OSHA has repeatedly stated that business should simply pass on the cost of compliance to consumers. Now, as I mentioned above, conservatively that cost will be in excess of $4.2 billion annually. Some of these ``businesses'' OSHA believes should pass on the cost of the rule are hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies, and other Medicare/Medicaid dependent health care providers. No where in the rule, has OSHA mentioned how these health care providers should deal with the newly imposed costs. They cannot simply pass on the cost as OSHA has stated so cavalierly. Medicare/Medicaid providers in my state have been very clear about the existing problems associated with recent cuts in Medicare/Medicaid. I can only image what this new burden will mean for our health care providers. In all fairness, OSHA has apparently thought about the cost to Medicare/Medicaid because they have done an estimate on the first year compliance cost of the rule. They estimate it will cost about $526 million for nursing and personal care facilities. Now, I don't know about my colleagues, but from the stories I've heard from my constituents, that $526 million could be much better spent providing care to patients. If OSHA implements this rule, we are setting the stage for a greater health care crisis in the country. Are health care providers going to be forced to choose between complying with OSHA regulations or providing health care for patients? I, for one, hope this is not the case. Another of the significant problems with this rule is its vagueness. In fact, the rule's lack of clarity has prompted the Washington Post, clearly not a mouthpiece of conservative thinking, to say, that the rule is too vague and will cause problems. There are many unanswered questions that OSHA readily admits it cannot answer and in all probability will never be able to answer. Among these now unanswered questions are: What is a definable ergonomics hazard? How can these undefined hazards be fixed? How will these undefined hazards be enforced? Since OSHA cannot determine what the potential hazards are or how they can be fixed, it admits that actions that employers take to remedy supposed problems may actually make those problems worse. Since OSHA itself does not know what the extent of the problems are, it should come as no surprise that this is the only rule OSHA has ever put forward that does not provide employers some guidance for implementing appropriate measures to prevent injuries. Instead, the rule, as drafted, only sets forth penalties for employers if they fail to remedy these undefinable dangers. Given these uncertainties, it is clear that the rule is flawed and should be stopped as is our prerogative. We have no choice. We must reject this rule and demand that OSHA conduct its due diligence before promulgating another. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Enzi amendment.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, S. 2522 contains $934.1 million for Plan Colombia, a counternarcotics initiative. A portion of that is earmarked for the investigations of human rights abuses. Certainly a part of the drug culture that this bill is attempting to address is the abduction of individuals by paramilitary groups who either hold their hostages for ransom or use the abduction as a means of intimidation against law enforcement. Frequently we hear of witnesses, prosecutors and judges being taken from their homes, offices or off the street in broad daylight in an attempt to stop the prosecution of drug kingpins. However, innocent civilians, not involved in the war on drugs, are targets as well. The amendment I am introducing addresses the latter. My colleagues may not be aware but currently there are three American citizens who are being held hostage by FARC, a narco-guerilla group in Colombia. Many have been involved in obtaining their release but the 7 plus years of their captivity has complicated those efforts. On the evening of January 31, 1993, a group of armed guerrillas entered the village of Pucuro Panama. Once control of the village had been secured, the guerrillas went to the homes of the Mankins, Riches, Tenenoffs, three missionary families with New Tribes Mission who were invited to live in Pucuro by village leaders to teach reading and writing and provide medical care to villagers. David Mankins, Mark Rich and Rick Tenenoff were tied up and their wives instructed to prepare small packages of clothing for them. The guerrillas then forced the men toward a trail that leads to the Colombian border. Shortly after the kidnaping, FARC made contact with New Tribes Mission, claimed credit for the abduction and demanded a $5 million ransom. The mission refused to pay the ransom and shortly thereafter contact ceased. Since then there has been many rumors and reports, but not proof on their whereabouts. David Mankins, Mark Rich and Rick Tenenoff have the dubious distinction of being the longest held American hostages. Their families have lived the last 7 years without knowing whether they are dead or alive. My amendment condemns the kidnaping; urges members of the European Community to assist in the safe return of these men by including in any dialogue with them the objectives of the safe return of these missionaries; and appeals to the United Nations Commission to pressure FARC to resolve this situation. I am proposing this amendment for a couple reasons: first, FARC has aggressively courted a dialogue with several in the European community. In fact, I understand that in the upcoming weeks there will be representatives of FARC in Europe looking for support of their ``revolution.'' I fear any recognition would be viewed as legitimizing the illegal and cowardly activities of FARC and thereby compound efforts to either gain release of these Americans to learn of their fate. Secondly, Dr. Larry Maxwell of Patterson Baptist Church in Patterson, New York has begun a 240 mile walk to Washington, D.C. to bring attention to the tragic situation of these families. Dr. Maxwell will culminate his walk at the Capitol this coming Monday, June 26th, where he will be joined by the families of the kidnapped men. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because these American citizens can easily be forgotten and we must not do that. Dave, Mark and Rick needs our prayers and their families need to know that their loved ones have not been abandoned. Finally, we need to encourage all those who have worked during the last 7 years to bring an end to this horrific ordeal to continue their effort.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, yesterday a delayed flight due to weather and the closing of flights through Chicago caused me to miss votes on the Murray Amendment (No. 3252), the Hatch Amendment (No. 3473) and the Kennedy Amendment (No. 3473) to S. 2549 the Department of Defense Authorization Bill. I would like to state for the record what my votes would have been had I been able to make those votes. murray amendment no. 3252 Had I been present, I would have voted to table the Murray amendment. I do not believe we should turn our military medical facilities into abortion clinics. The Senate rejected this amendment last year, and I see no reason why the Senate should change its position. Though military facility abortion advocates try to present the situation as otherwise, it is not the case that women in the military are deprived of the option of getting an abortion, if they chose to have one. They are simply not able to obtain an abortion in a military facility as an elective procedure. Furthermore, as Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, I know our military medical resources are spread too thin as things are. Not only is allowing abortions in military medical facilities an insult to many of the taxpayers who have paid for those facilities, it forces the hospitals to divert resources that could have been used for preserving life to do the opposite. This amendment does nothing but support an agenda that promotes abortion. To that I am opposed. hatch amendment no. 3474 I realize that many in the Senate viewed the Hatch Amendment as a viable alternative to the Kennedy Amendment on hate crimes. As with the Kennedy Amendment, the Hatch Amendment gives statutory credence to creating a special class of protections for crimes committed against a behavior driven lifestyle. To place sexual orientation on par with race, color, gender, religion, and national origin is simply a terrible precedent for the Senate to be setting. Before anyone accuses me of supporting violence directed against any particular person or group of persons, let me say clearly, I unequivocally oppose violence against anyone. Any crime of violence is a hate crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I appreciate the Senator from Utah's efforts to provide what he sees as an alternative to what I think we would both agree is a worse piece of legislation. However, had I been present, I would have opposed his amendment. While some may say that my NAY vote on the Hatch Amendment would have changed the outcome, the fact is this issue will be rewritten during conference. kennedy amendment no. 3473 I would have voted against the Kennedy amendment on hate crimes because I do not believe it is Constitutional, nor do I think it is good policy. As with the Hatch Amendment, to place sexual orientation on an equal level with race, color, gender, religion, and national origin is wrong. Again, I unequivocally oppose violence against anyone. Any crime of violence is a hate crime and must be punished to the fullest extent of the law. As a conferee on the Department of Defense Authorization bill, I will work vigorously to drop this language from the bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator yield for a brief colloquy?

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator for yielding. I want to commend the chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for developing this legislation. I understand the constraints of the allocation given the subcommittee and I believe he and the gentleman from New Jersey have done a great job in developing a bill the entire Senate can support. As a general aviation pilot I also want to specifically thank the Senator for his recognition throughout the legislation of the role of general aviation in the national air transportation system. As the report correctly noted, ``the FAA should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good'' and although for example the WAAS program is struggling, the legislation notes the number of satellite based applications that can be deployed here and now to enhance aviation safety. As you move to conference, would the Chairman be willing to work with me on language for inclusion in the Statement of Managers to enhance direction to the FAA in this particular regard? Increasing the number of GPS approaches, developing databases and GPS corridors through Class B airspace will immediately improve safety for thousands of general aviation pilots.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Let's quickly recap what happened. In March of 1998, about 8 weeks into the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Pentagon public affairs director, Kenneth Bacon, got a phone call from Jane Mayer, who Jane Mayer was a long-time Clinton supporter and friend of the Clinton administration. She was an old friend of Kenneth Bacon. They worked together on the Wall Street Journal for years before. And she got a letter. She was then working on a story for the New Yorker magazine. Mayer informed Bacon that she had evidence that a key witness in this Presidential scandal, Linda Tripp, had been arrested for larceny as a teenager. Tripp was and still is a civilian employee of the Federal Government at the Pentagon. Mayer wanted to know how Tripp had replied to question No. 21 on her security clearance form, asking if she had ever been arrested. If she had answered no, which Linda Tripp did, then public disclosure of this information in conjunction with the new evidence that Mayer said she had would have been clearly damaging to Tripp's credibility and her reputation and would discredit her as someone who was bringing charges against the President. Soon thereafter, it was discovered that Tripp's teenage arrest was the result of a juvenile prank perpetrated against her. The judge in the case told her in a laughing way that it was a funny trick and her record would be clear. Nevertheless, Mayer's story was published and the damage to Tripp was done. She was discredited forever. I would characterize that as saying Mr. Bacon had conspired with Ms. Mayer to implement ``a scheme to defame and destroy the public image of Linda Tripp with the intent to influence, obstruct, and impede the conduct and outcome of pending investigations and prosecutions.'' That is exactly what the two of them did to Linda Tripp. The reason I am reading this is because that is the exact language of 20 years ago when Chuck Colson committed this same crime at the beginning of the Watergate era. The court said Colson implemented ``a scheme to defame and destroy the public image of Daniel Ellsberg with the intent to influence, obstruct, and impede the conduct and outcome of pending investigations and prosecutions.'' That is exactly the same thing Kenneth Bacon did. The actions of Bacon and Bernath immediately became the subject of the Pentagon IG investigation to determine if they had violated the Privacy Act which is designed to prevent the disclosure of confidential information on Government employees. The IG quickly concluded that, yes, indeed, they did violate the Privacy Act. In July of 1998, the IG made a criminal referral to the Justice Department so the case could be prosecuted, but nobody knew it. The fact the IG had concluded the report was covered up by the Justice Department for 2 years. The Justice Department sat on the case for 2 years doing nothing--a classic foot-dragging, stonewalling Clinton coverup. Finally, in March of this year, they quietly announced no one would be prosecuted in this case. And they call it a Department of Justice. The Department said it concluded Bacon and Bernath ``didn't intend to break the law'' when they made the disclosure of the Tripp information, as if that is ever a legitimate excuse for anything. I suggest if the Senator who is occupying the chair were driving down a Wyoming highway at 100 miles an hour and were pulled over by a highway patrol and he said, ``I didn't intend to break the law,'' that everything would be fine. This is how the process works. Once the Justice Department refuses to prosecute, even after a criminal referral for prosecution has taken place, the very least that can happen to a person is the boss of the individual who is offending may take some kind of personnel action. It was turned over to the Secretary of Defense, William Cohen. He was charged with evaluating the conclusions of the IG report and taking any action he deemed appropriate, such as firing both of them. Keep in mind, this should not even have happened. This should not have taken place because by this time, there should have been a criminal prosecution. This brings us to 2 weeks ago, Thursday, when Cohen announced what he deemed appropriate. He sent Bacon and Bernath personal letters expressing disappointment in their actions, making a clear point they were not letters of reprimand and will not be placed in their personnel records. It is not even a slap on the wrist. In other words, he did nothing. He did not fire anyone. He did not fine anyone. He did not suspend anyone. He took the IG's conclusion that the Privacy Act was broken and walked away without exacting any measure of accountability or justice. It is unbelievable. He did, however, publicly release the IG report and related documents, and these clearly show the inspector general unhesitatingly concluded that Tripp's privacy was compromised, that the Privacy Act was violated, and that the law was broken. This was in the IG report. The IG totally rejected Bacon's and Bernath's contorted arguments to the contrary. In addition, the IG report clearly shows that no serious investigation was ever conducted into the involvement of other Clinton administration officials or friends outside the Pentagon, such as those in the White House who may have been involved in orchestrating this smear of Linda Tripp. I urge my colleagues to read an article that was in the Washington Times on Saturday, May 27, 2000. It lays out clear evidence that Bacon and Bernath did not act alone in this matter, as they claim. There is evidence the IG did not adequately follow up. Yet it is the kind of evidence that, as Clinton friend Dick Morris has said, would lead to a conclusion any 6 year old could understand; namely, that Bacon and Bernath most certainly did not act alone. I ask unanimous consent this article from the Washington Times to which I just referred be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.