Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recorded as voting ``aye'' on vote No. 167, a vote today on the cloture motion. It would not have changed the outcome of the vote.

Mr. INHOFE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as in morning business for 3 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was very surprised and disappointed to find that during our recess when we were not here, the President made a very controversial appointment of James Hormel to be U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. I believe it is something that should not be done. In fact, when I think of procedures, I look to a man I admire so much, Senator Bob Byrd from West Virginia. During a recess in 1985, President Reagan made several appointments. Senator Byrd said: The recess appointment power should not be used simply to avoid controversy or to circumvent the constitutional power and responsibility of the Senate. In several cases, Reagan's recess appointments avoided serious and probing debate by the Senate on controversial issues. There is no evidence that the needs of government required any of these appointments to be made as recess appointments. Then Senator Byrd went on to give the history, as he always does in his very eloquent style, as to how the Constitution does provide for emergencies, for such things as appointments back in the 1800s when people were traveling and unable to get here or when something strategic is pending. In the case of James Hormel, certainly there is not anything strategic pending. For that reason, I am serving official notice today that I am going to do the same thing Senator Byrd did back in 1985: I am putting holds on every single Presidential nomination. In the case of James Hormel, it is a little confusing to a lot of people as to why he became controversial. Yes, he is gay. That is not the reason for people opposing him. It is the fact that he is a gay activist who puts his agenda ahead of the agenda of America. I can recall when he made the statement when first nominated by the President: I wish the President had nominated me to be Ambassador to Norway, because if they have something on the ballot--same-sex marriages or something like that--I might be able to influence it. That, to me, demonstrated very clearly that he wanted to use this position to advance his own agenda and not the agenda of America. I hasten to say, I would have the same feelings about any other appointment on any other issue. If David Duke were appointed and came to the conclusion he was going to use his militia interests as his motivation and his agenda more than America's agenda, I certainly would oppose that nomination in the same way. Notice is hereby served. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I agree with a lot of the things the Senator from Iowa is saying. I felt that we were in a position where we couldn't do nothing. We had the accusations out there. I think, quite frankly, ``60 Minutes'' has had more publicity out of this than the CAP has. However, that is the reality. Any time there are accusations like this and 95 percent of the taxpayers' money is being spent, we have a responsibility for oversight. I think we will be able to do that. I certainly have no objection to working on this and making it happen. I also say, since I have a minute remaining, that I am particularly concerned, because 2 weeks ago I was thinking about this ACP while flying an airplane which had an engine blow, and I wasn't sure I was going to be able to land safely gliding into the airport. I could very well have been their product a couple of weeks ago. I yield the remaining time.

Mr. INHOFE. I will yield myself a couple of minutes and I will reserve the remainder of my time. First of all, I don't disagree with many of the things the Senator from Iowa is saying. The only thing I disagree with is, we have much better proof than he is implying in terms of mismanagement. I find something very interesting, and that is a letter that went out last night over the web site from one of the prominent members, named Cameron Warner, to all his fellow members. In this letter he makes it very specific that we at CAP have problems--problems at the top--and they are going to have to be addressed. He goes on to say that if we don't do something about it, those things that we said yesterday on the floor of the Senate as to ``60 Minutes'' coming in and looking at all these abuses could actually be a reality. So here is a request from members of the CAP saying they want to clean up this act. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. The other side?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the other thing I want to mention is that we all love the CAP. There isn't a person in the 100 Members here who has worked closer with them than I have. I was a flight instructor, and I have been involved with these people. We love them. We don't want something to happen where all of a sudden we find out bad things are going on and the Air Force says we can't be responsible for it, dump the program. We all want to save the CAP. Third, I don't buy the argument when they say we are using our own money. It is 95 percent paid for by public funds. But it is always easy to say these funds were the ones that were the 5 percent. I am not criticizing anybody for saying that, because I hear that all the time on the floor of the Senate. I have no problem with accepting this amendment. I think we can probably do it by voice vote. I would like to address these things together. The Senator from Iowa and I have talked, and certainly the Senator from Colorado also shares the concern that there could be mismanagement that has to be stopped, and this is actually the request of the members of the CAP. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. INHOFE. I am controlling time for the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I want to say that there is no one of the 100 Members of the Senate who has been historically closer to the CAP, who has participated in CAP activities than I have. There is not a year that goes by that I do not talk to the troops and those who are being promoted, those who have achieved really great things and have made great contributions to society. I also, just 2 weeks ago, could very well have been the product of a search by the CAP, had I not been able to glide my plane into an airport. So I understand that. I have been on various patrols where we go out. I know the valuable contributions that the Civil Air Patrol makes to this Nation every year, search and rescue, youth cadet program. However, we are concerned with the continuing streams of allegations coming from the Air Force and from members of the Civil Air Patrol that senior members of the CAP have engaged in inappropriate, and in some cases, illegal activities. I will outline a few of the allegations that have been brought to the committee by either the Air Force or former members of the CAP. I have some documents to include as part of the Record that I will want immediately following my remarks, but these are just some of the accusations that are out there. I know that the Senator from Colorado is just as concerned about these as I am. One individual was charging the cost of his flying hours to the Civil Air Patrol counterdrug account when he was actually flying to visit his daughter. A second accusation: One CAP wing charged both its home State and the CAP counterdrug budget for the same mission, essentially receiving double reimbursement for the same activity. Here is a good one: The southeast regional commanders conference was held on a cruise to Nassau paid for by CAP headquarters. After the conference, some individuals requested and received a per diem, even though the cost of the cruise had been paid for by the CAP and, thus, by the taxpayers. I have often thought--I suggested this to the Senator from Colorado--what kind of a position would we be in, would I be in, as chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee if I sat back and let these charges go unanswered? I could just imagine ``60 Minutes'' or some news account of this talking about the cruise to Nassau that was paid with taxpayers' money and then double dipping on top of that. We have numerous other types of reports concerning missing equipment. Seventy percent of one wing's gear, communications gear, computers, et cetera, cannot be accounted for; 77 percent of another wing's gear is missing. The most extraordinary of all, however, is a letter we received from one former member alleging that Federal laws and Federal aviation regulations relating to aircraft maintenance were being violated, and quoting from that letter, ``the lives of our cadet''-- these are juveniles--``members were being jeopardized.'' We are talking about human lives here. Because of these accusations and because the Civil Air Patrol is an auxiliary of the Air Force, receiving virtually all of its funding--some 94 percent of the funding for the CAP comes from the Air Force and the headquarters at the Air Force installation--the leadership of the Air Force requested that the committee pass legislation to grant the Air Force the necessary authority to ensure responsible management of the Civil Air Patrol. That is exactly what this legislation does. This is in our mark that is before us today. I do urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. However, should it pass, I hope that the Secretary of the Air Force will refer the allegations to the FBI and seek to sever the Air Force's ties with the CAP. We can't hold the Air Force responsible for an organization that it doesn't have any authority to supervise. I do not know whether there is any other example anywhere, Mr. President, where you have the responsibility statutorily borne by some agency and they have no authority to police or discipline the behavior of that entity. I ask unanimous consent that a letter to me from General Ryan, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, making this request be printed in the Record. And I ask that the internal memorandum that outlines many other examples, which I would be glad to share with the Senator from Colorado and with the Senate, should this debate pursue, be printed in the Record immediately after the letter from General Ryan.

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, I don't want the Senator to get the impression that he is alone in his feelings. I agree with everything the Senator said. I would like to ask the Senator if he didn't leave out one very significant reason why we should not be involved in that war --or that civil war within a sovereign nation--is that in our state of readiness right now we cannot carry out the national military strategy in defending America's regional fronts. In fact, it is even questionable, according to our air combat commander, that we could defend America on one front, with all the allocations of our scarce assets that are going into Bosnia, Haiti, and Kosovo. Right now my major concern, with 5,000 of our troops already over there in Albania, is that they are virtually naked; they have no force protection, no infrastructure. I hope the Senator will add to his list of reasoning why we shouldn't be there is because it is draining our ability to defend America on such fronts as North Korea or the Middle East.

Mr. INHOFE. I make one last comment to the Senator from Colorado. The language where the local units would continue to be run by local commanders is not addressed in this. That doesn't change. That would remain as it is in the current law.

Mr. INHOFE. The amendment merely gives oversight. Here is the problem: I appreciate the voluntary aspect of it; unfortunately, the voluntary aspect of this only funds about 5 percent, and about 95 percent is public funds, for which we are responsible. Before the esteemed chairman of the committee arrived, I talked about how strapped we are. I believe the bill we are debating today is inadequate in terms of proper funding, but it is the best we can do, so we support it. I can think of military construction projects right now that would love to have a little extra funding, and it does relate to our security interests. I am happy to work with the Senator from Colorado on any kind of a compromise that will give oversight of the CAP to the Air Force so that they will have some degree of control. If 95 percent of the funding of the CAP is taxpayers' dollars, the taxpayers have to have some degree of control. We have a lot of other anecdotal accusations. I don't want to get into that. Things like this are going on and things like this will continue to go on in any entity in society that doesn't have any oversight. I can cite some examples in another committee. We served on the Environment and Public Works Committee where one of the agencies has had no oversight over the past 5 or 6 years and was getting out of hand. They have to have oversight. Those people are dealing with public funds and the public has to have oversight. My concern is what will happen if we don't do this. If we don't do this, as I suggested, the Secretarys of the Air Force may decide to sever relations, and then we really have a serious problem with CAP. I think there is not a person in here who is not a strong supporter of the CAP --certainly these three Senators are among the strongest. We are attempting to save it.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor. I yield whatever time the Senator from Virginia may consume.

Mr. INHOFE. Reclaiming my time, let me throw out a suggestion. We can go ahead and pass this as a mark that dictates at this time. If there is any kind of abuse, we can change it. Anything we do can be changed. That is what we are trying to do right now. These abuses are not things that just happened in the last 6 months. They have been happening over a long period of time. We talked about doing something about this in the last three authorization bills. We haven't done it. We put it off. Nothing has happened. Now we have an opportunity to do it. All we are doing here is allowing us to at least have some ability to monitor what is going on and stop some of these things. I just keep thinking about the ``60 Minutes'' program coming up with all of these abuses. What do we do? We have debated this issue. We turned around and said we will leave the status quo. That is what we are going to do if we pass the amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Let me yield myself whatever time I may need. I say to the Senator that in my remarks I commented that there isn't a Member of the 100 Members of the Senate who has worked closer on an active basis, actually flying with and teaching and working with the CAP, than I have. I have attended every ceremony that they have had-- unless there is something I don't know about--in the State of Oklahoma, because of my strong support for their group. My problem is this wonderful group has a few bad apples in it, and there is no way to get at those bad apples. Here we have General Ryan suggesting that we increase the appropriations to them for the operation of their program by $7.5 million that we had to deny when the Senator and I were sitting in the Armed Services Committee. This is a time that we can't afford to be throwing away any money when we have all the readiness needs, when we have modernization needs, when we have force strength needs, and quality-of-life needs, and all of these things that need to be funded in this particular area. I just do not want to be in a position where I am passing an amendment to take away the authority of the Air Force in this case which is using public funds to fund this entity and taking away their ability to in some way dictate what is going on there if they are going to be responsible for it. Here they are responsible for some of this activity, such as the one individual that was charging the cost of his flying hours to the CAP counterdrug account when he was actually flying to visit his daughter, or one CAP person charged his time both to the home State and the CAP counterdrug budget. So he is double-dipping. Those are public funds they are getting--funds that could be used to buy spare parts, funds that would keep us from having to cannibalize engines, funds that would keep us from having to keep these guys working 16 hours a day repairing aircraft that are broken down. I think we are looking at so many issues. That is why we discussed it at some length in our committee, because we can't allow these abuses to take place and tell the Air Force, Your hands are tied; you have responsibility for their actions but you don't have anything to do with their performance.

Mr. INHOFE. Ten minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was going to ask a question of the Senator. First of all, I realize that the Senator from Colorado and I both are among the strongest supporters of our national defense. The Center for Security Policy has us both rated as 100 percent. That is not an issue on the table. We both feel that way. My problem is, No. 1, they have made the specific statement that it is not going to cost any more to have some supervision over the CAP because the time they spend trying to look into these things without the authority to do it is more time consuming than if they had the legal authority that we are trying to give them with our defense authorization bill. If you just take the money in the examples I used on the trip to Nassau and all of that, I think you would have to agree that the money would be better spent on spare parts than it would be on some of the double-dipping in which they have engaged. I would be glad to yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I know the Senator has the best interests of the CAP at heart in making his comments. But I do believe that he needs to read this very carefully, and if any other Members want to read it, it is on pages 292, 293, and 294. All we are doing is saying that if the Air Force is going to continue to be responsible for the behavior and the actions of the CAP, they be given some oversight, some ability to get into the books and check these things out. It is my understanding that the account that the Senator from Colorado has is not an accurate account of the cruise. I will repeat the accusation. The Southeast Region Commanders Conference was held on a cruise to Nassau. Now, this is a cruise paid for by public funds, CAP funds, which came from the Air Force. After the conference, some individuals requested and received per diem, even though the cost of the cruise had been paid for by taxpayer money. I just think this is so outrageous. In fact, the Air Force personnel who was wanting to stop this from happening was so opposed to it that he refused to go on the trip himself. He canceled out. All we are saying is that if they are going to be responsible for this, we are going to have to, in some way, give them the authority to oversee it. After a while, I am going to be giving a talk on what I find to be offensive about this whole bill that we are discussing today. It is primarily that we are not funding adequately our whole military, certainly in the area of readiness. Our service Chiefs, our four-stars, and our CINCs all got together and said, in order to meet the minimum expectations of the American people, and to meet our national requirements, our mission requirements, we would have to have $17.4 billion a year more for the next 6 years, plus the amount for pay increases and retirement. That comes to about $24 billion. The amount of increase here is only $9 billion--totally inadequate. I am supporting this legislation because it is the very best we can do. I say to the Senator from Colorado, we are looking everywhere to pick up a million dollars here and a little bit there; we want to do it. In spite of that, General Ryan recommended, because of his affection for the CAP, an additional $7.5 million. That should demonstrate his feelings about the CAP. We were not able to give that additional amount. We kept the same levels as the previous year because we have problems in modernization, quality of life, force strength, and there is no place that isn't bleeding and hemorrhaging right now. So that is my concern. I would hate to be in a position to deny the Air Force the right to at least look at the books and have an opportunity to stop this type of abuse if they are going to be responsible for their actions. Right now, they are responsible. That is why I said if this should pass, I think the Secretary of the Air Force really needs to refer these accusations to the FBI and sever the ties of the Air Force. CAP doesn't want that. They have had a very good relationship all these years. I think there may be a small number of people who perhaps have not exercised the proper behavior and don't want the oversight. But I can't think right now of any example in Government where someone is responsible for someone else and yet has no authority over their behavior. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will reclaim my time, and yield the floor so the Senator will be talking on his time.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. INHOFE. I hope before this is over the Senator from Alabama is on my side. So I don't mind using my time to ask the question. I ask the Senator. I know there are a lot of demands on time. Was the Senator from Alabama in here when I made my remarks concerning the accusations of those things that have taken place with the CAP?