Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me associate myself with the remarks of the most distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we had a very significant meeting yesterday of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which was a culmination of months and months of work on behalf of many of us trying to explain to the American people the very threatened situation that our country is in, and I am very proud that we had a meeting that I will describe to you in the next few minutes which, I think, is going to actually change America's approach to our defense system. I think it is very appropriate to talk about this now because I also would be speaking in favor of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999. I think it is important for us to understand the deplorable condition of our defense system. We have for 14 consecutive years, counting this year, actually had a decline in defense spending. It has dropped and it has dropped and it has dropped. I have to hasten to say this also transcends politics. It has been in Republican administrations and Democrat administrations. Of course, during the administration of President Clinton it has been worse than it has been before. We are now at the lowest level in procurement since 1960. This was attested to yesterday by General Reimer, Dennis Reimer, the commander of the Army. Our military now is smaller than it was in the 1930s and is on more missions than we went on during the Vietnam war. Our Army deployments have tripled, the Air Force deployments have quintupled, if there is such a word, and the Navy ships in the Persian Gulf have reached one of the lowest states of readiness in 5 years. We have Navy aircraft crashes. They are called class A mishaps. They have doubled this year, the highest in 5 years, and CNO Adm. Jay Johnson has attributed this to a lack of spare parts. As I go around to the various military installations, I see that we don't have spare parts, that we are cannibalizing perfectly good aircraft to get spare parts to keep other ones running. The Navy was 7,000 short in their recruits this year--7,000. That means we don't have enough sailors to go out and man the ships necessary to meet the minimum expectations of the American people. The pilots are leaving the Air Force in droves. Right now, our pilot retention has dropped below 20 percent. Madam President, it costs $6 million to put a pilot in the seat of an F-16, and yet we are down now to a 20-percent retention. What does this mean? It means that it costs almost 100 times as much to go out and retrain someone as to retain someone who is already there. What is the reason for this? I spent most of the August recess, Madam President, going around to the various military installations in my plane. In fact, I was taking journalists with me so they would start writing about this deplorable situation that we find our military in right now. I know one of the individuals who went with me in my plane is Roland Evans, of Evans and Novak, and we made a lot of visits to various installations on very, very short notice. In one of the installations, we had over 20 pilots in one room. I said, ``Why is it you are down to 20 percent? How many of you in here, after this tour of duty, are going to come back in and continue your careers flying for the Air Force or the Navy?'' About 20 percent are going to do it. It is actually a little below that now in the Navy. I said, ``What's the reason for it?'' They started out with the fact that we have starved the budgets for the military to the extent that they don't have adequate spare parts, and those kids who are out there, the mechanics who are putting these engines back into condition, flying condition, are using spare parts that were cannibalized out of another engine, maybe a new engine, and the end result of that is they are not sure of the work quality of these individuals since they have been up and they are working sometimes--we ran into some situations where they are working 16, 18 hours a day. I ask you, Madam President, would you feel very secure about flying an aircraft that has been maintained by someone who has been on his 18th hour that day? It is a very difficult thing. These young people are willing to do it. Then after they talked about that, they talked about--Wait a minute, it is not just that; we were hired and recruited to have a career in flying and defending America. We want combat skills. As a result of the deployments to places like Bosnia where we don't have any national security interests, these people are not able to continue their training. Out at Nellis Air Force Base in the Mojave Desert where they are supposed to have the red flag exercises--these are beautiful exercises that allow fighter pilots to go in and train under actual combat conditions, or nearly actual combat conditions, and they are not able to do it. They have cut down the number of training flights, because when they come back from the long deployments to places like Bosnia and other places where we don't have any national security interests, instead of being with their families, they try to get training in, and there isn't time when they are back home. Consequently, we are having them leave by droves. Now, I used the example, of course, of pilots because there seems to be more interest in them. It is easier for people to understand that if you have a $6 million investment in a man or woman to fly a vehicle and they go off and start working for the airlines and yet they really wanted to stay and defend America, you have to examine why is this. It is money, it is the contingency operations and it is a lack of mission. I have heard that so much from these people, saying, well, we no longer know what the mission is of this country. We are in places where we are not able to use our combat skills. The marine pilots, they are flying helicopters that were used by their fathers in Vietnam. We hear about the MTWs. Sometimes we stand on the Senate floor and we start talking in the language that a lot of people don't understand because they don't know what an MTW is. That is a major theater war. There is an expectation out around the United States that America's military is able to defend America on two regional fronts, and this is not our situation today, as came out in the hearing that we had yesterday. I think the people in Oklahoma are aware of this because I commute, I go back every weekend, and I have town meetings. They are fully aware of the condition of our military. I was recently in Chelsea, OK, the home of Will Rogers, and over at the Port of Catoosa, places where they would otherwise have to depend on what they are reading of something that is coming out of the Washington media market so they wouldn't really be in a position to understand how deplorable this situation is. As far as the two major theater wars, we are not able to do that today. If you ask the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and you ask the various chiefs, they will say: Yes, we can do two nearly simultaneous major theater wars. But then you ask them, what is the risk factor? The ``risk factor'' is a term that is used in saying: Yes, you are prepared to do this, but if you do this, No. 1, how long will it take? No. 2, how many soldiers will be wounded or killed? In asking them yesterday what the risk factor is of two major theater wars, they said it is medium for the first one and high for the second. We need to have the risk factor low, because we are now quantifying as to how many American lives will be affected should we find ourselves in a situation where we have two major theater wars. It comes to something like 16,000 additional Americans will be wounded because of this high- risk factor. One might wonder why there is a high risk factor. Right now we know, if you have been reading the newspapers, Madam President, that we have very serious problems in places like Iraq. I don't think there is anyone with a background in the military who will tell you if a crisis exists, as it does now, if we have to go into Iraq, that it can all be done from the air. It cannot all be done by air. You have to follow up with ground forces. If you go over to the 21st TACOM in Germany--that is where they handle all the logistics in that theater, which includes Bosnia, Iraq, and the entire Middle East. What would we do if we had to support a ground effort in Iraq when we are now at over 100 percent just taking care of the needs of Bosnia? I know that is a shock to a lot of people when they realize that going into Bosnia, taking all the stuff down there to support the troops that we have there and that our NATO allies have there, and fulfilling the commitment we made to them--which we never should have made--is using up 100 percent of the capacity of the 21st TACOM. That means, in the event we had to go into the Middle East, like Iraq or Iran or Libya or any other place, we would have to be dependent 100 percent on the Guard and Reserve. What has happened to the Guard and Reserve? Because of underfunding and deployments to all these different places like Bosnia, in Oklahoma we are deploying our Guard and Reserve for up to 270 days. How many people are in an occupation where they can be let go for 270 days? We have our occupation specialties, our MOSs, that we don't have. We don't have doctors going over there now. If we were forced to support a ground operation in Iraq, we could not do it with our Guard and Reserve. That is how desperate the situation is. We covered something else yesterday--I wish the hearing that took place yesterday had happened maybe a month before; then we would have been able to do a better job with the defense authorization bill which we are, hopefully, about to pass in a short period of time--and that is, we brought to the surface the realization that, in addition to the problems I have outlined, we have a backlog of real property maintenance--these are things that have to be done to maintain our property to house our soldiers around the world--of $38 billion. This is $38 billion that will have to be spent sometime, and we have no preparation for that at all. We have a shortfall of $1 billion in BASOPS. Those are things that have to be paid for today. We are talking about garbage collection, water bills, and this type of thing. We do not have that kind of money. General Tilleli, who is in charge of some 37,000 troops in South Korea right now, said just the other day: They will not be able to fully support sustained operations due to overdue infrastructure repairs. This is a direct quote: Strategic airlift will be affected, regardless of one or two MTWs, unless the en route infrastructure in Alaska, Hawaii and Guam receive adequate funding. Which they are not right now. Presently these three locations require infrastructure repairs on their fuel handling, fuel shortage and material handling equipment. On a recent trip to Fort Bragg, one of the most necessary of all installations, they have barracks that are leaking. The roofs are leaking like sieves. We were there right after a very hard rain. Not only was it leaking to where our troops were in the water at the time, but also it was going down into the basement where they have the armory, where the weapons are being stored. They are corroding and rusting, and our troops are spending their time in a high OPTEMPO or PERSTEMPO rate during the hours they have to work in order to keep them for use for training purposes. At Camp Lejeune--it might surprise you, Madam President, even Marines have to have a decent quality of life or at least have to know something good is going to happen--they have the CH-46. That is a type of helicopter they have been using. These helicopters are all older than the pilots flying them. We have a V-22 program that is supposed to replace all the CH-46s, and it is not in place. We are not there yet. We want to get there, but we are not there. That comes into this whole equation of having to fund the overall defense system. They say you are as strong as the weakest link in a chain. All of our links are equally weak and about to break. Madam President, we found at Camp Lejeune in one particular helicopter squadron that only 4 of the 11 helicopters were operational. The rest were either down for maintenance or had been robbed of their parts to keep the last four working. This is something that cannot be continued. I am very proud of General Bramlett. He is currently the FORSCOM commander. He is just about to retire. In his memo that came a couple of weeks ago--I am going to quote some things because I want them in the Record--he said: We can no longer train and sustain the force, stop infrastructure degradation, and provide our soldiers with the quality of life programs critical to long term readiness of the force. Commanders at Fort Lewis, Stewart and Bragg report units will drop below ALO-- That is, authorized level of organization-- in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999. This threatens our ability to mobilize, deploy, fight and win. Further quoting General Bramlett: Funding has fallen below the survival level in fiscal year 1999 . . . . Current funding levels place FORSCOM's ability to accomplish its mission in an unacceptable risk. Unfunded requirements can only be realized with an increase in the overall funding level for the Department. I chair the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Last week, we had both General Bramlett and General Schwartz, who will be taking his place as commander of FORSCOM. They believe the memo he wrote is true today. I know I have described a very ominous situation, Madam President. But the good news is that at yesterday's Armed Services Committee hearing, we had Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Shelton, along with the chief of the Army, General Reimer, General Krulak of the Marines, General Shelton, Admiral Johnson of the Navy, and General Ryan of the Air Force. I want to say publicly how proud I am of the courage that they exhibited yesterday. I do not remember a time when--and I have been here for 12 years and I have read about this situation for longer than that--I don't remember a time when the chiefs of the services had the courage to stand up and say to the President that our budget that you have been giving us for the last few years is inadequate to defend America. It displayed an incredible amount of courage. I am very, very proud of them. They identified an immediate need for $17 billion above the President's budget. They displayed a level of honesty that we should all appreciate and we seldom get. I was very proud also--I happen to be a conservative Republican and have always been prodefense--but we had several Democrats on the committee yesterday. I was surprised and so gratified to hear them come out and join in. Senator John Glenn questioned the fact we may have gone too far in our drawdown in forces. I was very proud of Senator Lieberman and his statement when he said, ``We are asking more of our military post-cold war than during the cold war,'' and his comments regarding national ballistic missile defense, which I want to touch on very briefly in a minute. Senator Cleland, Max Cleland from Georgia, spoke out and he actually made this statement in the committee, that we are going to have to go back and listen to what Dr. Schlessinger said recently when he said that the problem is so severe that we are going to have to, in a massive way, rebuild our defense system and do it in a similar way that we did in the early 1980s. He said that it does not seem that with 3 percent of gross domestic product we would be able to sustain an adequate force; it is going to have to be 4 percent. So what Senator Cleland was saying is, we need an additional $70 billion just to build our forces up to meet the minimum expectations of the American people. What is interesting about what Senator Cleland said was that in addition to the fact that that equates to $70 billion, if you take what each of the chiefs says is necessary over and above what we have allocated for fiscal year 1999, it comes to about $70 billion. Just for a minute, let's go back to Senator Lieberman who made the comment about the national missile defense system. I have found that when I go around the country and ask people what their feeling is and what we would be able to do if, for example, a missile were fired from someplace in China or someplace from the other side of the world to Washington, DC, knowing that it would take 35 minutes to get over here, and it is carrying a weapon of mass destruction, either biological, chemical or nuclear, what we in the United States could do--because most people think we could shoot it down--fifty-four percent of the people in America think that if a missile were coming over, we would be able to shoot it down. In fact we cannot shoot it down. We are naked. We have no defense, Madam President, against a missile coming in from another continent. And the reason is that it is outside the atmosphere. We do not have anything that will knock it down. By the time it reenters the atmosphere, it is going at a velocity that we do not have anything to knock it down with. We have been derelict in not pursuing the course we started on in 1983 to have a system deployed to defend ourselves against an ICBM coming into the United States by fiscal year 1998. That is what we are just winding up right now. Yet we have noted that we were on that course since 1983, until Bill Clinton was elected President of the United States in 1992, and then started vetoing the defense authorization bills and the defense appropriations bills, until we took out funding that would have been there to finish the job to have deployed a national missile defense system by 1998. That is now. Someone was pretty smart back in 1983 to realize this is the time that we would have to have a system in place. However, we now know that it is going to take another 3 years or so to do it. Several of us who have been promoting a national missile defense system have concluded that one of the reasons we have not been able to impress upon the people of America how dangerous of a situation we are in right now is that they have been confused by all the different types of national missile defense systems. So we have all kind of gotten down to one, the one that would give us the best system, the cheapest in the shortest period of time just to take care of a limited attack by a warhead that would be coming over on a missile. That would be the Aegis system, Madam President. We have $50 billion invested in 22 ships right now. They have the potential missile defense capability to knock down long range missiles outside the atmosphere. To do this, to upgrade the system to be fully capable in the upper tier would cost approximately $4 billion more and take about 3 more years. We want to get on that road so we can get a system here as soon as possible, but we do not have it yet. We do not have it in this defense authorization bill. And yet we have gone as far as we can go with the bill now. I only regret that we did not have these committee hearings a month ago so that we could have done a better job preparing for the defense of America than we have done in the 1999 Strom Thurmond national defense authorization. So with that, I just want to say that I do fully support the bill. I hope it comes up some time either Thursday or Friday and we can vote for it, support it, pass it, and then start rebuilding our defenses so that we can at least meet the minimum expectations of the American people and be honest with them and defend my seven grandchildren, my four children, and the rest of America. Thank you. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while I was the mayor of Tulsa, we started an Oktoberfest to benefit the ``River Parks'' which is an area around the Arkansas River for jogging, cycling or walking. Tulsa Oktoberfest is known as one of the best in world and a large reason for that is due to Josef Peter Hardt, whom I dubbed ``Mr. Oktoberfest.'' Born in Oberhausen (Rhineland) Germany, Josef emigrated to Ithaca, New York in 1951 and moved to Tulsa in 1955. His professional career was in broadcasting, retiring as the manager of commercial productions of Channel 2 in 1993. His civic career consisted of work in the Theater Tulsa, television and film production, one founders of Tulsa's Oktoberfest, an active member of the German American Society Arts Association and German American Society Building Corporation in Tulsa. Because of his active involvement in the German American Society, he was awarded the Bundesverdienstkreuz (Distinguished Service Cross) by the Counsel General for the Federal Republic of Germany, on the tenth anniversary of the German American Society of Tulsa. During that occasion, the Honorable Peter Maier-Oswald noted that ``Joe Hardt has always worked for his old country and his new country to promote relations between the two.'' Our first Oktoberfest consisted of a small tent on the banks of the Arkansas River in 1979 and now draws over 200,000 people over a four day period. Since the beginning, Josef, has held various jobs but perhaps the one for which he will be remembered most is that of MC. As this is the last year of his active involvement in Tulsa's Oktoberfest, I wanted to take this opportunity to commemorate his leadership and faithful service to his community. We will miss seeing and hearing him as the MC, but he will always be Mr. Oktoberfest in my book.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to point out to the Chairman that Section 606 contains a provision that appears to grant priority status to a single carrier at Chicago O'Hare for the return of slots previously withdrawn for international service. If it is the intention of this provision to give one carrier at O'Hare preference in slot allocation, the Senate conferees must act in conference to remove this provision. This provision appears to hand over roughly 35 slots that the dominant carrier at Chicago previously sought to obtain from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) but was twice denied. This provision would advantage a single carrier, which knew of the priority of slot withdrawal and should have planned its hub operations to take into account the effects. It strengthens a single carrier's position at O'Hare, a situation which the Congress should not legislate. As this legislation goes to conference, the Senate is relying on the conferees to ensure Congress is even-handed in these matters.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, section 606 subparagraph (6) of S. 2279 will have the unintended consequences of limiting competition at Chicago's O'Hare airport. I have spoke at length with Senators Lott, McCain, and Ford regarding my concerns with this provision and understand that it may be possible to correct this problem in conference. I hope that is the case. This provision will allow those carriers who have lost landing/ takeoff slots to foreign air carriers at Chicago's O'Hare to get them back. On the surface this seems very fair; however, it will in fact unfairly favor the largest slot holder at O'Hare at the expense of other competitors and new entrants. Because the dominant carrier at O'Hare has lost the most slots, it stands to gain the most. The result will be less competition rather than more at O'Hare. Mr. President, by way of further explanation on this issue, I would like to submit for the Record a letter Senator Nickles and I sent to Senators Lott, Daschle, McCain, Hollings, Shelby, and Lautenberg describing our concerns and asking for their assistance in correcting the problem. Knowing that the managers of the bill have worked very hard to increase competition, I am certain they share my concerns regarding market domination at O'Hare. In my discussions with Senator Lott, he has assured me that he has no position on section 606 and would not object to this section being removed in conference. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record. United States Senate, Washington, DC, September 23, 1998. Hon. Trent Lott, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Tom Daschle, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. John McCain, Chairman, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Ernest F. Hollings, Ranking Member, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Richard C. Shelby, Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, Minority Member, Subcommittee on Transportation, Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senators: We are writing to express our strong opposition to a proposal that would increase major airline dominance at a key hub airport while at the same time reversing a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) decision and undercutting our international obligations. Specifically, a provision in Section 606 of FAA Reauthorization (S. 2279) would hand over roughly 35 slots at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport to its largest slot holder, United Airlines, while restricting access at that hub to its competitors and new entrants. It is our understanding that this special interest provision is being adviced for inclusion in other pieces of ``must-pass'' legislation. Such special interest legislation benefiting one airline will no doubt lead to less competition and higher airfares. We urge you to foster greater airline competition by deleting this special interest provision from S. 2279 and preventing it from being attached to other legislation. Late last year, United petitioned FAA on just this issue and was rejected soundly. United sought priority for any future slot exemptions claiming they would replace the 35 slots withdrawn under FAA regulations and used by foreign carriers in order to meet our bilateral commitments. In a March 1998 order, FAA found that the public interest would be best served by continuing to meet our aviation bilateral agreement commitments to international air transportation using the slots withdrawn from United and American Airlines at O'Hare, while using the slot exemptions to increase competition at that key airport. The priority by which slots were to be withdrawn was well known. United chose not to invest in better priority slots to protect its schedule and slot holdings. In rejecting United's request, FAA found: ``Since 1993 the FAA withdraws, on average, 31 air carrier slots from United, which is approximately four percent of United's domestic slot base. These slots are withdrawn based on a priority numbering system that was established by random lottery in 1986. Slots having the lowest numbers are most vulnerable to withdrawal, regardless of the slot holder. As articulated in our previous denial to United concerning this issue, United made its selection or acquisition of slots with vulnerable withdrawal priority and planned its hub operations fully knowing the effects of the rule's operations might have upon them . . . United knew, or should have known, that these slots were vulnerable in case of withdrawal.'' We applaud the Commerce Committee's efforts to fashion a bill that promotes greater airline competition aimed at producing lower airfares and improved service in all communities. Accordingly, we respectfully urge your support for striking this provision of section 606, the effect of which is directly opposite the intent of S. 2279 and other procompetitive aviation legislation. Sincerely, Jim Inhofe, Don Nickles.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President just a few years ago we went through the same thing with the civil penalties of the FAA Act, so there would be someone other than the FAA involved. Prior to that time, the FAA was the judge, the jury, and the appellate court. They made all the decisions and they were protecting their own, because every bureaucracy does this--EPA, IRS, FDA and all the rest of them. We changed the regulation so the NTSB, then, would be the appellate court for civil penalties, and it has worked very well. The junior Senator from Texas served on the NTSB, and I yield her whatever time she needs.

Mr. INHOFE. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. I will conclude by saying this in no way impairs the flying safety of the flying public or the pilots. The fact that the average time between the alleged violation and the revocation is 132 days pretty much tells you it is not really an emergency problem in most of these cases. I urge you to join the 625,000 pilots and myself in supporting the Inhofe amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there is a process that is used by the FAA which is known as the emergency revocation process. This process will allow an inspector in the event of an alleged violation by a licensed pilot to take away the pilot's certificate. He would take away the certificate under the emergency revocation clause declaring that an emergency exists. The problem with this is that many times when you have an inspector do this, or an examiner take away a certificate, there is not even an emergency nature to the revocation. Consequently, we have many, many cases where the individuals have been abused. I would like to suggest that Ted Stewart, who is an American Airlines pilot, has been a pilot for over 12 years and presently flying Boeing 767s. In May of 1995, there was an emergency revocation. He was not guilty of anything. There was not an emergency attached to this. There was never any hazard to anyone's health or safety. However, it was 2 months until he was able to get his certificate back. Then an examiner went back to him in June of 1996 and again revoked his certificate under the emergency revocation. Consequently, for another 2 months he was unable to earn a living. Fortunately, he worked for American Airlines; they were good enough to keep his paychecks coming, but in many cases that is not the case. I happen to be a very close friend of a man named Bob Hoover. I think most of you can remember who Bob Hoover is. He is considered to be the best performer in the circuit of airshows. In fact, I have flown airshows with him. In 1992--and I was there at the time--an inspector came in, an examiner for the FAA, and said to him, We think you have a problem. We think perhaps there is a mental problem or something--they didn't really define it--and they revoked his certificate. It wasn't for another 4 years he was able to get his certificate back. In the meantime, he was flying his airshows but outside the United States. Now, very simply, what my amendment does is set up a process whereby if you lose your certificate, you have 48 hours to take it to the NTSB and let the NTSB make a determination as to whether or not there is any kind of an emergency nature to the revocation. After they have looked this over and decided there is no emergency involved to the nature of the revocation, then at the end of 7 days the pilot will get his certificate back. If there is, then he would not get it back. They can go ahead then and go through the normal adjudication of the violation. This is something that has been going on for quite some time. We have been concerned about reforming this process. This is a compromise, because this makes it very clear if there is any hazard out there, if there is any risk to anyone's safety, the flying public or the pilot himself, the pilot is not going to be able to fly. It is as simple as that. A lot of people say that there are only 300 emergency revocations a year. Therefore, it is not really a problem; it doesn't really affect that many people. I suggest to you that if you take 300 people, there might be 20 or 30 of those who make their living flying airplanes for American Airlines or one of the other airlines, in which case that takes them out of their occupation. The other problem we have is there are 650,000 pilots right now licensed in the United States and they all live in mortal fear that something like this would happen to them. At this point let me yield 1 minute to Senator Frist.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. That is right. Mr. President, I will make one last comment. In the event that my amendment will not prevail tomorrow, I look forward, of course, to working with both the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Arizona to try to make it more workable. I yield the floor. Airport Protection From Forced Scheduled Service

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I don't disagree with some of the statements made here. I have a little different interpretation. I think the Senator from Arizona is correct when he says 2.55 percent of those were of an emergency nature. The numbers equate to about roughly 300 people. Now, all too often, we stand down here and say it is such a small number that, if there is an injustice, it doesn't affect that many people. I think that is probably true, but those individuals who are affected, it is a matter of taking away their livelihoods. I disagree with the way the system works. When I look at the average between the time of the alleged offense and the emergency revocation, the average time of those in this last entire year was 132 days. I ask the question, How could there be an emergency nature to these revocations if it takes 132 days before that license is revoked? I also comment on the extreme cases that we bring out, such as the Ted Stewarts and the Bob Hoovers. There are many others out there like that. Again, we are not talking about anything that is going to impair the safety of the flying public or the pilots because we are setting aside a process whereby there are a certain number of hours to appeal this to the NTSB. It goes back to using the same argument that was successfully used when we changed the rules having to do with civil penalties. With civil penalties, we argued that you can't have just the FAA be the judge and jury and appellate court; and, of course, it has worked out very well since then. While I respectfully disagree with my colleagues from Arizona and Kentucky, I say that there is no interpretation that can be put on my amendment that is going to do anything to make flying more hazardous, or to keep a person from holding a certificate if there is an emergency nature to the revocation. If there is an emergency nature to the revocation, as determined by the NTSB--and that is their job--then, of course, they will keep the certificate and that individual will not have the ability to fly an airplane. Let me just make one comment about the NTSB because, while it has been stated that the NTSB and FAA are both opposed to this amendment, I can assure you we talked as recently as yesterday to Dan Campbell, the chief counsel for the NTSB, and he says, no, it is natural that they generally don't want a heavier workload than they currently have. But he feels that this is a fair approach, and they don't have an official position against it. Does the FAA? Yes. I think any time you are dealing with a bureaucracy--I don't care if it is the IRS, the FDA, the EPA, or the FAA, or any of the rest of them--they don't like to give up anything. This way, they would be giving up part of this appellate process. This is a matter of fairness. I recognize that we will not be voting until tomorrow. However, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INHOFE. I eat at the Moonlight Cafe, which is owned by the chairman of the Democratic Party.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me respond to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. I can assure him that I will continue to stop in Owensboro to get my gas as I fly. There is good reason for that; it is the cheapest gas between Tulsa, OK, and National Airport.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this amendment is one that should not be controversial. I can recall as recently as the Oshkosh meeting this last August where they voted--and we are talking about 250,000 people who were involved--to say this is the No. 1 issue for general aviation in America this entire year and perhaps for several years. It has to do with a process that is very similar to something we went through a few years ago. When the FAA exercises its power to invoke an emergency revocation of a license, they can do so for an indefinite period of time and that person will lose that license. In many cases, it may be this person's only way of making a living. We have worked for several years to come up with some type of a compromise that will allow an individual to recover his license in the event that it is shown there is nothing dangerous in the way that individual had been flying. It is very unfortunate that in any bureaucracy, there are a few people who will occasionally do something that is not justified. I share with you, Mr. President, a case of an individual named Ted Stewart who had been employed by American Airlines as a pilot for more than 12 years and presently serves as a Boeing 767 captain. No complaints had ever been registered against him or his flying. In January of 1995, the FAA suspended Mr. Stewart's examining authority. And the reason? Possibly improper issuing of ratings. He complied with the FAA request that he provide log books and/or other reliable records for inspections. On May 16, 1995, an emergency revocation was issued, and he lost his airman certificates. June 19, 1995, the National Transportation Safety Board Administrative Law Judge Mullins ruled in Mr. Stewart's favor on all counts. In July of 1995, the full NTSB upheld Judge Mullins' initial decision. All pilot certificates were returned. I point out, this is almost 2 months after the revocation. In January of 1996, he was awarded approximately 60 percent of the money spent to defend himself. The FAA appealed the ruling and it is still pending before the full NTSB. What I am getting at is, we have case after case where individuals have lost their ability to make their living for their families when there was not any type of an emergency, there was not any type of a hazard in their performance in terms of their acting as a pilot. What we are trying to do is similar to what we did successfully a few years ago under the civil penalties provision, and that is, insert into the process an unbiased source that will be able to participate in the process. In the case of civil penalties, we had the NTSB to hear the cases after they have been ruled on by the FAA. This has been working very well since that time. My amendment, as far as it addresses the emergency revocation, addresses the problem prudently by providing an airman--that is the pilot--48 hours after receiving an emergency revocation order the opportunity to request a hearing before the NTSB on the emergency nature of the revocation. This is not on the offense, this is on the emergency nature as to whether or not this would be an emergency. The NTSB then has 48 hours to hear the arguments. Within 5 days of the initial request, the NTSB must decide if a true emergency exists. During this time, the emergency revocation remains in effect. In other words, the certificate holder loses use of his certificate for a maximum of 7 days. However, should the NTSB decide an emergency does not exist, then the certificate will be returned to the certificate holder, and he can continue to use it while the FAA pursues their revocation case against him. Keep in mind, no emergency exists, nothing is done to impose a hazard on himself or the public. If the NTSB decides that an emergency does exist, then emergency revocation remains in effect and the certificate holder cannot use his certificate while the case is adjudicated. That would revert back to the way the law is today. That individual would not be able to fly. So all we are talking about is whether or not there is an emergency nature in this case. Please do not misunderstand, in no way do I want to suggest that the FAA should not have emergency revocation powers. I believe it is critical to safety that the FAA can ground unsafe airmen or other certificate holders. However, I also believe that the FAA must be judicious in its use of the extraordinary power. The FAA will argue that because emergency certificate actions are only a small percentage of overall certificate actions, there is no reason for this concern. However, review of recent emergency cases clearly demonstrates a pattern by which the FAA uses their emergency powers far more frequently than the circumstances warrant. For instance, of the emergency revocation orders issued during fiscal year 1990 through 1997, 50 percent occurred 4 months to 2 years after the violation occurred. In only 4 percent of the cases was the emergency revocation issued within 10 days or less of the actual violation. In fact, the median time lapse between the violation and the emergency order was a little over 4 months. That is 132 days, Mr. President. I suggest to you, how can that be considered an emergency if nothing happened until 132 days after the alleged violation? I think clearly at issue is what constitutes an emergency. Simply defined, an emergency is ``an unexpected situation or sudden occurrence of a serious and urgent nature that demands immediate action.'' Yet, as discussed above, the ``urgent nature'' of the revocation which ``demands immediate action'' has more often than not occurred several months previously. There are far too many cases where the FAA unfairly uses this necessary power to prematurely revoke certificates when the circumstances do not support such drastic action. Mr. President, I have other cases that I could drag out here and talk about, such as the case of Bob Hoover. I have had the privilege of flying in airshows with Bob Hoover for over 30 years. Bob Hoover-- probably if you were to ask anyone in the aviation community who the best pilot in America is, they would probably say Bob Hoover. Yet he was the victim of the emergency revocation. We had to go to bat for him, and we had literally thousands of letters from all over America coming to the aid of Bob Hoover because everybody knew there is nothing wrong and nothing of an emergency nature to the revocation of his ability to fly. So, Mr. President, I feel that this being the No. 1 concern and issue of general aviation today--it is a sense of fairness issue, something that has worked very well in the case of civil penalties--it is one that I feel should be changed in the FAA regulations. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

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

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

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 given 2 minutes off the time of the other side.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been listening, as I have in years past, to the debate, to the eloquence of those dedicated individuals who feel so strongly about this issue, particularly the leadership of the Senator from Pennsylvania and the things he has said, the things he has stood for, and the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith, and then Dr. Frist. I hope people heard what Dr. Frist said because he really is the only one who truly is a professional, who truly understands what this is all about, who can articulate the pain that a small baby during the birth process feels when he is put to death in the very cruel way that this takes place. As he described that procedure--the procedure of going under the cranium with scissors and opening it up with no anesthesia and the baby feeling that pain--something occurred to me: that those individuals who want to keep that procedure alive and keep it legal are the same ones who, if you did that to a dog, would be picketing your office. I think somehow we have developed, in a perverted way, into a society, many of whom put a greater value on the lives of critters than on human life. I hope we change that today. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional leader in recognition of a remarkable career of service to his country--Lieutenant General Richard A. Burpee, United States Air Force, retired. Dick Burpee has amassed a truly distinguished record, including 35 years of service in the Air Force uniform, that merits special recognition on the occasion of his retirement as chairman of the board of directors of the Retired Officers Association. Born and raised in Delton, Michigan, he is now a distinguished citizen of the great State of Oklahoma. He enlisted in the Air Force just after the Korean War in 1953. Subsequently selected for pilot training, he earned his aviator's wings and Second Lieutenant's commission in 1955. Over the next decade, Dick served in a variety of flying and staff positions, including assignments as an instructor pilot and as an exchange pilot with the Royal Canadian Armed Forces. In the process, he successfully completed studies leading to the award of a bachelor's degree in economics and a master's degree in public administration. During a 1967-68 tour of duty with the 12th Tactical Fighter Wing in Vietnam, he distinguished himself with a record of 336 combat missions in the F-4 fighter and the award of the Silver Star, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, a Bronze Star and fifteen air medals. Air Force leaders recognized the talent and potential of this general-to-be and selected him for prestigious positions at Air Force headquarters in Washington, DC, first in the Office of the Director for Operational Test and Evaluation and subsequently as an aide to the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff. Following completion of the National War College and selection for promotion to the grade of Colonel, he returned to operational flying duty in a series of leadership positions, ultimately serving as Commander of the Strategic Air Command's (SAC) 509th Bombardment Wing in 1974-1975. Exceeding even the Strategic Air Command's high standards of leadership excellence, Dick Burpee was hardly getting started. Following selection to General officer rank, he carved a path of performance and achievement through assignments at Headquarters Strategic Air Command, as Commander of the 19th air division, and in senior plans and operations positions at Air Force headquarters in the Pentagon. From 1983 to 1985, the great State of Oklahoma had the good fortune to get to know Dick Burpee as a particularly outstanding Commander of the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center. Oklahomans were not alone in recognizing his talents, as he was subsequently promoted to three-star rank and assigned as Director for Operations for the Pentagon's Joint Staff--the highest ranking operations staff officer of our country's Armed Forces. Finally, in 1988, he was appointed to command the Strategic Air Command's prestigious 15th Air Force, a position he held until his retirement from active military service in 1990. In addition to the impressive combat record I have already mentioned, I would note that General Burpee's military files reflect an outstanding total of 11,000 flying hours as well as the award of the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two Distinguished Service Medals, and the Legion of Merit. A true warrior and leader, indeed. Dick Burpee, however, is not a person who considers even 35 years of arduous service a full working career. Following his retirement, he started a successful consulting business in management and marketing with aerospace industries and government. Since relocating to Oklahoma City in 1991, he has served as vice president for development and vice president of administration at the University of Central Oklahoma, sits on the board of directors of the United Bank in Oklahoma City, and has been deeply involved with the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce. Elected to the board of directors of the Retired Officers Association (TROA) in 1992, he was unanimously selected as TROA's chairman of the board in 1996, a position from which he is now retiring. Through his stewardship, the Retired Officers Association continues to play a vital role as a staunch advocate of legislative initiatives to maintain readiness and improve the quality of life for all members of the uniformed service community--active, reserve and retired, plus their families and survivors. I won't describe all of his accomplishments, but will briefly touch on some highlights to illustrate his involvement and concern for military people. As chairman, he has championed the fight for health care equity for retirees of the uniformed services, whose access to the military health care system has been severely curtailed by base closures, downsizing, and shrinking military medical budgets. His persistent and well-reasoned proposals have translated into successful legislative initiatives aimed at expanding Medicare-eligible retirees' access to military facilities and allowing them to enroll in the federal employees health benefits program. He also has been one of the most vocal advocates for ending the practice of capping annual pay raises for active and reserve personnel below those enjoyed by the average American. Happily, those efforts are now bearing fruit in the form of full-comparability raises for the troops in 1999 and, hopefully, from 2000 on. Taken together, these comprise two of the most important institutional inducements to help reverse declining career retention statistics in all services. In forcefully articulating the urgency of honoring long-standing health care and retirement commitments to those who have already served and by championing improved quality-of-life initiatives for those now serving, Dick Burpee has significantly raised Congress' sensitivity to these important retention and readiness issues. Perhaps most importantly, Dick Burpee has distinguished himself and TROA from other, often strident, critics by consistently offering cogent, well-researched plans that outline workable legislative solutions to these complex problems. My closing observation, with which I am sure you will all agree, is that General Dick Burpee has been, in every sense of the word, a leader in the military, TROA and the entire retired community. Our very best wishes go with him for long life, well-earned happiness, and continued success in service to his Nation and the uniformed servicemembers whom he has so admirably led. As a former soldier myself, who entered military service at about the same time he did, I offer General Burpee a grateful and heartfelt salute.