Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I respond to the suggestion of the Senator from Georgia that in capacity, there is potentially enough capacity so there will be a public depot in the event of war and have some capacity to grow into it. That is the reason that, again, it is somewhat arbitrary as to whether it is 75, 80, or 85 percent. The GAO again said that you should operate the three remaining air logistics centers somewhere between 75 and 85 percent capacity to leave enough capacity so that, as the Senator suggests, in time of war we would have that capacity and then we would be at full capacity. Clearly this is a national defense issue.

Mr. INHOFE. Before the Senator yields the floor, I would like to respond, in a way. We are talking about this as being a major national defense issue. That is what it is really all about. I am deeply concerned because I understand, certainly not as well as some of the others around here, that the Senate rules do provide that any one Senator can stop the train, can stop and can kill a bill. I see Senator Thurmond down there, the chairman of our committee, the hours that we put into this thing. I just hope that those who disagree with one small part--this is a tiny part of this bill. We have pay raises for our guys in Bosnia. We have modernization programs in there. We have barracks that are starting construction right now that we have to continue. We have literally hundreds of things that are totally out of this realm, not associated with the depot maintenance, that are in this bill. So I just hope that those who are opposed to this part or any part of the bill would not use the Senate prerogative that each Senator has to stop the bill altogether so that we will not have the defense authorization bill, but merely offer amendments to take out those parts that they find offensive. I am prepared to debate against such amendments that might cause this to come out. So, I just respond by saying, I hope that you share my concern that we do not want to hold up the defense authorization bill. Let us go ahead, as Senator Thurmond had suggested in a meeting yesterday and said we have a good bill here. A lot of good things are in it. If somebody does not like some provision, they have every right to stand here on the floor and argue that case and be as persuasive as they can to take that out. I think that is the process, for the sake of America's defense, that should be used. I assume the Senator from Georgia would agree with that.

Mr. INHOFE. Of course, the Senator from Georgia being the ranking member of the Personnel Subcommittee, and Senator Kempthorne, being the chairman, as I go around and make the base visits, it is very distressing. You mentioned flight pay. We are losing our quality pilots to the private sector because there is a great demand out there. How can we compete, when these guys are willing to do it? They want to fly the F-16's, the F-14's and the F- 18's, and the equipment we have, the heavy equipment, the B-1's and B- 2's, and so forth, but they also have families and they have children and we have to provide them with the pay that is somewhat competitive. We are way below that. However, you are able to get in some provisions that will, I think, retain some of these pilots. Right now we are in the middle of an incredible housing shortage and we have troops on food stamps, we have housing that they would not let prisoners live in. We have a lot of improvements here due to your hard work and that of Senator Kempthorne. To jeopardize all of that work just because of one small provision--I suggest there are some things I do not like in this bill. If I do not like them I will offer an amendment to take it out. That is the process. I just hope we can follow that process.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to just take a couple of minutes to respond to the best of my memory to some of the things that were stated by the senior Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm]. First of all, he mentioned that personality should not enter into this. I certainly hope that will be the case. Unfortunately, Mr. President, all too often in both bodies if we get wrapped up in things we honestly believe in, it becomes personal. I do not think this will be the case, certainly in the case of Senator Gramm. He is a man I have respected for many, many years even before I served in the other body or this body. In fact, I was one of the individuals who strongly supported him in his bid for President of the United States because I thought he was the best choice. And it was not an easy thing for me to do because, unfortunately, our majority leader in the Senate was running. However, I think some things need to be brought out and some things I have access to because of the fact that I serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee and chair the readiness subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. First of all, on this issue of the depot caucus we hear so much about in the other body, I hear some statements attributed to them that sound a little bit extreme from time to time, but I have to say also that that is a group of people with a genuine concern over how depot business should be handled. All too often we start thinking of parochial concerns, about what is the effect of a certain action going to be on the population of my State, and forget about the fact that there is a reason for a depot and there is a reason for core functions to be performed in a depot. All too long we have gone without a definition of core, and core, Mr. President, as you well know, is those functions that have to be performed to enable us to defend the lives of Americans. That is what it is all about. When you talk about the depot caucus over on the other side, I did some things in this bill, and, of course, the Chair is fully aware of it because he was there at the time, made some compromises that the so-called depot caucus found very offensive. I agreed to change the 60-40 formula to 50-50. Also, I did something else that not many people really are aware of because it gets a little bit technical but provided for allowing teaming to be done by a public depot. This is extremely significant and it shows that I of all people am not against private sector competition. The Senator from Texas [Mr Gramm] talked about this as one of the backbones of the philosophy of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Certainly no one can do more than I have done in the effort for privatization. The difference that has to be distinguished in this case is you can't privatize business, you can't privatize functions that are necessary for the survival of this country. Let us just say, for example, that in the F-100 engines which are used in some of our combat machines that are necessary to defend America and we saw performing so well in the Persian Gulf war, that has to be done, we have decided, as a policy for America in public depots. And the reason is even if it costs more money--I do not think it does. I think I can come up with an argument that will say that we can do things more efficiently in some of those functions in the public depots; we are set up to do that. But even if we were not able to do that, there is another reason why they have to be done in the public sector, and that is the strategic interests of the United States, the defense issues. We have all agreed as the policy of this country that core activities, core functions, must be done by the public sector. And so we established this somewhat arbitrary, which it is arbitrary, 60-40, and I was willing to accommodate one of the very prominent Senators from Arizona on the committee, Senator McCain, and Senator McCain did appreciate that very much. So we changed that, and not only are we going to give the ability to the public depots to team, and that is to go outside and subcontract some work, I am willing to count that in any formula as public sector work, even though it is done by the private sector. Now, that is a great, I think, compromise that we made in order to accommodate some of the Senators who had concerns, and consequently that Senator is in support of the language that is found in this bill. So I think that if we could present the argument, there is no way you could give even a 20-percent advantage to the public sector in depot maintenance and still have a level playing field. We are fully aware of the process that is written into our system that allows the disposition of Federal properties to be first offered to the Federal Government, then the State government, then ultimately to local subdivisions such as Tulsa, OK, or San Antonio, TX. And so in the event they at no cost in the case of a San Antonio, TX, are able to acquire Kelly Air Force Base and have that multi, multimillion-dollar facility at no cost, they in turn then can give that to a contractor who will bid with no overhead whatsoever. Now, that is something with which we cannot compete in Tinker Air Force Base or they could not compete with in any other military installation. And there are many other--I have already talked about this and talked about those things that are in the bidding process which make it so that we cannot do it. I was a little bit surprised when the junior Senator from Texas was talking about John White. During the committee meetings that we had, John White was not able to answer questions about how to level the playing field and provide for real competition if it is desirable. Keep in mind, Mr. President, it is not desirable because we have established as a policy that those core functions that are necessary to protect the lives of Americans should be done in public depots. If you do not do that, you are going to have a situation where we can be held hostage in times of war, and we know what that could mean for us. Given the manner in which competition is structured, everyone already knows that private sector bids will come in well below depots, and there are two reasons why. The private bidders can use marginal pricing. We know what marginal pricing is in Government work. Private bidders, unlike the public sector, are allowed to use marginal pricing to underprice something to get their foot in the door, and once the foot is in the door we become reliant upon them and then they run off. I am not saying the people who are the private sector are unscrupulous or in any way demeaning what they do. They are out in the competitive world, and they are willing to use their assets to bid below cost just to get in there so that the public sector would no longer have the ability to provide that work. I think the Senator from Utah made a very good point. We are losing that ability today. As the skilled workers, whether they are located in Oklahoma or Utah or Georgia, are leaving, getting into other professions, so we would have--every week that goes by we would have a more difficult time in having this as public sector work that would defend America. So I conclude, Mr. President--and I do not want to be redundant--by saying that another bottom line is right here. This is a GAO report. The GAO report agrees with what the Air Force initially said on how much money would be saved by closing the two bases and transfer that workload to other ALC's. Then they later on, when this administration took a position against it right before the election, they rescinded that report, but the GAO, which is independent of that political influence, came out and said very clearly if you do it, it is going to cost the defense system an additional $468 million a year. And certainly the man who is presiding right now, the honorable Senator from Virginia, who is one of the highest ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is fully aware that if we have to somehow come up with $2 billion over a 5-year period to take out of the defense budget in order to accommodate an exception to the BRAC recommendations, where is it going to come from? He will remember very well we had the chiefs of the services there, and we gave them the alternatives. It has to come from quality of life, modernization, force strength or readiness. There are only four places it can come from. We cannot predict the contingencies this administration will get us into that are very expensive. We can predict these, and there is no place we can come up with this money. So this is an extremely important fiscal issue, and I wanted to have the opportunity to respond to the senior Senator from Texas. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.

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 to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to address the situation encountered when certain members of our Federal law enforcement community are no longer able to perform their assigned duties. These members of the Federal law enforcement community to which I refer are not people, but canines. The purpose of this legislation is simple. The bill will streamline the regulations that govern the adoption of Federal law enforcement canines by their handlers. Currently, these animals are considered Federal property and when their tenure of service has ended, they are considered surplus Government property. Under current Federal regulations, Government agencies are forced to comply with procedures to ensure maximum return for the Government's investment in the animal at auction. These animals have received special security training to best equip them for the demands of their duties. Because of the hazards associated with their duties, this specialized training often makes these animals unsuitable as pets for those not trained to handle these animals. Because of the highly specialized training these animals receive, they should not be simply auctioned to the highest bidder. Currently, if no trained handler comes forward and offers the highest bid for the animal, the possibility exists that it will spend the rest of its life caged, or even worse, destroyed. Under this legislation, the eligible animals would be donated to their handlers, who would then assume all costs and responsibilities associated to the care of that animal. This practice is commonplace for local law enforcement agencies nationwide. This is not a drastic departure from previous Government procedure. In 1993, the General Services Administration granted a waiver for Border Patrol canine handlers to purchase their partners for a nominal fee. Unfortunately, this waiver has expired and has not been renewed. Mr. President, this is a commonsense solution to a very simple problem. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ease the restrictions concerning the adoption of Federal law enforcement canines.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know there is some misunderstanding over what is happening right now in terms of this emergency supplemental, and I believe maybe some clarification would be in order. The very distinguished Senator from Minnesota spent 30 minutes expressing his anxiety over the passage of this emergency supplemental legislation. Let me assure you, Mr. President, if you were listening to that, that there are not any people in North Dakota or in Minnesota right now who are going without the emergency provisions that are authorized. And, as a matter of fact, there are some things that won't really be done, such as the outright replacing of infrastructure and some of those things. So it is not as if those people are being ignored. It is not as if we went off and took a vacation during the time that was happening. But I think it is important to mention a couple of other things that are in this emergency supplemental. I am hoping that the President won't veto it. It is not at all unusual that the bill is not sent to the President. If it were sent to the President after it was only passed on Thursday night, by Monday morning, then, that would probably set some new kind of a record around here. Things don't move that fast. There is nothing unusual about the fact that this bill has not been sent to the President. But this presupposition that the President is going to veto it, I think, is really wrong. I think the President will have to look very closely at whether or not he wants to veto this emergency legislation. For one thing, it is the President that got us into the situation that we are in in Bosnia right now. But we should never have sent troops over to Bosnia when you have a military budget that is suffering and while we have great threats that are out there to send troops on humanitarian missions and peacekeeping missions all around the world where we don't have strategic interests at stake. I can remember 18 months ago standing on this floor when the President of the United States said that the cost in Bosnia would be somewhere between $1.5 and $2 billion. At that time I said, ``I bet it will be $8 billion before it is over.'' Guess what? It is already passing through $6.5 billion. And some of the money that is in this emergency supplemental is going to be going to support the effort in Bosnia. It has already been paid. But this is replenishing, the same as it is up in North Dakota and for some of the flood victims. They have been addressed. Problems have been addressed. Of course, we do need to replenish that emergency fund, which we intend to do. But I think the main thing is the idea that the President is going to automatically veto this. I think you know that the automatic continuing resolution is on this, which I think is very, very good. It wasn't too long ago that the President shut down the Government and blamed the majority party for it, and if we had this continuing resolution in place, that couldn't happen again. All we want to do is to be sure that we are going to be able to carry on Government and let Government operate in the event there is an impasse between Congress and the President of the United States on some appropriations bills. That is exactly what this is all about. So, if we had the continuing resolution that is passed, which is a part of this emergency supplemental legislation, then the continuing resolution will provide that Government won't shut down, that it will continue to operate at last year's funding level, which I think is very reasonable. We don't want to shut down Government. That way, we can ensure it won't happen. That is all in this emergency supplemental. So I am hoping, of course, that the President doesn't use the automatic continuing resolution as an excuse to veto this bill, because if he does, what he is saying is, I want Government to be able to be shut down. It is as simple as that. Lastly, I say that I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Minnesota. Quite often you see different philosophies expressed on this floor. Of course, his is quite different than mine. I think the basic difference is that when we look at money that Government spends, we look at it as coming from the taxpayers rather than just some big pot of money that is owned by Government. So we have conservatives and we have liberals. And the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, is very liberal, and we are very conservative. So this is a forum where those things can be heard. I think, in good time, the President will get this emergency supplemental, and I am certainly hopeful that the President will not veto the supplemental. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to address the situation encountered when certain members of our Federal law enforcement community are no longer able to perform their assigned duties. These members of the Federal law enforcement community to which I refer are not people, but canines. The purpose of this legislation is simple. The bill will streamline the regulations that govern the adoption of Federal law enforcement canines by their handlers. Currently, these animals are considered Federal property and when their tenure of service has ended, they are considered surplus Government property. Under current Federal regulations, Government agencies are forced to comply with procedures to ensure maximum return for the Government's investment in the animal at auction. These animals have received special security training to best equip them for the demands of their duties. Because of the hazards associated with their duties, this specialized training often makes these animals unsuitable as pets for those not trained to handle these animals. Because of the highly specialized training these animals receive, they should not be simply auctioned to the highest bidder. Currently, if no trained handler comes forward and offers the highest bid for the animal, the possibility exists that it will spend the rest of its life caged, or even worse, destroyed. Under this legislation, the eligible animals would be donated to their handlers, who would then assume all costs and responsibilities associated to the care of that animal. This practice is commonplace for local law enforcement agencies nationwide. This is not a drastic departure from previous Government procedure. In 1993, the General Services Administration granted a waiver for Border Patrol canine handlers to purchase their partners for a nominal fee. Unfortunately, this waiver has expired and has not been renewed. Mr. President, this is a commonsense solution to a very simple problem. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ease the restrictions concerning the adoption of Federal law enforcement canines.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in closing, this bill will provide due process to certificate holders where now none exists, without compromising aviation safety. This is a reasonable and prudent response to an increasing problem for certificate holders. I hope our colleagues will support our efforts in this regard.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been working with representatives of the aviation industry on legislation that will address a problem with the Federal Aviation Administration. Let me, first of all, say that back in real life I have been a professional pilot for some 40 years. I am a little bothered, too, at some of the things taking place in the aviation industry. I have seen great injustice done many, many times, having to do with the emergency revocation powers of the FAA. In a revocation action, brought on an emergency basis, the certificate holder loses use of his certificate immediately, without an intermediary review by an impartial third party. The result is that the certificate holder is grounded and, in most cases, is out of work until the issue is adjudicated. I believe the FAA unfairly uses this necessary power to prematurely revoke certificates when the circumstances do not support such drastic action. A more reasonable approach, Mr. President, when safety is not an issue, would be to adjudicate the revocation on a nonemergency basis, allowing the certificate holder to continue use of his certificate. Please don't misunderstand me. 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 and other certificate holders. However, I also believe that the FAA must be judicious in its use of this extraordinary power. A review of recent emergency cases clearly demonstrates a pattern by which the FAA uses their emergency powers as standard procedure rather than an extraordinary measure. Perhaps the most visible case is that of Bob Hoover, who happens to probably be the best pilot in America today. He is up in age. I have watched him and have been in a plane with him. He can set a glass of water on the panel of an airplane and do a barrel roll without spilling any of the water. He is highly regarded as an aerobatic pilot. In 1992, his medical certificate was revoked based on alleged questions regarding his cognitive abilities. After getting a clean bill of health from four separate sets of doctors--just one of the many tests cost Bob $1,700--and over the continuing objections of the Federal air surgeon, who never even examined Bob Hoover personally, his medical certificate was reinstated only after then-Administrator David Henson intervened. And I want to take this opportunity to tell David Henson what a great job he did for aviation, and for one person. Unfortunately, Bob Hoover is not out of the woods yet. His current medical certificate expires on September 30, 1997. Unlike most airmen who can renew their medical certificate with a routine application and exam, Bob has to furnish the FAA with a report of a neurological evaluation every 12 months. It is a very expensive and unnecessary process. Mr. President, Bob Hoover's experience is just one of many. In a way, his wasn't as bad, because some of them do this--like professional airline pilots--for a living. I have several other examples of pilots who have had their licenses revoked on an emergency basis. Pilots such as Ted Stewart who has been an American Airlines pilot for more than 12 years and is presently a Boeing 767 captain. Until January 1995, Mr. Stewart had no complaints registered against him or his flying. In January 1995 the FAA suspended Mr. Stewart's examining authority as part of a larger FAA effort to respond to a problem of falsified ratings. The full NTSB board exonerated Mr. Stewart in July 1995. In June 1996, he received a second revocation. One of the charges in this second revocation involved falsification of records for a flight instructor certificate with multiengined rating and his air transport pilot [ATP] certificate dating back to 1979. Like most, I have questioned how an alleged 17\1/2\-year-old violation could constitute an emergency; especially, since he has not been cited for any cause in the intervening years. Nonetheless, the FAA vigorously pursued this action. On August 30, 1996, the NTSB issued its decision in this second revocation and found for Mr. Stewart. A couple of comments in the Stewart decision bear closer examination. First, the board notes that: The administrator's loss in the earlier case appears to have prompted further investigation of respondent . . . I find this rather troubling that an impartial third party appears to be suggesting that the FAA has a vendetta against Ted Stewart. This is further emphasized with a footnote in which the Board notes: [We,] of course, [are] not authorized to review the Administrator's exercise of his power to take emergency certificate action . . . We are constrained to register in this matter, however, our opinion that where, as here, no legitimate reason is cited or appears for not consolidating all alleged violations into one proceeding, subjecting an airman in the space of a year to two emergency revocations, and thus to the financial and other burdens associated with an additional 60-day grounding without prior notice and hearing, constitutes an abusive and unprincipled discharge of an extraordinary power. Joining with me today is John Breaux of Louisiana. John has a constituent, Frank Anders who has taken the lead gathering other examples of FAA abuses with regard to their emergency revocation authority. One in particular is Raymond A. Williamson who was a pilot for Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Like Ted Stewart, he was accused of being part of a ring of pilots who falsified type records for vintage aircraft. As in all of the cases received by my office, Mr. Williamson biggest concern is that the FAA investigation and subsequent revocation came out of the blue. In November 1994, he was notified by his employer-- Coca-Cola--that FAA inspectors had accused him of giving illegal check rides in company owned aircraft. He was fired. In June 1995, he received an emergency order of revocation. In over 30 years as an active pilot, he had never had an accident, incident, or violation. Nor had he ever been counseled by the FAA for any action or irregularities as a pilot, flight instructor or FAA designated pilot examiner. In May 1996, FAA proposed to return all his certificates and ratings, except his flight instructor certificate. As in the Ted Stewart case, it would appear that FAA found no real reason pursue an emergency revocation. Mr. President, I obviously cannot read the collective minds of the NTSB board, but I believe a reasonable person would conclude that in the Ted Stewart case the Board, believes as I do, that there is an abuse of emergency revocation powers by the FAA. This is borne out further by the fact that since 1989, emergency cases as a total of all enforcement actions heard by the NTSB has more than doubled. In 1989 the NTSB heard 1,107 enforcement cases. Of those, 66 were emergency revocation cases or 5.96 percent. In 1995, the NTSB heard 509 total enforcement cases, of those 160 were emergency revocation cases or 31.43 percent. I believe it is clear that the FAA has begun to use an exceptional power as a standard practice. In response, I and Senators Craig, Hutchinson, and Breaux are introducing legislation that would establish a procedure by which the FAA must show just cause for bringing an emergency revocation action against a certificate holder. Many within the aviation community have referred to this needed legislation as the Hoover bill. Not surprisingly, Mr. President, the FAA opposes this language. They also opposed changes to the civil penalties program where they served as the judge, jury, and executioner in civil penalty actions against airmen. Fortunately, we were able to change that so that airmen can now appeal a civil penalty case to the NTSB. This has worked very well because the NTSB has a clear understanding of the issues. Our proposal allows an airman within 48 hours of receiving an emergency revocation order to request a hearing before the NTSB on the emergency nature of the revocation. NTSB then has 48 hours to hear the arguments. Within 5 days of the initial request, NTSB must decide if a true emergency exists. During this time, the emergency revocation remains in effect. That means that the pilot does not have his certificate and cannot fly an airplane. In many cases, this is a means of a living. But that is for 7 days. 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 would be returned and the certificate holder could continue to use it while the FAA pursued their revocation case against him in an expedited appeal process as provided for by the bill. If the NTSB decides that an emergency does exist, then the emergency revocation remains in effect and the certificate holder cannot use his certificate while the case is adjudicated. This bill is supported by: the Air Line Pilots Association, International; the Air Transport Association; the Allied Pilots Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; the Experimental Aircraft Association; National Air Carrier Association; National Air Transportation Association; National Business Aircraft Association; the NTSB Bar Association; and the Regional Airline Association. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated March 11, 1997, to me from the above mentioned organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak as if in morning business.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Courtney Wheeler of Beckley, WV, who celebrated her 100th birthday on May 29, 1997. Courtney Wheeler was born in 1897 in Summers County, WV, the oldest of 13 children born to Thomas Joseph and Rosa Belle Berkley. She married her husband, Roy Wheeler in 1913 and the two of them had six children before he passed away in 1936. Courtney has shown tremendous courage in life in dealing with the loss of her husband at an early age and the loss of four of her children. She has been an inspiration to all who know her on how to deal with life's tragedies in a strong and graceful manner. In addition to her six children, Courtney Wheeler has a total of 94 descendants. She has 22 grandchildren, 36 great grandchildren, 29 great-great grandchildren and 1 great-great-great grandchild. She has definitely been blessed with a large and loving family. Throughout her life, Courtney has been a loving and caring person to her family and friends. She has always maintained a cheerful spirit and has been an example to all. She has been an avid gardener of both flowers and vegetables her entire life, and is known far and wide for her cooking skills. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in congratulating Courtney Wheeler on this milestone birthday.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I just wanted to share a few thoughts with you on something that came up this last week. I was quite distressed when I heard that the President of the United States--the administration--suggesting that maybe our troops in Bosnia are going to be there for a longer period of time than the deadline having been established of June 30, 1998. This bothers me a great deal, for one reason in particular, and that is, I am chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Back when the decision was made in 1995 to send troops to Bosnia, many of us felt this was not a good idea--not that we are not compassionate, but that we were using our very rare, precious resources, after this administration has decimated virtually our defense budget to send troops over to areas and endanger their lives where we have no national security interest at stake. This is something that bothers quite a few of us. So we introduced back in November 1995 a resolution of disapproval to stop the President from sending troops over to Bosnia. This only lost by four votes, or we could have perhaps kept our troops from being sent over to Bosnia. I was concerned about this because I went to Bosnia to see what our interests might be over there. When I went up to the northeast sector, the northeastern part of Bosnia, where it would be under the jurisdiction of the support of the United States for our station troops to be stationed, I got up there, and when I told the people up there that it was going to be 12 months, as the President promised, that our troops would be over there--this is November 1995, keep in mind-- General Hoagland, in charge of the northeast sector for the United Nations, made this statement. He started laughing. He said, ``You mean 12 years, don't you?'' I said, ``No, 12 months. The President has promised that this is a 12-month operation, that if we deploy the troops to Bosnia, they would be back in 12 months.'' So nobody really believed rationally that would happen. However, because of the President's promise that the troops would be back in 12 months, they were able to get enough votes to defeat our resolution of disapproval. And they sent the troops over to Bosnia. Now we are in a position where we will do everything in our power to support the troops over in Bosnia. But at the time when he said they would all be back by December 1996, all of a sudden, as soon as the election was over, we find that the troops are going to be extended over there another 18 months, or until June 30 of 1998. This is kind of a creeping thing that we go through, such as we experienced many years ago with our Marines in Guatemala. We have many other examples where we have gone in for a limited period of time. I can remember when we sent troops over to Somalia and they were going to be over there for a short period of time. And they stayed. It wasn't until 19 of our Rangers were murdered and their bodies dragged through the streets of Mogadishu that finally there was enough pressure to bring our troops back home. I am very concerned now because, as I suspected would be the case, the President, who, again, has promised the second time that all the troops would be back home now by June 30, 1998, has started to renege on that. We can't let this happen. The cost they talked about for the Bosnian operation initially was $2 billion. It has now turned out to be closer to $8 billion, as I predicted over 18 months ago it would be, and we are at least creeping up to $6.5 billion. Where does that money come from? We are going to be asked to vote for an emergency supplemental. That is to pay for the additional cost over there, along with other problems, other flood problems and emergencies that existed, and a few cats and dogs thrown into the bill. However, in this case, we have to spend the money. Where does it come out of? It comes out of our defense budget, which is already strained to the point where we can't carry out the minimum expectations of the American people, and that is to defend America on two regional fronts. So we have a second reason. Not only are we endangering the lives of our troops over there, but we are also spending money that should be going into building and rebuilding our Nation's defense system. So, Mr. President, I want to get on record, as I did in Brussels when I gave the speech to NATO, that I would do everything, with every fiber in my being, to make sure that the troops come back. I would suggest this, however. I think the President is in the bully pulpit on this. I think he keeps continuing to want to leave them over there knowing full well that once the troops leave, it will go back to just like it was before. The Croats, Muslims, the Serbs, the Mujaheddin, the Arkan Tigers, the Black Swans--all of the other rogue forces--will be over there fighting as they were before. And then he can say, well, if we had left them their longer, that would not have happened. Recognizing that is going to happen regardless, I still say, Mr. President, we should all resolve to ourselves that our troops should come on the second deadline that we have standing. That is June 30, 1998. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been working with representatives of the aviation industry on legislation that will address a problem with the Federal Aviation Administration. Let me, first of all, say that back in real life I have been a professional pilot for some 40 years. I am a little bothered, too, at some of the things taking place in the aviation industry. I have seen great injustice done many, many times, having to do with the emergency revocation powers of the FAA. In a revocation action, brought on an emergency basis, the certificate holder loses use of his certificate immediately, without an intermediary review by an impartial third party. The result is that the certificate holder is grounded and, in most cases, is out of work until the issue is adjudicated. I believe the FAA unfairly uses this necessary power to prematurely revoke certificates when the circumstances do not support such drastic action. A more reasonable approach, Mr. President, when safety is not an issue, would be to adjudicate the revocation on a nonemergency basis, allowing the certificate holder to continue use of his certificate. Please don't misunderstand me. 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 and other certificate holders. However, I also believe that the FAA must be judicious in its use of this extraordinary power. A review of recent emergency cases clearly demonstrates a pattern by which the FAA uses their emergency powers as standard procedure rather than an extraordinary measure. Perhaps the most visible case is that of Bob Hoover, who happens to probably be the best pilot in America today. He is up in age. I have watched him and have been in a plane with him. He can set a glass of water on the panel of an airplane and do a barrel roll without spilling any of the water. He is highly regarded as an aerobatic pilot. In 1992, his medical certificate was revoked based on alleged questions regarding his cognitive abilities. After getting a clean bill of health from four separate sets of doctors--just one of the many tests cost Bob $1,700--and over the continuing objections of the Federal air surgeon, who never even examined Bob Hoover personally, his medical certificate was reinstated only after then-Administrator David Henson intervened. And I want to take this opportunity to tell David Henson what a great job he did for aviation, and for one person. Unfortunately, Bob Hoover is not out of the woods yet. His current medical certificate expires on September 30, 1997. Unlike most airmen who can renew their medical certificate with a routine application and exam, Bob has to furnish the FAA with a report of a neurological evaluation every 12 months. It is a very expensive and unnecessary process. Mr. President, Bob Hoover's experience is just one of many. In a way, his wasn't as bad, because some of them do this--like professional airline pilots--for a living. I have several other examples of pilots who have had their licenses revoked on an emergency basis. Pilots such as Ted Stewart who has been an American Airlines pilot for more than 12 years and is presently a Boeing 767 captain. Until January 1995, Mr. Stewart had no complaints registered against him or his flying. In January 1995 the FAA suspended Mr. Stewart's examining authority as part of a larger FAA effort to respond to a problem of falsified ratings. The full NTSB board exonerated Mr. Stewart in July 1995. In June 1996, he received a second revocation. One of the charges in this second revocation involved falsification of records for a flight instructor certificate with multiengined rating and his air transport pilot [ATP] certificate dating back to 1979. Like most, I have questioned how an alleged 17\1/2\-year-old violation could constitute an emergency; especially, since he has not been cited for any cause in the intervening years. Nonetheless, the FAA vigorously pursued this action. On August 30, 1996, the NTSB issued its decision in this second revocation and found for Mr. Stewart. A couple of comments in the Stewart decision bear closer examination. First, the board notes that: The administrator's loss in the earlier case appears to have prompted further investigation of respondent . . . I find this rather troubling that an impartial third party appears to be suggesting that the FAA has a vendetta against Ted Stewart. This is further emphasized with a footnote in which the Board notes: [We,] of course, [are] not authorized to review the Administrator's exercise of his power to take emergency certificate action . . . We are constrained to register in this matter, however, our opinion that where, as here, no legitimate reason is cited or appears for not consolidating all alleged violations into one proceeding, subjecting an airman in the space of a year to two emergency revocations, and thus to the financial and other burdens associated with an additional 60-day grounding without prior notice and hearing, constitutes an abusive and unprincipled discharge of an extraordinary power. Joining with me today is John Breaux of Louisiana. John has a constituent, Frank Anders who has taken the lead gathering other examples of FAA abuses with regard to their emergency revocation authority. One in particular is Raymond A. Williamson who was a pilot for Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Like Ted Stewart, he was accused of being part of a ring of pilots who falsified type records for vintage aircraft. As in all of the cases received by my office, Mr. Williamson biggest concern is that the FAA investigation and subsequent revocation came out of the blue. In November 1994, he was notified by his employer-- Coca-Cola--that FAA inspectors had accused him of giving illegal check rides in company owned aircraft. He was fired. In June 1995, he received an emergency order of revocation. In over 30 years as an active pilot, he had never had an accident, incident, or violation. Nor had he ever been counseled by the FAA for any action or irregularities as a pilot, flight instructor or FAA designated pilot examiner. In May 1996, FAA proposed to return all his certificates and ratings, except his flight instructor certificate. As in the Ted Stewart case, it would appear that FAA found no real reason pursue an emergency revocation. Mr. President, I obviously cannot read the collective minds of the NTSB board, but I believe a reasonable person would conclude that in the Ted Stewart case the Board, believes as I do, that there is an abuse of emergency revocation powers by the FAA. This is borne out further by the fact that since 1989, emergency cases as a total of all enforcement actions heard by the NTSB has more than doubled. In 1989 the NTSB heard 1,107 enforcement cases. Of those, 66 were emergency revocation cases or 5.96 percent. In 1995, the NTSB heard 509 total enforcement cases, of those 160 were emergency revocation cases or 31.43 percent. I believe it is clear that the FAA has begun to use an exceptional power as a standard practice. In response, I and Senators Craig, Hutchinson, and Breaux are introducing legislation that would establish a procedure by which the FAA must show just cause for bringing an emergency revocation action against a certificate holder. Many within the aviation community have referred to this needed legislation as the Hoover bill. Not surprisingly, Mr. President, the FAA opposes this language. They also opposed changes to the civil penalties program where they served as the judge, jury, and executioner in civil penalty actions against airmen. Fortunately, we were able to change that so that airmen can now appeal a civil penalty case to the NTSB. This has worked very well because the NTSB has a clear understanding of the issues. Our proposal allows an airman within 48 hours of receiving an emergency revocation order to request a hearing before the NTSB on the emergency nature of the revocation. NTSB then has 48 hours to hear the arguments. Within 5 days of the initial request, NTSB must decide if a true emergency exists. During this time, the emergency revocation remains in effect. That means that the pilot does not have his certificate and cannot fly an airplane. In many cases, this is a means of a living. But that is for 7 days. 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 would be returned and the certificate holder could continue to use it while the FAA pursued their revocation case against him in an expedited appeal process as provided for by the bill. If the NTSB decides that an emergency does exist, then the emergency revocation remains in effect and the certificate holder cannot use his certificate while the case is adjudicated. This bill is supported by: the Air Line Pilots Association, International; the Air Transport Association; the Allied Pilots Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; the Experimental Aircraft Association; National Air Carrier Association; National Air Transportation Association; National Business Aircraft Association; the NTSB Bar Association; and the Regional Airline Association. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated March 11, 1997, to me from the above mentioned organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in closing, this bill will provide due process to certificate holders where now none exists, without compromising aviation safety. This is a reasonable and prudent response to an increasing problem for certificate holders. I hope our colleagues will support our efforts in this regard.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. If I could be recognized for a point of clarification, I believe that the Senator from Missouri was recognized for the purpose of explaining the provisions of the amendment 323, and inadvertently said ``322.''

Mr. INHOFE. Let me yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. INHOFE. Does the Senator from Missouri yield back all his time on 322? Parliamentary inquiry: As I understand it, if the Senator from Missouri would yield back the remaining time on amendment No. 322, then it would be in order for me to send this to the desk.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration and that it be accepted.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was shocked a little bit this morning to read in the Washington Times a story by Ralph Hallow in which he quotes a statement that was supposedly attributed to me by Mr. Paul Weyrich. I would like to read it. Hallow writes that: Mr. Weyrich said that at his regular Tuesday meeting for conservative leaders, Senator James Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, accused Mr. Lott of having ``betrayed the national-security interests of the country.'' I have to tell you, Mr. President, that I don't think anything like this has ever happened to me. Even though I don't have thin skin--I have been beat up by the liberal media quite often--this is not the case. I never made such a statement. I even checked the tape of a TV show that I had with the gentleman, Mr. Weyrich recently, and I find nothing but compliments which I made about Mr. Lott. I did say on a couple of occasions that I disagreed with him on the chemical weapons stand. I disagreed with him on his suggestion in terms of potential punishment for Lt. Flynn. However, I was very complimentary of him. Just a few minutes ago I received a memo from Paul Weyrich which clarifies the matter. I want to read into the Record the first half of that memo, dated this morning. Once again Ralph Hallow has caused a problem. He called me on my private line and asked my views on Lott and Lt. Flynn, which I was happy to give. He asked me about the rest of the movement, and I told him that at the Wednesday lunch we gave Senator Inhofe a message to take back to the Steering Committee which was supported almost unanimously by the 65 or so in attendance. I then quoted Frank Gaffney as saying that twice in a month Senator Lott had betrayed the security interests of the United States. Instead, he attributes this quote to Senator Inhofe, who refrained from criticizing Lott even though he disagrees with him. Believe me, Hallow did not misunderstand what I told him because he even called me back and said he had interviewed Inhofe and he--Inhofe--refused to be critical of Lott. Thank you, Mr. President.