Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, like most Americans, I have watched the events of the past several days in the Middle East with great concern. Through a series of miscalculations, the fragile peace process, which so many of us support and were hoping would be successful, seems to have been threatened by renewed violence. As a strong supporter of Israel, I hope a reopening of the constructive dialog has been achieved in the White House in the past 24 or 36 hours. And I hope as well that both Israel and Palestinian leaders will renew their commitment to peace. As they attempt to resolve their immediate differences, I urge Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat to act in good faith and with restraint, although I have to say, after having had a lengthy meeting with Mr. Arafat just a few weeks ago on the Gaza, I did not observe much restraint. So often, dramatic events in one district of the world draw attention from some of the other things that are going on. I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the concern that I have over other things that are taking place in that region of the world. I wish to call to my colleague's attention, current actions being taken by Syria, actions which may prove to be an even greater threat to the security of Israel and the stability of the Middle East. A very dangerous game is being played by Syrian President Hafez Assad on the Golan Heights. For the past month, Syria has been conducting a series of troop movements along Israel's northern border, which will enable Syria to quickly launch an attack on Israel. Syria has redeployed up to 12,000 troops from in and around Beirut to within striking distance of the Golan Heights. This is the first significant manipulation of military forces since the Madrid Conference convened 5 years ago to initiate the peace process. Only by standing on the edge of the Golan, which I have done many times, and I am sure the Senator presiding has also, can you get the full impact of the strategic significance of the Golan. The Syrian troop movements is just the latest in a series of destabilizing actions by Assad. Despite repeated invitations for Prime Minister Netanyahu, Assad has refused to renew peace talks with Israel. Syria still harbors some 10 anti-Israel terrorist organizations in Damascus. Syria also supports the anti-Turkish, anti-Jordanian terrorists, and let's not forget Syria's destabilization of Lebanon with over 40,000 Syrian troops supporting Hezbollah terrorists. Mr. President, the Syrian troop movements are additionally menacing in light of a serious surprise attack on Israel during the observance of Yom Kippur, the Jewish day of atonement in 1973. In 1973, Syrian commando units were used to attack Israeli positions on Mt. Hermon during Yom Kippur, the day of fasting prayer and introspection, which was observed in Israel just last Monday. Syrian troop movements could force a dangerous escalation by virtue of the implied threat to Israel of their forward positions. In the most recent redeployment, which took place just last week, special forces were moved to forward positions on the Syrian side of Mt. Hermon. These movements are most disturbing and significantly change the military picture. It was a similar force which captured an Israeli outpost on Mt. Hermon in 1973. They were only dislodged after heavy loss of life. Mr. President, an editorial published in a recent Near East report outlines the threat to Israel of these recent Syrian actions. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it appears that this afternoon we are going to be asked to vote on something in the form of an omnibus consolided appropriations bill which may be attached to the Defense appropriations bill. This is it, Mr. President. This is the 2,000-plus pages that have been put together and assembled since last Friday. I would suggest there is not one Member of this body who has read this. But we go through that quite often and quite often we vote on things that we have not read in their entirety. But the reason that we are going to do this is because we on the majority side are somewhat held hostage. At least in the minds of many Members we are. We are talking about $6.5 billion more that we are going to agree to spend to respond to the President's request for programs that he was not able to get funded during the normal process--$6.5 billion with a ``b'', Mr. President. So we are talking about a major, major amount of expenditures. All of this goes back to this horrible fear that we seem to be laboring under that--if we do not do this and we pass our appropriations bills, as we would normally do through the deliberative process, and the President vetoes these and we come to an impasse--the Government will stop at the end of the fiscal year which is taking place at this historic time right now, and that the Republicans would be responsible for it. Last night I was watching a debate that took place wherein the distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, was talking about what happened when the Republicans shut down the Government. And I was waiting for a response because the Republicans did not shut down the Government. The Republicans only did those things that were responsible in the normal process that we live under here. I remember so well in the other Chamber when the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, gave his State of the Union Message. And in that he had a very dramatic time during that 1 hour and 6 minutes-- whatever it was--when he said, ``And don't you ever shut down Government again,'' looking at us as if we were the ones who shut it down. Well, anyway, apparently the vast majority of the American people believed that. So, in fear for that and in responding to that, we are agreeing to fund a lot of his programs to the extent of $6.5 billion, programs such as the Goals 2000 Program. You know, a few years ago I came home. And at that time my son was in the fourth or the fifth grade. I can't remember. And he was just beaming. I said, ``Jimmy, something good must have happened today.'' He said, ``Well, you know, dad. I am in the fourth grade.'' I said, ``Yes. I know that.'' He said, ``Dad, you know that in reading I am in the fifth grade.'' I said, ``How does that work?'' He said it was a brand new Federal program. ``It is a pilot program we are trying. It is a system that is set up where if you accelerate in a certain area that you can then compete with those who are in perhaps a grade or two above you.'' I remember it so well back many years ago. I was in grade school. I was in the first grade. It was a little country school named Hazel Dell. And there were eight grades in one room. There were eight rows. Back in those days, every time you missed a spelling word, you would walk up to the front of the class and they would swat you with a paddle. So I was a good speller, and I was in the first row because I was in the first grade. My brother was in the second row because he was in the second grade. My sister was in the eighth row because she was in the eighth grade. But every time they got around to me they had me sit over in the third row because I was a good speller. Here is a brand new, innovative program that Government came up with here centralized in Washington. I would suggest to you that the Goals 2000 Program is one that has as its goalposts to bring the curriculum as close to Washington because our wisdom is so much greater here than it is out in the local areas. I do not agree with that. And yet what we are doing today, if we do--and I think it is going to happen--is we will extend the funding of that by $255 million. I see here that another $87 million is going to go to EPA. Now, I am on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I can tell you that our effort with the Republican majority has been to stop some of this foolishness that comes out of Washington and have, for instance, real Superfund reform, Superfund reform where we would repeal retroactive liability, repeal joint and several liability, bring the remedies from the Federal Government back to the State. The average Superfund cleanup that is supervised by the Federal Government is something like 8\1/2\ years, and yet we have some that are being done, or proposals being made that if we can do it under local jurisdiction with everyone involved such as in Bossier City, LA, where one of the oil companies had actually had a cleanup--they admitted they were the responsible party, so they made a proposal to the State of Louisiana, and it was agreed to by the State of Louisiana, by the city of Bossier City, by all of the local officials, by all the consumer groups, by everyone they could get together to clean it up in a year and a half, and yet the EPA in Washington said no. Now we have got it reversed. But at first they said no, and so it would take another 8 to 9 years to do. And so with this thrust that we are trying to get to bring the remedies and bring as much back to the local area, we find we are increasing EPA by $87 million, and that is in addition to the $170 million that the Agency received above the fiscal year 1996 levels. So, first of all, we have increased them by $170 million. Now we are increasing that by $87 million. So all these programs where the people are upset Government is coming, the EPA, and saying you are guilty of messing up the Superfund site when you sold used crankcase oil 10 years ago to a licensed contractor; therefore, we are going to fine you, this kind of abuse of the responsible and law-abiding taxpayers is going to continue. The same is true with endangered species, wetlands. And I notice on this, if this is correct, that of the $6.5 billion, about half of that is coming from the BIF-SAIF fund. And if you recall, Mr. President, this was an amount of money that was set up to take care of future needs, a reserve, if you will, so that we do not have to go back through the same thing we went through a couple of years ago when this so-called bailout came about. So that the S&L's will be required to put in approximately a one-time expenditure of $3.1 billion. This will go into a fund so that in the event it is called upon the money will be there, and yet in fact through accounting they are going to be using this money for some other purposes, to fund these programs, the domestic programs the administration wants. Now, if called upon, that money would still have to come from someplace, so what we are doing through accounting, smoke and mirrors, is just delaying this payment to buy something today. And then I think the Chair would agree with me, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, who is occupying the chair at this time; he and I have stood on this floor and expressed our concern over what is happening to our defense budget many, many times in the last couple of years. We are in fact operating with a defense budget that is far below the minimum expectations of the American people. The vast majority of the American people when asked, should we be capable of defending the United States of America on two regional fronts, say yes. And so we had the Bottom-Up Review under this administration. We came up with some figures as to what it would cost so we would be able to meet the minimum expectation of the people of America. And yet we are cutting more and more and more. In fact, it was not too long ago before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Chiefs of the four services testified to this committee that we are $20 billion short-- that is B, billion dollars short--of meeting those minimum expectations in our procurement account. So, in fact, Mr. President, we are not meeting those expectations. And yet we find out something between $350 million and $1 billion is going to come out of defense--more money coming out. Right now we have been trying to revive or keep alive a National Missile Defense System. We know for a fact there are some 25 to 30 nations that are either working on a weapon of mass destruction or already have it. We know there are two missiles owned by two countries right now in existence that can reach the United States. We know there are mad people out there like Saddam Hussein who murders his own grandchildren who are working on technology, and perhaps, if they are able, buy the missile technology to deliver a weapon of mass destruction. I understand that they have, at least we suspect they do have in their possession a biological weapon of mass destruction. When we have a National Missile Defense System that is 90 percent paid for, all we have to do is kind of reach up into that high tier with maybe some of the 22 Aegis ships that we have and be able to knock down a missile coming at the United States while we have time to do it, instead of that they have cut funding for the National Missile Defense System to the point where it is now delayed. And each year that it is delayed is a year that a threat exists to the American people. And so it is a very serious thing, and we do not know for sure how much more money is coming out of defense. We do not know where it will come from. Is it going to come out of the National Missile Defense System? I hope not. Is it coming out of the personnel account? Two-thirds of our defense budget is spent on people, and it would stand to reason some of it would have to come out of that. And yet we have soldiers serving right now who are actually on food stamps. So we cannot knock any more out of this account. In conventional warfare, we are now No. 8 or 9, depending on how you measure it, in ground forces. I think Pakistan has passed us up. In my opinion, that makes us No. 9. So we have a very serious problem in conventional forces and force strength, and we cannot afford any more cuts. For that reason, Mr. President, I am going to listen attentively to the debate today to see if I missed something, but I am anticipating opposing it. I think I can justify it for no other reason than to say look at that, Mr. President. This is something that did not exist 5 days ago. There it is. That is what we will be voting on in order to keep Government from shutting down if the President should elect to shut down Government in the event that he were to veto our appropriation bill. So I do not like what we are doing. I think we are caving into $6.5 billion of the President's domestic programs that he has been promoting that this Congress, both Houses agree is money should not have to be spent. Sooner or later we are going to have to do something about all the funding we do around here, the smoke and mirrors. We have troops right now in Bosnia. We were promised by this administration that in December of this year those troops would be back, and if we did not believe it--I did not believe it, and yet when we had a motion, or a resolution of disapproval so that we could keep from sending our troops over to do humanitarian work in the country where we do not have any strategic interests facing our Nation's security and we send them on over anyway, we missed that by four votes. And I suggest, Mr. President, if we had been honest with the American people, if the President had been honest with the American people and admitted that we were not going to have the troops back in 12 months, then there would be enough pressure on the people of this body, at least four of them to vote the other way and we would not have had to send troops over there. Now they said it is going to cost $2 billion. Just last week Under Secretary of Defense John White admitted it will be closer to $3.5 and probably be double that figure. So there is another few billion dollars that are not there, not accounted for. So, Mr. President, I do not think that I could consciously, unless something happens today, unless I learn something that my studies have not found so far, vote to spend an additional $6.5 billion on additional programs for the President. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I have a message from the leader if it is all right. On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate remain in status quo with respect to debate only on H.R. 4278 until 2:30 today.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes. Let me modify that to say not to start until 10 minutes from now, and the Senate remain in status quo with respect to debate on H.R. 4278 until 2:30 today.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. It is my understand that this provision has been deleted from the omnibus bill before us today.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chairman. I have recently become aware of the large costs associated with this proposal--more than $40 million in up- front moving costs and an expensive lease rate--and I think the Congress should give this issue a much more careful review before it proceeds any further. As I understand it, the proposal calls for the FCC to nearly double the amount of space it occupies at the very time Congress is considering legislation to reduce the size of the agency. Am I correct, Mr. Chairman, that by specifically deleting the language allowing the GSA Administrator to pay for the relocation of the FCC, that is intended that the GSA Administrator specifically not be authorized to provide any funding for the proposed FCC relocation?

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chairman and I look forward to working with him in the next Congress on this issue. aircraft maintenance tax colloquy

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a brief colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Shelby, concerning funding for the proposed relocation of the Federal Communications Commission [FCC]. Mr. Chairman, the Senate version of the fiscal year 1997 Treasury, Postal appropriations bill contained a provision that would allow the Administrator of the General Services Administration [GSA] to pay a portion of the costs associated with a proposed relocation of the FCC. It this correct?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great American and a great Oklahoman, Joe Mark Elkouri, who passed from this earth September 26, 1996. Joe Mark was born February 28, 1950, in Altus, OK, and was a respected long-time resident of Oklahoma City. An alumnus of Oklahoma State University, the Oklahoma City University School of Law, and Southern Methodist University Law School, where he specialized in tax law, Joe Mark utilized his education to the betterment of society. Joe Mark tirelessly involved himself in civic causes such as the Red Andrews Christmas Dinner, Toys for Tots, the Aids Support Program, and the Winds House, an assisted living center in Oklahoma City. Throughout his life, Joe Mark gave of himself for the benefit of countless others, endearing friends and loved ones for life. He is survived by two loving daughters, Brie and Lee Elkouri of Oklahoma City; two sisters, KoKo Sparks and family of Oklahoma City, and Sharon Massad of California; his mother Dorothy Weinstein of Dallas, TX, and Jim Roth of the home. Joe Mark served his community as a distinguished member of the State bar of Oklahoma and served as an Administrative Law Judge for numerous State agencies and as a Special Judge for the city of Oklahoma City. Joe Mark's professional accomplishments are many, but he will be remembered most for his tremendous good will, enormous heart, and joyful sense of humor. He will be greatly missed by all who knew him and loved him. May He Rest In Peace.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I too am concerned that this language not adversely impact flood control, power generation capacity, energy production, Federal revenues or other authorized purposes. Has the Senator from Arkansas been in contact with the Corps of Engineers to this regard?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, everyone should have one--a Poot, that is. And maybe everyone does have one. The important thing is I do. We all have our causes. It's just that some of us are more assertive than others. In my business we're all assertive. So I engage in combat every day with my adversaries who, although I love each and every one of the misguided souls, would sell our country and everything we hold dear for one more social program. Mr. President, they look the other way as we strip our Nation of its vital defenses, leaving us vulnerable to both conventional and missile attacks--and hope desperately the people don't find out the truth. They load up our system with unbearable burdens of overregulation and wonder why we are not globally competitive. They bleed the very lifeblood from our veins in the form of taxes until we are too weak and disheartened to produce--and then come after that last drop--all to support their insatiable appetite to render their control of our lives absolute. They give dancing lessons to hardened criminals--punishment, heaven forbid-- and then turn them lose to plunder again. And so I do combat every day with every fiber of my being, leaving no doubt in my mind that the fate and the very essence of Western civilization is absolute in its dependence upon my actions, wisdom and performance. That is, until--until I see Poot. And I realize that while she is tolerant of my priorities, hers are not the same. Not even close. She wants the same thing I want but she doesn't worry about it because she assumes I'll do it. And that lets her keep close to the ones she loves, which is everybody, and stay in touch with them to the extent that she knows every birthday, wedding date, draft status and social security number. She, along with her diary, is a data bank with the chip capacity of the Congressional Record--that's her priority. And in addition she is the control center for compassion. For her family, yes, but also anyone else who stumbles along. No matter who is in trouble or in need, she is their counselor and companion--that's her priority. But all the while her capacity for enjoyment will never be challenged. There's not a Broadway show she hasn't both seen and memorized--that's her priority. So, Mr. President, you should be so lucky to have a Poot like I do. Just when you begin to believe that you are so important, you have no one to put you back in perspective. I do. And when you forget the street address where you lived when you were 6 years old, you don't have anyone to call. I do. And when you cast a vote that makes everyone hate you, you don't have anyone who understands. I do--in fact she even agrees with me. So Mr. President, I've got the No. 1 70-year-old Poot in the Nation, a beautiful and compassionate consolidation of the pioneer woman, mother Teresa, and hello Dolly. So maybe, Mr. President, she's right and we're wrong. Anyway, you should be so lucky. Amen.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I had occasion to talk to a Dr. Mary Ballenger this morning. Dr. Mary Ballenger was called to do a very unpleasant thing about a year ago. My kids' dog, a Labrador, was 16 years old. She came out and had to put it to sleep because the dog had cancer and was beyond any help and was in pain. She described and wrote down the procedure that she used to destroy the dog. It was necessary. She first injected a drug into the dog, which puts the dog into a euphoric state and is completely relaxed, and then, of course, sodium pentothal to put the dog to sleep. I thought it was ironic, when I look at this procedure. We are so humane in the procedure that we use in putting someone to death who has committed a heinous crime for which he must be destroyed. It is the same procedure, because we are so humane in this country. Yet, we have no concern over the pain that is inflicted on a small person who is a victim of this type of a termination. If I were to suggest that the procedure that was described by the Senator from Pennsylvania were to be used on dogs or cats, the same people who are promoting this procedure would be out there picketing. Something has happened. Perversion has taken place in this country where we put a higher value on critters than we do human life. In fact, under our laws, it is a criminal violation if you were to kill a gray bat that is endangered. It would be a $50,000 fine or 1 year in prison. I have a testimonial from a young lady in my State of Oklahoma. I will only use her first name. This is the testimony of Nancy. I would like you to listen very carefully, Mr. President: Testimony of Nancy, Sent to Frank Parone of Priests for Life I am twenty-one years old and a native of southwest Oklahoma. Five years ago, I had a partial birth abortion. I was 36 weeks pregnant. I was sixteen at the time I got pregnant. I hid my pregnancy from my mother. It wasn't hard for me to do that because I was somewhat over weight and wearing large, baggy clothes was already in style. My mother had always told me that if I got pregnant, the baby would be gone. It was just as simple as that. I knew that I had to protect my baby. One day, my mother accidentally saw me in the shower, and I think it was at that point, it dawned on her that I was pregnant. My mother took me to see a friend of hers who was a doctor. He said that the baby and I were both healthy and doing fine. We did a sonogram, and I got to see my little boy for the first and only time. It was so exciting. I had been able to feel him kick and turn in my belly for a long time, but it touched my heart to get to see him face to face. My heart melted as the doctor pointed out him sucking his thumb. My mother didn't speak to me for two days. I knew that my mother was a very determined woman who would do anything to accomplish what she wanted. Her silence really frightened me. Then we got the call from her friend. The doctor said that I had a hernia in my abdominal wall. If I wanted to have any chance for a normal delivery, I had to have surgery which wasn't easy for a pregnant woman. He recommended a doctor in Wichita, Kansas. Little did I know that my mother, through the doctor, had just handed my baby the death sentence. We drove to Kansas the next day. The doctor said it wouldn't be too painful for me because I would be asleep. All I remember about the time just before going to sleep was a feeling that this wasn't right. Waves of fear kept washing over me. My mother sat there and kept saying that we had to do what we had to do. What comforting words. I woke up several hours later. The first thing I did was reach for my belly. I remember screaming a lot and I couldn't stop. My belly was flat and my baby was gone. I ripped the IV out of my arm. The doctor ordered the nurse to restrain me. I then remember them giving me a shot to calm me down. To this day, I still remember the cold pain and horror I felt when I realized what had happened. It took several months after the abortion for the fights to begin. Every time I wanted to talk about the situation, my mother just turned stone silent. When she did speak, she flipped off cliches like, ``What was done was done.'' and ``Don't cry over spilt milk.'' More comforting words. After one major fight, she finally did tell me that the abortion procedure that was done was the D and X, dilation and extraction, a partial birth abortion. I just couldn't bear to look at my mother anymore. She had lied to me and killed her own grandson. I just don't see how anyone could have looked at that sweet face on the ultrasound screen and have that baby brutally and cold-bloodedly murdered. I left my mother's house that day, and I have never been back. Because of the damage of the abortion, I can no longer have any more children. I failed my children, I really failed my little boy, I failed to protect him. And he died. My life hasn't been the same. I cry so much for my little boy. I never got to hold him in my arms. People made decisions for me and took him away. I am not sure that the hurt will ever go away. Mr. President, this is not just someone who has talked about, third hand, the agony that is experienced by so many people. When I hear people say that this is a rare procedure, and it is not used very often, I remember the testimony of Dr. Haskell who has performed, he said, over 1,000 partial-birth abortions. And he said, ``In my particular case''--I don't know about all of them nationwide, but ``In my particular case probably 20 percent are for genetic reasons. And the other 80 percent are purely elective . . .'' Since my time is about up, I would like to repeat something that I heard this morning, Mr. President, that perhaps puts a sense of urgency on this. At a prayer breakfast this morning there were a number of people who prayed. One was Rev. Herb Lusk from Pennsylvania who described this procedure as ``an unrighteous act.'' The next was Cardinal Belivacqua. He said, ``If we don't respect life, then what is left to respect?'' Then Rabbi Daniel Lapin said, ``We must defy this monstrous evil.'' But it was when Dr. James Dobson said his prayer that it first occurred to me, when he said, ``You know, you folks on the floor are going to be speaking for those who are not here today and cannot speak for themselves. You will be speaking in their behalf.'' That is what we are looking at right now, Mr. President. I do agree with Charles Colson who said on his prison fellowship broadcast, ``The vote is the most significant of my lifetime, and is about life itself, about who will live and who will die.'' I honestly believe, Mr. President, this is the most significant character vote in the history of this institution. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I regret that we are so short on time, that we have a time agreement. I had planned, as I announced yesterday when I spoke on this subject, to speak for at least 30 minutes. So I will not be able to use all the material I have. It is such a critical issue, I deeply regret that. I think it is probably appropriate that I speak, in that tomorrow at this time my daughter-in-law will be presenting me with my fourth grandchild. I plan to be there at the birth of that child. I am hoping to name it Perry Dyson Inhofe III. I don't know that will happen for sure. I think if you just wrap up some of the things that were said here that are very significant, No. 1, we are not talking about abortion. We are talking about, in many cases, the normal birth process. When I stood here before I spoke yesterday, I heard Senator Hank Brown from Colorado, a guy who has always been pro-choice --I have disagreed with him; I have always been pro-life--but he stood up and recognized the fact that we are not talking about abortions. I wish they never named this ``partial-birth abortion.'' Maybe people would wake up. I agree with the senior Senator from New York who characterized it as ``infanticide.'' So we are talking about now a third-trimester type of a treatment. I was going to elaborate on some of the comments that were made. I have here with me 17,601 signatures on petitions that I got this weekend as I was doing town meetings. They were given to me from all over Oklahoma. I haven't heard from anyone on the other side of this issue. One of the things that they fail to talk about, because it is painful to talk about, is the pain that a baby feels when the baby is eliminated using this partial-birth-abortion procedure. There is a paper I was going to read, but I will paraphrase it. It is a paper that was produced by a British research group, that a Dr. White, a neurosurgeon in the United States, agrees with, where they say it is now proved that a child in the second trimester or third trimester feels the same type of pain that is felt by any of us in this room, in this Chamber. So we are not talking about something that is painless for a child that is being aborted, being destroyed in the process that was described by the Senator from Pennsylvania. I ask unanimous consent that this paper be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend my 5 minutes to not to exceed 10 minutes. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be very happy to accommodate the distinguished Senator from Florida with his request.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. For several months now, I have been working with representatives of the aviation community, with which I have been a part for just under 40 years, on legislation which will address the problem with the Federal Aviation Administration's use of their emergency revocation powers. In a revocation action, brought on an emergency basis, the airman or other certificate holder loses the use of the certificate immediately without any intermediary review or by any kind of an impartial party. The result is that the airman is grounded. In most cases, that is an airman who worked for some airline, and that is his or her only method of making a living. Simply put, I believe the FAA unfairly uses this emergency power to prematurely revoke certificates when the circumstances do not support such drastic action. A more reasonable approach where safety is not an issue would be to adjudicate the revocation on a nonemergency basis, allowing the certificate holder continued use of his certificate. 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 have the ability to ground unsafe airmen. However, I also believe that the FAA must be judicious in its use of the extraordinary power. A review of recent emergency cases clearly demonstrates a pattern whereby the FAA uses their emergency powers as standard procedure rather than extraordinary measures. Perhaps the most visible case has been that of Bob Hoover. Now, Mr. President, I have flown in a lot of air shows over the last 40 years, and I can tell you right now the one person that you ask anyone who has a background like mine, ``Who is the hero within the industry,'' it has been Hoover. He is getting up in years but is as sharp as he ever was. Something happened to him. He is probably the most highly regarded and accomplished aerobatic pilot today. In 1992, his medical certificate was revoked based on alleged questions regarding his physical condition. After getting a clean bill of health from four separate sets of doctors over the continuing objections of the Federal air surgeon, who never examined Bob personally, his medical certificate was reinstated only after the Administrator, David Hinson, intervened. I say at this point, I have been a strong supporter of Administrator David Hinson. I have often said that he is probably the very best appointment that President Clinton has made since he has been President. I also say there is not a lot of competition for that title. He already has more serious problems coming. His current medical certificate expires this coming Monday, September 30, 1996. Unlike most airmen, like myself, when mine expires I go down, take a physical that lasts approximately 30 minutes, and it is reinstated at that time, something that happens every 12 months. Bob Hoover's experience is one of many. I have several other examples of pilots who had licenses revoked on an emergency basis, such as Ted Stewart, who has been an American Airlines pilot--who I know personally--has been an American Airlines pilot for 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 falsifying records. Now, there was never any indication that Mr. Stewart was involved in that, but, nonetheless, that was part of the investigation. He was exonerated by the full NTSB, National Transportation Safety Board, in July 1995. In June 1996, he received a second revocation. One of the charges in the second revocation involved falsification of records for a flight instructor certificate with a 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 in favor of Mr. Stewart. A couple of comments in Mr. Stewart's decision bear closer examination. First, the board notes that ``the Administrator's loss in the earlier case appears to have prompted further investigation of the respondent * * *'' I found this rather troubling, that an impartial third party appears to be suggesting that the FAA has a vendetta against Ted Stewart, which is further emphasized with the 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 abuse and unprincipled discharge of an extraordinary power. Mr. President, I obviously cannot read the minds of the NTSB, but I believe a reasonable person would conclude from these comments that 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 have 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, and 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 am proposing legislation which would establish a procedure whereby the FAA must show just cause for bringing an emergency revocation action against an airman. Not surprisingly, Mr. President, the FAA opposes this language. But they also oppose the changes to the civil penalties program where they served as judge, jury, and executioner in civil penalty actions against airmen. Fortunately, we were able to change that just a couple of years ago 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. My 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--not whether or not the revocation was justified, but the emergency nature of the revocation. The NTSB then has 48 hours to hear the arguments and decide if a true emergency exists. During this time, the emergency revocation remains in effect. In other words, the airman loses use of his certificate for 4 days. However, should the NTSB decide an emergency does not exist, then the certificate would be returned to the airman and he could continue to use it while the FAA pursued their revocation case against him in a normal manner. If the NTSB decides that an emergency does exist, then the emergency revocation remains in effect and the airman cannot use his certificate until the case is adjudicated. This bill is supported by virtually all of the major aviation groups, such as the Air Transport Association, the Allied Pilots Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Experimental Aircraft Association, the NTSB Bar Association, and many others. My intention in introducing this bill today is to get it out so that interested groups can look at it and work with me to make changes, if that is necessary. I am pleased that Senator McCain, who is the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee of Commerce, has agreed to hold a hearing on this in the 105th Congress. In the intervening time, I will be working to make sure this issue is fully vetted, and it is my hope that we will be able to address this issue very early in the 105th Congress.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. For several months now, I have been working with representatives of the aviation community, with which I have been a part for just under 40 years, on legislation which will address the problem with the Federal Aviation Administration's use of their emergency revocation powers. In a revocation action, brought on an emergency basis, the airman or other certificate holder loses the use of the certificate immediately without any intermediary review or by any kind of an impartial party. The result is that the airman is grounded. In most cases, that is an airman who worked for some airline, and that is his or her only method of making a living. Simply put, I believe the FAA unfairly uses this emergency power to prematurely revoke certificates when the circumstances do not support such drastic action. A more reasonable approach where safety is not an issue would be to adjudicate the revocation on a nonemergency basis, allowing the certificate holder continued use of his certificate. 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 have the ability to ground unsafe airmen. However, I also believe that the FAA must be judicious in its use of the extraordinary power. A review of recent emergency cases clearly demonstrates a pattern whereby the FAA uses their emergency powers as standard procedure rather than extraordinary measures. Perhaps the most visible case has been that of Bob Hoover. Now, Mr. President, I have flown in a lot of air shows over the last 40 years, and I can tell you right now the one person that you ask anyone who has a background like mine, ``Who is the hero within the industry,'' it has been Hoover. He is getting up in years but is as sharp as he ever was. Something happened to him. He is probably the most highly regarded and accomplished aerobatic pilot today. In 1992, his medical certificate was revoked based on alleged questions regarding his physical condition. After getting a clean bill of health from four separate sets of doctors over the continuing objections of the Federal air surgeon, who never examined Bob personally, his medical certificate was reinstated only after the Administrator, David Hinson, intervened. I say at this point, I have been a strong supporter of Administrator David Hinson. I have often said that he is probably the very best appointment that President Clinton has made since he has been President. I also say there is not a lot of competition for that title. He already has more serious problems coming. His current medical certificate expires this coming Monday, September 30, 1996. Unlike most airmen, like myself, when mine expires I go down, take a physical that lasts approximately 30 minutes, and it is reinstated at that time, something that happens every 12 months. Bob Hoover's experience is one of many. I have several other examples of pilots who had licenses revoked on an emergency basis, such as Ted Stewart, who has been an American Airlines pilot--who I know personally--has been an American Airlines pilot for 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 falsifying records. Now, there was never any indication that Mr. Stewart was involved in that, but, nonetheless, that was part of the investigation. He was exonerated by the full NTSB, National Transportation Safety Board, in July 1995. In June 1996, he received a second revocation. One of the charges in the second revocation involved falsification of records for a flight instructor certificate with a 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 in favor of Mr. Stewart. A couple of comments in Mr. Stewart's decision bear closer examination. First, the board notes that ``the Administrator's loss in the earlier case appears to have prompted further investigation of the respondent * * *'' I found this rather troubling, that an impartial third party appears to be suggesting that the FAA has a vendetta against Ted Stewart, which is further emphasized with the 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 abuse and unprincipled discharge of an extraordinary power. Mr. President, I obviously cannot read the minds of the NTSB, but I believe a reasonable person would conclude from these comments that 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 have 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, and 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 am proposing legislation which would establish a procedure whereby the FAA must show just cause for bringing an emergency revocation action against an airman. Not surprisingly, Mr. President, the FAA opposes this language. But they also oppose the changes to the civil penalties program where they served as judge, jury, and executioner in civil penalty actions against airmen. Fortunately, we were able to change that just a couple of years ago 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. My 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--not whether or not the revocation was justified, but the emergency nature of the revocation. The NTSB then has 48 hours to hear the arguments and decide if a true emergency exists. During this time, the emergency revocation remains in effect. In other words, the airman loses use of his certificate for 4 days. However, should the NTSB decide an emergency does not exist, then the certificate would be returned to the airman and he could continue to use it while the FAA pursued their revocation case against him in a normal manner. If the NTSB decides that an emergency does exist, then the emergency revocation remains in effect and the airman cannot use his certificate until the case is adjudicated. This bill is supported by virtually all of the major aviation groups, such as the Air Transport Association, the Allied Pilots Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Experimental Aircraft Association, the NTSB Bar Association, and many others. My intention in introducing this bill today is to get it out so that interested groups can look at it and work with me to make changes, if that is necessary. I am pleased that Senator McCain, who is the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee of Commerce, has agreed to hold a hearing on this in the 105th Congress. In the intervening time, I will be working to make sure this issue is fully vetted, and it is my hope that we will be able to address this issue very early in the 105th Congress.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, like the Senator from Indiana, this is kind of a preview to coming attractions. I plan tomorrow to spend some time on the floor talking about one of the most serious issues we have been addressing here in the U.S. Senate, that is, the issue of partial- birth abortion. As I was listening to the Senator from Indiana, the statements he made, it occurred to me that if we made one mistake during this entire debate, it has been to refer to this as an abortion, because most people think of abortions as something that is taking place prior to the time that, in their own minds, a fetus becomes a human being. I suggest that everyone has to make that decision as to when human life begins. I made my decision many years ago. But I think when you deal with something as barbaric as a procedure such as the partial-birth abortion, you have to understand that this is something that happens at a time and can happen during a normal birth process. I know the occupant of the Chair recently went through an experience when his wife delivered a new child. I am happy to tell you, Mr. President, that on Friday of this week, I will have my fourth grandchild, so I know something about this, too. I remember so well, and I will be referring to this tomorrow, an experience I had about January of this year when we had the birth, at that time, of my third grandchild. My daughter called me up and said, ``Daddy, would you like to come over and come into the delivery room?'' Of course, back when we were having babies they would not let you in the same hospital, let alone the same delivery room. I remember so well when the baby was born, baby Jason was just a tiny, beautiful thing, and it had not been more than a minute since his first breath and she handed this baby to me, and I thought, this is just about the time this procedure has been customarily used; if only people knew what was happening, the fact that an incision would be made into the back of the head in a baby that is three-fourths of the way already born in this world, open up the head, and place a catheter and suck the brains out and the skull collapses. It is barbaric. It is a procedure that we have to do something about in this country. I had occasion to ride back to Oklahoma with one of my fellow delegates, a Member of Congress, Tom Coburn, a medical doctor. Tom Coburn, Member of the House of Representatives, described this, because he saw this procedure take place one time. He said it was nightmarish. Last Monday, I had occasion to be in a number of cities and small towns in Oklahoma, having a series of town meetings, places, Mr. President, you have never heard of, like Durant, OK, and Idabel, OK, and Pontotoc, OK. There was not one place where they did not bring up in the course of this meeting: Are you really going to do something back there like the House did, do away with this procedure? Well, when I told them that the votes were not there and that President Clinton had vetoed our attempt to make this procedure illegal, it became, all of a sudden, a character question on him: Why would he do that? I have no way of answering that. Tomorrow I will present over 15,000 signatures of people from Oklahoma and the comments they have made, over 15,000 people who are saying: Whatever you do, override the veto as the House of Representatives did. As I have served here and I see people who want to retain a medical procedure that allows this method of taking the life of a small baby and I think of the people who are behind this, and you know what the baby is going through, because tomorrow I will read a report that will lead you to the incontrovertible conclusion that a baby, even in the first trimester, feels and senses the same pain that you feel, Mr. President, or anyone else in this Chamber, or any baby that is fully born and out and breathing today. It occurred to me when the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats, was talking a few minutes ago and he talked about if this were happening in another country we would be invoking sanctions, we would be talking about how this might affect trade, talking about economic aid. I would go a step further than the Senator from Indiana. I would say if this had been happening, if this procedure were legal and taking place in an animal, a dog or a cat, those same people who are trying to keep this medical procedure in our law would be picketing back and forth outside our Senate offices. Tomorrow we will have a chance to talk about it. (The remarks of Mr. Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S. 2129 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the second attack on Senator Bob Dole by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts had to do with the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, implying that Bob Dole was opposed and had been opposed to the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. I would suggest to you, Mr. President, that one thing that Bob Dole was opposed to was a single payer Government-run system which the President had advocated earlier in his administration. In other words, socializing medicine, taking about 12 percent of the economy of this country and putting it in the hands of Government because they can do it so much better than the private sector can do it. That is what Senator Dole was opposed to. He was not opposed to some of the reforms that were found in the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. There were a couple of reforms that he wanted that ended up being in the bill. In fact, the President said that if the MSA's, medical savings accounts, were added to the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, at one point he said he would veto it. Many of those on the other side of the aisle said that if the MSA's are in, it would be vetoed. Why were people concerned about the MSA's? They were concerned about them because those people who would want to have a socialized approach to health care delivery in this country know that once we have MSA's, we will never go back to that system. What do MSA's do? They merely allow the choice of individuals so that if an individual wants to shop around for his health delivery services, and he can save money doing so, then he can benefit and have the rewards of what he has saved. I think that our health delivery in America is the only product or service known that actually has a built- in disincentive to save. And I am guilty like everyone else. You know, if I have my deductible and I go ahead and pay that, then I am inclined to go and get any kind of medical or health service that is out there because it no longer costs me any more money. That is human nature. We finally got a modified medical savings account system put into the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. I say ``modified.'' It is only on a trial basis. It is going to prove itself. I heard estimates that we could actually reduce the total cost of health care in this country by as much as 50 percent just by having MSA's. Mr. President, there is another thing we need to do that is not in this bill, and that is to have some kind of medical malpractice so we do not have such a high defensive cost. But anyway, the fact that MSA's are in there now--the President had said he would veto it if they were in there. He did not veto it. I am glad he did not veto it. But certainly it was never Bob Dole's intention to oppose the Kennedy- Kassebaum bill with the reforms in it that he felt were in the best interests of the American people. The third thing that Senator Kennedy said about Senator Dole that I think was misleading, and it was a misrepresentation of his position, was in reference to tax cuts. It is true that Senator Dole, if elected President, wants to come to Congress, which I believe will still be controlled by the Republicans, and come with tax cuts. He outlined five major tax cuts. I am very supportive of all five of those tax cuts. People ask, how are you going to pay for them? I think people forget about the fact that three decades in the last 100 years Presidents have decided to have tax cuts, and in all three decades it has dramatically increased the revenues. It is ironic that Senator Kennedy would be talking about tax cuts and all the damage that is being done when it was John Kennedy in 1962, when he was President of the United States, who said, and I quote: In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low. And the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut rates now. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus. That was what President Kennedy said in 1962. And that is exactly what happened during the 1960's with the massive tax reductions, and we were able to have revenue increases--revenue increases. Look what happened. The marginal rates of our tax system in 1980 produced $244 billion. In 1990, it almost doubled to $466 billion, and that was during a 10-year period when we had the most massive cuts in our tax revenues. So I think that it would be good to go back and look at history and see that this country, when it has been overtaxed in the past, that they reduced taxes and had the result of increasing revenues. Certainly, we are in an overtaxed posture right now. I have often said there are three things that make this country nonproductive, on a global basis, and noncompetitive: One is our high tax rates; one is overregulation; the other is our tort laws. There is not time in this brief time to cover that. I conclude, Mr. President, by saying when Senator Kennedy assailed Senator Dole for talking about tax cuts, that he start realizing those individuals--those of us who want to have tax reductions--are the same ones that were trying to stop the 1993 tax increase. In 1993, when President Clinton had control of both the House and the Senate, he passed a tax increase that was characterized not by Republicans but by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which was Senator Moynihan, who said it was the largest single tax increase in the history of public finance in America or any place in the world. I think, essentially, what we--what Senator Dole, and what the Republicans and the conservatives in this body and in the other body-- want to do is merely undo the damage that was done by that massive tax increase and actually repeal the taxes that were increased in 1993. Essentially, that is what Senator Dole wants to do. I believe that is an accurate characterization of his program. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Sept. 5, 1996] Medagogues We print today a letter from House minority leader Richard Gephardt, taking exception to an editorial that accused the Democrats of demagoguing on Medicare. The letter itself seems to us to be more of the same. It tells you just about everything the Democrats think about Medicare except how to cut the cost. That aspect of the subject it puts largely out of bounds, on grounds that Medicare is ``an insurance program, not a welfare program,'' and ``to slash the program to balance the budget'' or presumably for any purpose other than to shore up the trust fund is ``not just a threat to . . . seniors, families, hospitals'' etc. but ``a violation of a sacred trust.'' That's bullfeathers, and Mr. Gephardt knows it. Congress has been sticking the budget knife to Medicare on a regular basis for years. Billions of dollars have been cut from the program; both parties have voted for the cutting. Most years the cuts have had nothing to do with the trust funds, which, despite all the rhetoric, both parties understand to be little more than accounting devices and possible warning lights as to program costs. Rather, the goal has been to reduce the deficit. It made sense to turn to Medicare because Medicare is a major part of the problem. It and Medicaid together are now a sixth of the budget and a fourth of all spending for other than interest and defense. If nothing is done those shares are going to rise, particularly as the baby-boomers begin to retire early in the next century. There are only four choices, none of them pleasant. Congress can let the health care programs continue to drive up the deficit, or it can let them continue to crowd out other programs or it can pay for them with higher taxes. Or it can cut them back. The Republicans want to cut Medicare. It is a gutsy step. This is not just a middle-class entitlement; the entire society looks to the program, and earlier in the year a lot of the smart money said the Republicans would never take it on. They have. Mr. Gephardt is right that a lot of their plan is still gauzy. It is not year clear how tough it will finally be; on alternate days you hear it criticized on grounds that it seeks to cut too much from the program and on grounds that it won't cut all it seeks. Maybe both will turn out to be true; we have no doubt the plan will turn out to have other flaws as well. They have nonethless--in our judgement--stepped up to the issue. They have taken a huge political risk just in calling for the cuts they have. What the Democrats have done in turn is confirm the risk. The Republicans are going to take away your Medicare. That's their only message. They have no plan. Mr. Gephardt says they can't offer one because the Republicans would simply pocket the money to finance their tax cut. It's the perfect defense; the Democrats can't do the right thing because the Republicans would then do the wrong one. It's absolutely the case that there ought not be a tax cut, and certainly not the indiscriminate cut the Republicans propose. But that has nothing to do with Medicare. The Democrats have fabricated the Medicare-tax cut connection because it is useful politically. It allows them to attack and to duck responsibility, both at the same time. We think it's wrong.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I happened to be presiding this morning when the very distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, made a number of comments. I know that he would not intentionally say anything that is not totally accurate in reflecting upon the positions and past performances of Senator Bob Dole, but I think inadvertently he misrepresented his stand on a number of issues. I would like to just briefly go over a couple of these. First of all, it seems as if it has been over a year now since the demagoging of Medicare has taken place on this floor. I was very pleased a year ago today, I believe it was, to read an editorial in the Washington Post. And, Mr. President, I do not think anyone has ever accused the Washington Post of being a Republican publication. So, finally, I feel that they looked at this and thought this is such a serious thing, that the Republicans had a program to save Medicare, and that by the admission of the board of trustees that was appointed by President Clinton, if we did not do something, Medicare would have gone broke by the year 2002, then that was updated a year later and they said it really would be 2001, and the Republicans had a program to control growth, not cut--there has never been any intention to cut benefits of Medicare to the American people--but have controlled growth, do away with waste and fraud and abuse and install some other things that would make it a viable program. So, finally, the editorial boards around the country, that are normally not sensitive to Republican causes, rallied and said, we are going to have to do something about it. I would like to read the last two sentences of an editorial found in the Washington Post a year ago, just about now. I believe it was a year ago today. It was called ``Medagogues, Cont'd.'' This is the second one. A week before that they had one where they demonstrated very clearly and very persuasively that what the Republicans were trying to do was to save Medicare. The last two sentences are: The Democrats have fabricated the Medicare-tax cut connection because it is useful politically. It allows them to attack and to duck responsibility, both at the same time. We think it's wrong. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the editorial entitled ``Medagogues, Cont'd'' from the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I would not object if I would be allowed to speak for 5 minutes prior to that.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not believe I will object but I would like, for clarification purposes--I intended to speak right after the Senator from Nevada. Would the 10 minutes be included as part of his 15 minutes?

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we hear so many negative things, and it is kind of enjoyable to talk about what has been accomplished sometimes. The Senator from Wyoming has been very articulate in expressing those positive things. I remember in 1987 when I was first elected to the other body. We had as our class project at that time to repeal the earnings test. I have always felt there is nothing more un-American than to tell the people in America that once you reach a certain age, you have to become nonproductive, and if you are not nonproductive, then we are going to take away some of your Social Security. Well, we tried for about 10 years to get that done, and it was not until we had a Republican Congress that we were able to have a major reform. We haven't totally repealed it, but we will phase into a position where we actually will be telling the people of America that you are not going to be punished if you decide to be productive past a certain age. Many years ago, I was the mayor of a major city in America, Tulsa, OK, and every time I go and talk to mayors now, I say, ``Tell us what the major problem facing your city has been.'' They don't say it's crime in the streets and welfare. They say it's unfunded mandates. I can remember so well as the mayor of the city of Tulsa when the Federal Government would come and tell us certain things that we had to do, and if we didn't do it, they are going to be taking money away from us, or if we did it, we would have to pay for it ourselves. Consequently, it would be up to us to allow Congress in Washington, with all of the lofty attitudes that they seem to portray here, to say that we have done these wonderful things for the people of America, and to say that some political subdivision underneath them--the cities, or counties, or States--had to pay for them. We passed an unfunded mandates bill where we are not going to be faced with that anymore. I would like for it to have been retroactive, but it could not have been. So that has been resolved. It is a major reform, and it was done by this Congress. I am very, very proud of that. I counted the reforms we have passed, and I would challenge anybody to find a 10-year period in history when there have been more reforms passed by Congress than we have passed. Congressional accountability--the fact that we now have to live under the same laws that we impose upon other people in the rest of the country. I spent 30 years in the private sector. I understand what it is like to have to live under an overregulated society, and, yet, Members of Congress historically have been exempt from most of those impositions. Now they are going to have to live under the same laws that we pass for other people. I think that is a major accomplishment of this Republican Congress. The line-item veto: As long as I can remember, we have talked about that--about reforming the line-item veto. A lot of my friends say, well, I would like to have the line-item veto, as long as we know we have a conservative in the White House, or the other side of the fence would say they would like to have a line-item veto as long as we have a liberal there. But I suggest to you, Mr. President, that they miss the point when they say that, because all a line-item veto does is force the President and Congress to be accountable. Republicans and Democrats in the White House, for decades, have been able to say, well, I didn't want that law, but I had to either sign that because veterans benefits are in there, or something else was in there, and consequently they go ahead and sign something that they say they are opposed to. This forces them, or him, or her, Democrat or Republican, to be accountable, so that if there is 1 thing out of 25 things in a bill that he doesn't like, he can veto it and send it back, and that makes us accountable. So the whole idea there is accountability. We have passed that. I feel very good about it and think that is a major improvement. Back before I was in the U.S. Senate, I represented an all-urban area, primarily one county in the State of Oklahoma. So I did not have much of the agricultural areas and interests in my district. But I found, as I traveled around the State after becoming a Member of the U.S. Senate, where I had largely an agricultural State, the people who are in the farm communities in Oklahoma--and I suspect it is that way throughout the Nation--really have felt that we have had a failed agricultural policy in this country, that we have imposed upon our farmers things that they must do. Yet, they are not free to plant what they think the market will bear and what will best take care of their needs. Well, the Freedom to Farm Act was passed, and I find, as I go around--as I did, as a matter of fact, only Monday of this week. I had, I think, seven town meetings throughout agricultural areas in Oklahoma. They all think it is very good. Do you know what else they think, Mr. President? They want to do something about property rights. Well, that is one area where we have not been successful. I would like to say that we are able to pass all of the reforms that we wanted to pass. Unfortunately, several of them were vetoed by this President. The reform that will go down, I think, in history as the most significant reform that the public is aware of would be welfare reform. I have to remind you that President Clinton vetoed this bill twice. We passed a welfare reform bill that was based on what he campaigned on for President in 1992. He vetoed it, and then he vetoed it a second time. But just as we are getting into the final stages of the Presidential election year, he has signed it. At the same time, he has whispered to his friends on the left that if he is reelected, he will change some of the reforms that we have in the welfare bill. There are three things I have often said that make us globally noncompetitive, Mr. President. One is that we are overtaxed. The other is we are overregulated. Third is our tort laws in this country. I was proud to be a part of the success in changing our tort laws as it pertains to just one manufacturing item: airplanes and airplane parts. I have about a 39-year history and background in aviation. So I know a little bit about that. Prior to 1970, we made almost the entire world supply of airplanes in the United States--a major export item. And then, over the 10-year period of the 1970's, and up through to the present time, we quit making single-engine airplanes in America. We quit making them only for one reason, which is that you can't be globally competitive and offset the cost of all these lawsuits. So we have lawsuit after lawsuit against manufacturers of airplane parts and of airplanes where maybe it has worked perfectly well for 50 years, but all of a sudden there is an accident and they will go back and get a multimillion-dollar judgment against the manufacturer, and, consequently, our manufacturers either went broke or quit making small airplanes. I remember the case of Piper Aircraft. They said to the bankruptcy court, ``We can move our plant and all of our equipment to Canada and make the same airplanes and supply the same market and do so at a profit because of the fact that they don't have the tort laws we have in this country.'' So we passed a bill. Even though the President made a commitment to veto any kind of meaningful tort reform, he signed it because we had so much pressure out there. People realized this is a major manufacturing area that could benefit all of America. In Oklahoma alone, we can identify 4,000 jobs as a result of that one tort reform. Well, it would only stand to reason that if we can put America back into making airplanes by having tort reform, insofar as the manufacture of airplanes and parts is concerned, why not spread that across the entire manufacturing base? So we did. We passed a bill that would make America competitive again, and the President vetoed it. So I think we have a lot of things that we wanted to do. There was the $500-per-child tax credit, which the President vetoed. There was regulation reform, and some of the marriage penalties that we were going to correct, and the President vetoed it. In spite of that, we have been a very productive House and Senate, and I am very proud of the major reforms that have passed. I only regret that we were unable to get them all passed because of the vetoes of the President, and perhaps that will change in the near future. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment regarding the Federal Aviation Administration's [FAA] emergency revocation powers; however, after conferring with the chairman and ranking member I have withdrawn my amendment because they have agreed to work with me on this issue in the 105th Congress. Aviation safety not only requires consistent diligence, but also balance. It is balance that my amendment sought to achieve between the rights of the airmen to use their certificates and the need for the FAA to immediately revoke the certificates of unsafe operators. Over the past several years we have witnessed a sharp increase in the number of emergency revocations. In an revocation action, brought on an emergency basis, the airman or other certificate holder loses the use of the certificate immediately, without an intermediary review by an impartial third party. The result is that the airman is grounded and in most cases out of work until the issue is adjudicated. My amendment would have established a procedure whereby the airman could request a hearing before the NTSB Board on an expedited basis to determine if a true emergency existed and therefore justified the immediate revocation of the airman's certificate. If the NTSB decided no emergency existed, then the airman could have use of his certificate while the FAA pursued their case against the airman. If the NTSB decided an emergency existed then the revocation would remain in effect until the case could be fully adjudicated. Given the chairman's assurances of his willingness to work with me on this issue in the 105th Congress, I have withdrawn my amendment and look forward to working him and the ranking member to address this problem.