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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, tonight we are going to be voting on some amendments that are very significant, and I want to take an opportunity to express some views concerning those amendments. One is going to be offered to refund to its 1995 fiscal year level--I believe it is $415 million--the Legal Services Corporation. This is a place we should draw the line, go back. In fact, this is one area where the Senate came out with a better proposal than the House came out with. It is my understanding the House suggested reducing the funding to $278 million. The Senate would reduce it down to $210 million and have that block granted out to the States. I really believe the Legal Services Corporation was conceived as a part of the Great Society program, understandably, perhaps, at the time, to offer legal services to the poor. However, over a period of years it has turned into an agency that is trying to reshape the political and legal and social fabric of America. In fiscal year 1995, the taxpayers spent $415 million to operate the Legal Services Corporation. However, the cost, the $415 million, is only a very small part of it when you consider the extensive class action suits and frivolous litigation that has followed. There are so many examples that have been given here on the floor, and that I have given myself, concerning the activities of the LSC. The negative effects of the LSC's attempts to reorder society permeate our culture, from the business community to government to homes to churches. Perhaps the most troubling is the role of legal aid in challenging parental involvement statutes, so-called children's rights advocates such as Mrs. Clinton, who served as the chairperson for the LSC's board that challenged parental consent laws in several States. The income level of the litigants was often ignored. It really cannot be used as an argument that it was to provide legal services for the poor. Parents are attacked in their efforts in keeping drugs out of their homes. In Idaho, the LSC protested when parents voluntarily invited police into their homes to check for drugs. Legal aid asserted privacy rights of the violators, who were teenagers who were on drugs at the time. We have had Legal Services also involved in illegal immigration. The LSC supported organizations that sued California for its efforts to ascertain residents' immigration status for emergency Medicaid services. Legal Services promised to take this one to the Supreme Court. Legal Services also contributes to our public housing woes. The LSC tried to prevent the local housing authority from evicting a woman who was dealing in drugs out of her apartment. Despite overwhelming evidence of constant drug-related activity, the LSC lawyers vigorously opposed her eviction on the grounds that she was not aware of what was going on. The examples go on and on and on. I encourage my colleagues to seriously consider defeating the amendment that will be offered tonight. There is another one coming up I heard articulated on this floor a moment ago by the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm. Although he was talking about his amendment, the Shelby-Inhofe amendment that will be offered later on is an amendment to put work back into our prison system. We have proposed in this amendment that we require work, 48 hours per week, along with education pursuits so individuals can go out when they are once released and work themselves back into society. I know a lot of people are saying these are not country clubs; our prison system already is punishing criminals. I suggest that, since the 1960's, we have grown in this body to be more concerned about the violators than we have the victims. The other day, I ran into a notice that was posted in one of the Massachusetts correctional facilities where it stated: A third softball field will be made in the west field in order to allow more inmates to play softball. The horseshoe pits will be temporarily relocated near the golf course. The boccie [or whatever that is called] area will be relocated at the site of the new gym. The soccer field will be relocated to the east field behind the softball field. It goes on to say, ``We hope that our clients''--they do not call them inmates, do not call them prisoners--``will not be inconvenienced too much.'' I think it is time. If there is one mandate that came with the elections of 1994, it was to start to change our prison system, to quit spending the exorbitant amounts, and to get involved in punishment as a deterrent to crime. I was very proud when we passed our bill through the Senate, after the disaster occurred in the State of Oklahoma, that calls for real habeas reform and, for the first time, in my opinion, reverses the direction of our attitude in terms of crime and punishment. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. It is a State prison. However, our amendment addresses not just Federal prisons but prisons that receive Federal funds.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. INHOFE. If I could inquire of the manager, where does that leave the Domenici amendment?

Mr. INHOFE. If I could respond, we have been fooling around in some States. That is what this is all about, to try to get some uniformity. And any time you have a murderer like Roger Dale Stafford, who sat on death row for 15 years after murdering nine Oklahomans in cold blood, it is time that we changed our attitude toward crime and punishment in this country. I would suggest--and I think perhaps the Senator from Delaware would agree--that when someone is contemplating a crime, and if he thinks the downside is going to be sitting on death row watching TV in an air- conditioned cell for 17 years, that is not much of a deterrent. And that is what I would like to change.

Mr. INHOFE. I will respond that I have talked to Mr. Gingrich, and he is [[Page S 14525]] very anxious to get to that. However, I think we are all aware that we have some appropriations bills to get out of the way. And, in the order of things, I am sure it will be expedited.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, is the Senator from Oregon waiting now to call for a vote on his amendment or has he yielded the floor?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am a little distressed. I understand we are not going to be able to take up some amendments that I believe should be taken up on this bill. I, at least, want to get into the Record, in the hopes some of these things can be addressed in conference, my strong feeling about a couple amendments. The Exon amendment, Coats amendment, and the Smith amendments address the same thing, and that is just a modest and overdue measure to get Government out of the business of promoting and subsidizing abortions. It is my understanding that under section 512, if not enacted, obstetrics and gynecology residents' programs will be required to perform abortions including late-term abortions. Residents with moral or religious objections who wish to opt out of performing abortions should be required to explain why in a way that satisfies stringent and explicit criteria. I am very much concerned about that. We have debated this issue over and over again. However, I am hoping this is something that will be taken up in conference. The second thing is the amendment to defund Goals 2000, the Education Act. Under this program, Federal intrusiveness reaches a new height. The Goals 2000 creates tighter and more definite links between State, Federal and local levels and makes it easier for the Department of Education to tamper with local schools. The Goals 2000 is the idea that the Federal Government should be involved in creating and certifying standards for education and determining official knowledge. I think if there is anything that has been very evident during the elections of November, it was a trend to get Government out of things, not in things, to get the Washington influence out of our lives instead of in our lives. I certainly hope that we will be able to take up some measure at some point, perhaps in conference, to do away with the Goals 2000 program.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am in strong support of language at this [[Page S 14381]] point calling for the EPA to reevaluate the petroleum refinery MACT standards. The refinery MACT legislation is a prime example of the EPA regulations run amok. As I said at a hearing earlier this year, refinery MACT regulation could be a poster child for nonsensical regulations. Its costs far exceed any possible benefits. As a member of the authorizing subcommittee, I can speak for a majority of the subcommittee in saying that the EPA has taken the wrong direction in its implementation of the Clean Air Act amendments. The implementation of the act is an issue that the subcommittee will be addressing in the coming months. However, in the meantime we need to put a stop to the refinery MACT rule from taking effect. These are the rules that were promulgated, yet the standards which were used were standards prior to 1980 when, in fact, the refineries had complied with the 1990 amendments. Those things were not taken into consideration. We are talking about millions of dollars, if we leave these regulations in effect. This does not roll back any environmental laws. It just allows the EPA the time to fix an obviously flawed regulation. In the defense of the EPA, I would say they were under a court- ordered deadline when this happened, and I feel this is an opportunity for us to at least have language in there suggesting we rescind compliance for that period of time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. I asked the clerk to go ahead and read it in its entirety so people could understand that this is simply a one-sentence, very simple, straightforward amendment, one that I have had before this body, successfully passed by the other body, on numerous occasions. We have a very unique institution not far from the Capitol known as the Eastern Market. The Eastern Market has a unique type of a character of its own. And for a number of years, there have been notions trotting around that it should be renovated and contracted out to various people, against the wishes certainly of everyone I have ever talked to. The neighborhood associations want to keep it as it is and the same vendors who have been in there, not for years, but for decades. So, this would preclude, and it would be clearly the intent--I want the Record to reflect this--that no funds directly or indirectly could be used for renovation or for construction or for changing the character of this institution; in other words, not using local funds to be replaced with Federal funds. I think it is something we have dealt with every year. I will respond to any questions.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes. I would be happy to.

Mr. INHOFE. Either razing it or transforming it. It would lose its character that it has had for the last 150 years. That is correct.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last month I introduced a bill that would give the FAA independent status. As a matter of fact, when I introduced it, I read a speech as if I were giving it. It was really a speech that was given 20 years ago by Barry Goldwater, and Barry Goldwater's speech was a lengthy one, one that outlined the problems in 1975 that had occurred since the FAA had gone under the Department of Transportation back in 1967. He talked about the procurement problems and the personnel problems that are very unique to the FAA. Oddly enough, it was 20 years ago that Barry Goldwater made that speech, and I talked to him the other day and he said, ``I hope we will be able to do it now.'' I am talking about a life-and-death issue as a commercial pilot, I guess the last active commercial pilot in Congress. I have experienced having our lives in the hands of those controllers down there, and it is very significant that we do give them the independent status that Barry Goldwater was seeking back in 1975. I really believe if we could do that, we could effect enough savings to actually prevent having to raise fees and having to raise taxes as is being considered right now in another bill, and as also is being suggested by the President. On August 9, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee made a statement in the Chamber, and he said, ``The FAA tells us if they could have this kind of operational flexibility''--now we are talking about independent status, free from the bureaucracy of the DOT, free from the procurement guidelines and the personnel guidelines--``they believe they could cut as much as 20 percent out of the procurement budget'' from what they are spending today. Now, this is significant because that happens to be approximately the amount that historically has been contributed to the FAA for operations from the general revenues. And I suggest to you that my bill does not give [[Page S 13708]] the FAA the power to increase fees indiscriminately. I suggest, if we do that such as is suggested in the McCain bill, instead of streamlining their bureaucracy, they would merely raise fees. I will read from the McCain bill the portion I am talking about. It says, ``to establish a program of incentive-based fees for services to improve the air traffic management system performance and to establish appropriate levels of cost accountability for air traffic management services provided by the FAA.'' So, Mr. President, I have a lot of respect for Mr. Hinson, David Hinson, who is the Administrator of the FAA. I think he is one of the few real good appointments that this President has made. And I think that if anyone could streamline his bureaucracy, it would be David Hinson. But I suggest to you that the words that I recall that Ronald Reagan made way back in 1965 when he said, ``There is nothing closer to immortality on the face of this Earth than a Government program once devised,'' that is exactly what we are faced with now. A bureaucracy never, as long as it has the ability to raise funds, is going to streamline their operation. So I hope that we will be able to consider my bill very seriously. And I suggest there are about several million pilots out there that are concerned about this also. I think it would be very difficult to go out right now and tell the pilots, who are paying an average of about $2,320 in various costs each year--for a small four-passenger airplane in addition to that, they are paying the gas tax--to go out and tell these pilots that in 1990 we raised your gas tax and we raised it again in 1993, and now we are going to start raising your fees. So, Mr. President, this can be done without increasing fees and taxes. My bill will do that. I am going to be urging the passage of this legislation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to address the Senate as if in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think earlier today we missed an opportunity. It seemingly went by unnoticed when an amendment was offered that addressed a very sensitive area and an essential element of welfare reform, and that is a recognition that it has become a snowballing effect that a family that has welfare problems, or is on the welfare rolls, quite often the next generation comes down and is also inflicted with this same problem. This was in the amendment offered by Senator Faircloth, No. 2609. I regret that it only received 17 votes on the floor of the Senate, and yet, I do recognize it is a very sensitive issue to deal with. We have become and found ourselves in a situation in this country where it is a welfare trap and snares not only current recipients, but their children as well. Young women who grow up in welfare families are more than twice as likely to receive welfare themselves as their counterparts whose parents received no welfare. I have three very short cases I will identify. These happen to come from the State of Oklahoma. They will only be identified by the individual's first names. There is Marie, a 43-year-old, has nine kids by five different fathers. The mother was on welfare for 30 years. Marie's own daughters are unwed teen mothers on welfare. Denise, 29 years old, had her first child at 16. She now has an additional four daughters, all born under the welfare system. Both her sisters are unwed welfare mothers with eight children. Jacqueline, 37 years old, a mother at 15. She was born to a welfare family of 12 children. Her unwed daughter had four illegitimate children by the time she was 20. Out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood are quickly becoming a normal lifestyle in this country. I am not sure that the Faircloth amendment was worded quite properly, but at least it did address a very serious problem that we are going to have to, sooner or later, address in this body. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a day does not go by that there is not a newspaper article or news story on the destructive effects drugs have on our youth. Millions of dollars are spent each year on education and prevention programs. Despite this attention, we are having incremental success in discouraging our young people from choosing this injurious lifestyle. It has been my observation that the most effective programs are those at the local level. During my tenure as the mayor of Tulsa, I strongly supported and worked with D.A.R.E. because I believe it was a program that produced tangible results. Since my election to the Senate, I have been made aware of an organization in Oklahoma called Young-Line ``Drug Free'' Associations, Inc. which focuses on teaching youth the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse. Chief Bonnie O. Ezechukwu, who heads the Young-Line organization, has been recognized throughout the State of Oklahoma for his outstanding work. Originally from Nigeria, Chief Ezechukwu has lived in the United States for 13 years during which time he steadfastly worked to teach respect for human life, importance of self- esteem and community involvement in the lives of young people. I want to commend Chief Ezechukwu and Young-Line ``Drug Free'' Associations, Inc. for helping young people combat potential drug and alcohol abuse by emphasizing prevention and at the same time aiding them to become worthwhile members of society. Their prevention methods go beyond teaching and focus on leadership and character development. Their work in Oklahoma has made a difference.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Iowa for yielding the time. Mr. President, I think it is appropriate during this debate to be aware of something that is going on around the Nation today that there are those individuals trying to hold on to the past with white knuckles and using taxpayers' money to do that. I was shocked to find out yesterday that in my hometown of Tulsa, OK, we had a traveling troupe from Texas. These are the regional directors of the various agencies: Mr. Steve Weatherford from Housing and Urban Development, he is the regional director; Pat Montoya, Health and Human Services; and Jim Cantu, of Labor, all converging upon one city, to scare the people of Tulsa, OK, into thinking that if we go along with the changes that we are advocating in the welfare system, the changes in Government as we know it, the changes that are consistent with the revolution that took place on November 8, 1994, that somehow people are going to be starving. I am just going to read a couple of the quotes here. And it happens that our mayor in Tulsa is a very strong supporter of President Clinton, so I am sure she joined in. But Steve Weatherford of HUD said, ``We are talking about major cuts to our social fabric. * * * We are talking about hundreds of thousands of children and poor people who will be affected in Oklahoma.'' We have Pat Montoya with Health and Human Services, ``Tulsa would lose more than $5 billion in Federal funding between 1995 and the year 2002 if the GOP program is adopted.'' Jim Cantu of Labor said that GOP budget cuts would ``take food out of the mouths of children and punish 15-year-old mothers.'' And on and on and on. You know, I have to join with my fellow Senator from Oklahoma, Don Nickles, as well as Congressman Steve Largent whose district this city of Tulsa is, when we say that there is no better case that can be made of the bloated Government and the waste that has taken place today than to have these top officials with all their entourage trouping around going from city to city to scare people and into maintaining the status quo. I think that the stories that we are hearing today in conjunction with the welfare bill are very similar to that. I think the most profound thing that was said by the Senator from Iowa was that if you are really concerned and really having compassion, look at the children who will be born today, if we do not make these major changes, having to spend 82 percent--I think it has been calculated of their lifetime earnings--on supporting Government. So I hope that we can keep this in mind that there is an army of bureaucrats trouping around the country right now, trying to scare people into thinking that we cannot afford a major change. Let us keep in mind that in November there was a change, that there is a mandate that came with that, and that is, let us end these age-old programs that have been proven failures and change the role of Government as we have come to know it since the 1960's. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, during the August recess, I had about seven events each day and never passed up the opportunity to let them know about the most critical threat facing America today--missile attack. I spoke about the fact that the actions we take today will directly affect the kind of defense posture our country has in 5 to 7 years. The danger we face is real. Yet I was surprised and shocked at the ambivalence and lack of understanding that exists concerning this vital issue. Many people simply do not realize--and are themselves shocked to be told--that our country today has no missile defense system in place capable of protecting American cities from long range missile attacks. I estimated that perhaps most Oklahomans were not readily aware of some of the basic terms of the debate currently going on in Washington about the important missile defense provisions of the current defense authorization bill. I would suggest that part of the reason for this has to do with the media, particularly the national media, most of which has either not adequately focused on this issue or has skewed it in such a way as to downgrade its importance. But there are also similar problems with the local media. For example, in Oklahoma there are two major daily newspapers, the daily Oklahoman and the Tulsa World. Their differences reflect similar disparities in the national media. The Tulsa World reflects a consistent liberal view of the world, one which favors the expansion of the role of government in almost every area except defense. Their left-leaning editorial view tends to distort the reality of significant issues such as missile defense. The daily Oklahoman, on the other hand, much more clearly reflects the conservative social and economic values of Oklahomans. It is a larger paper and provides a much more realistic approach to issues such as national defense. During the past month, each of these papers had major editorials on the threat of missile attack. There is quite a difference in their approach. I think it will be instructive for my colleagues to examine these editorials and ponder how the media is shaping the debate about vital issues facing our country. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the two editorials I mentioned concerning missile defense--one from the Tulsa World and one from the daily Oklahoman--be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from South Carolina. During the course of this recess, I averaged about seven events a day throughout the State of Oklahoma, and during that time I did not let an opportunity go by without letting the people of Oklahoma know how serious the threat of missile attack will be to the United States within just a very few years, probably as early as the year 2000. I also let them know that we do not have a national missile defense system, and probably the most significant thing we will do is to keep this system going so that when we have a friendlier [[Page S 12668]] environment in the White House we can have this system ready to be deployed by the year 2000 or 2001. We know the threat that exists from North Korea right now. We know the threats that were articulated by Jim Woolsey, the chief security adviser to the President, when he said that we know of between 20 and 25 nations that are working on weapons of mass destruction and the missile means of delivering those weapons. I know the negotiators worked very hard, and I commend the work product. However, I am a little disappointed it did not come out stronger. I intend to support the missile defense portion of this bill, but I think when we used the words that we want to deploy a national missile defense system and they changed it to ``develop for deployment,'' that is too weak. I think that when we are calling for highly effective missile defenses that we now have changed to ``affordable,'' I suggest to you, Mr. President, there is nothing that is more significant going on right now than preparing for a national missile defense system.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, some of my colleagues who have been complaining about the liberal eastern media should be aware that there are similar problems and concerns reflected in the local media in the very heartland of America. As we approach a vote on the missile defense provisions of the defense bill which have been worked out among our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I want to commend Senators for their good-faith efforts to reach a compromise on this very complex and contentious issue. I supported the wording of the original bill that came out of the committee as a good start which recognized the threat and put us on the road to providing the real missile defense we need. While I will vote in favor of the new compromise provisions, I am not pleased with the weakening of language and goals that this compromise represents. I am very hopeful that the language can be significantly strengthened when we get to conference. We started out saying that we would deploy a national missile defense system. Now we are just going to develop for deployment a national missile defense. This compromise urges deployment of theater missile defenses to benefit our deployed troops and allies, but only allows a missile defense for the American people to be developed for deployment. We began by simply calling for highly effective missile defenses; we have now required that they be affordable missile defenses. No one wants to waste money. But how will affordability be defined? How do we put a price on defending America from missile attacks? The truth is that the term ``affordable'' will simply be used as a club by opponents of missile defense for whom the price of security is always too high. The term ``cost effective'' will just be used to fight every dollar that we try to spend on missile defense from now on. Cost effectiveness should not even be an issue--the destruction by one bomb of a single building in Oklahoma City cost $500 million. Imagine how much a limited strike by nuclear weapons will cost. We claim to recognize that the era of mutual assured destruction is over. But instead of recognizing the reality that the ABM Treaty is a relic of the cold war and mutual assured destruction, this compromise requires negotiations with the Russian Government within the context of the ABM Treaty before we defend the American people from attack. This is a much smaller step forward than it should have been. We should stop talking about developing options, and begin to deploy a national missile defense system. The American people must know that the threat we face in the very near future is real and it affects all of us. It would be the height of irresponsibility if we were not prepared to meet this reality. The challenge before us is to face the facts. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, who served in the Clinton administration and is no partisan advocate, has told us bluntly: Up to 25 nations either have or are developing weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. The CIA currently tells us that North Korea is now working on a long- range missile--the Tapeo Dong II--which may be capable of reaching Alaska and Hawaii within 5 years. These are serious challenges. It is our duty to face them now and not blind ourselves by rationalizing that we can wait 10 more years or 20 more years. If we do, it may well be too late. So it is my hope that when the defense bill gets to conference we will be able to strengthen the language so that we make it clear that we are proceeding on a course which will put in place a national missile defense system within 5 to 7 years. In my mind, this is the least we can do to meet our highest constitutional obligation--the one without which no other obligations have any meaning--to provide for the common defense--the protection of our people, our freedom, and our country.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.