Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been involved in the aviation industry for over forty years. In that time, I have logged roughly 8,000 flight hours and have had my share of flight challenges in all sorts of weather and conditions. For instance, in 1980 during a humanitarian mission to Dominica, I led ten airplanes through hurricane David to deliver medical supplies to the island. As recently as 1991 I piloted a Cessna 414 around the world reenacting the same flight of Wiley Post sixty years earlier. I mention this to establish my credentials as someone who is an experienced pilot. As such, I have a great respect for the important job that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does to make our air system the safest and best in the world. Notwithstanding my admiration for the job that the FAA does, I believe there are some areas of FAA enforcement that need to be examined. One such area is the FAA's use of ``emergency revocation''. After talking with certificate holders and based on my own observations, I believe the FAA unfairly uses this necessary power to prematurely revoke certificates when the circumstances do not support such drastic action. In a revocation action, brought on an emergency basis, the certificate holder loses use of his certificate immediately, without an intermediary review by an impartial third party. The result is that the certificate holder is grounded and in most cases out of work until the issue is adjudicated. Simply put, I believe the FAA unfairly uses this necessary power to prematurely revoke certificates when the circumstances do not support such drastic action. A more reasonable approach when safety is not an issue, would be to adjudicate the revocation on a non-emergency basis allowing the certificate holder continued use of the certificate. 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 FAA have the ability to ground unsafe airmen or other certificate holders; however, I also believe that the FAA must be judicious in its use of this extraordinary power. A review of recent emergency cases clearly demonstrates a pattern by which the FAA uses their emergency powers as standard procedure rather than an extraordinary measure. Perhaps the most visible case has been Bob Hoover. Bob is a highly regarded and accomplished aerobatic pilot. In 1992, his medical certificate was revoked based on alleged questions regarding his cognitive abilities. After getting a clean bill of health from four separate sets of doctors (just one of the many tests cost Bob $1,700) and over the continuing objections of the federal air surgeon (who never examined Bob personally) his medical certificate was reinstated only after then Administrator David Henson intervened. Unfortunately, Bob is not out of the woods yet. His medical certificate expires each year. Unlike most airmen who can renew their medical certificate with a routine application and exam, Bob has to furnish the FAA with a report of a neurological evaluation every twelve months. Bob Hoover's experience is just one of many. I have visited with other pilots who have had their licenses revoked on an emergency basis. Pilots such as Ted Stewart who has been an American Airlines pilot for more than 12 years and is presently a Boeing 767 Captain. Until January 1995, Ted had no complaints registered against him or his flying. In January 1995 the FAA suspended his examining authority as part of a larger FAA effort to respond to a problem of falsified ratings. The full National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) exonerated Ted in July 1995. In June 1996, he received a second revocation. One of the charges in this second revocation involved falsification of records for a Flight Instructor Certificate with Multiengined rating and his Air Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate dating back to 1979. Remember, an emergency revocation means you lose your certificate immediately, so in most cases this means the certificate holder loses his source of income. Fortunately in Ted's case, his employer put him on a desk job while the issue was adjudicated. Like most, I have questioned how an alleged 17\1/2\ year old violation in the Stewart case could constitute an emergency; especially, since Ted had not been cited for any cause in the intervening years. Nonetheless, the FAA vigorously pursued this action. On August 30, 1996, the NTSB issued its decision in this second revocation and found for Ted. A couple of comments in the Stewart decision bear closer examination. First, the board notes that ``The administrator's loss in the earlier case appears to have prompted further investigation of respondent . . .'' I find this rather troubling that an impartial third party appears to be suggesting that the FAA has a vendetta against Ted Stewart. This is further emphasized with a footnote in which the Board notes: [We,] of course, [are] not authorized to review the Administrator's exercise of his power to take emergency certificate action . . . We are constrained to register in this matter, however, our opinion that where, as here, no legitimate reason is cited or appears for not consolidating all alleged violations into one proceeding, subjecting an airman in the space of a year to two emergency revocations, and thus to the financial and other burdens associated with an additional 60-day grounding without prior notice and hearing, constitutes an abusive and unprincipled discharge of an extraordinary power. Another example is Raymond A. Williamson who was a pilot for Coca- Cola Bottling Company. Like Ted Stewart, he was accused of being part of a ``ring'' of pilots who falsified type records for ``vintage'' aircraft. As in all of the cases I have reviewed, Mr. Williamson biggest concern is that the FAA investigation and subsequent revocation came out of the blue. In November 1994, he was notified by his employer (Coca-Cola) that FAA inspectors had accused him of giving ``illegal'' check rides in company owned aircraft. He was fired. In June 1995, he received an Emergency Order of Revocation. In over 30 years as an active pilot, he had never had an accident, incident, or violation. Nor had he ever been ``counseled'' by the FAA for any action or irregularities as a pilot, flight instructor, FAA designated pilot examiner. In May 1996, FAA proposed to return all his certificates and ratings, except his flight instructor certificate. As in the Ted Stewart case, it would appear that FAA found no real reason to pursue an ``emergency'' revocation. I obviously cannot read the collective minds of the NTSB, but I believe a reasonable person would conclude that in the Ted Stewart case the Board, believes as I do, that there is an abuse of emergency revocation powers by the FAA. This is borne out further by the fact that since 1989, emergency cases as a total of all enforcement actions heard by the NTSB has more than doubled. In 1989 the NTSB heard 1,107 enforcement cases. Of those, 66 were emergency revocation cases or 5.96 percent. In 1995, the NTSB heard 509 total enforcement cases, of those 160 were emergency revocation cases or 31.43 percent. I believe it is clear that the FAA has begun to use an exceptional power as a standard practice. At my request, the General Accounting Office (GAO) did a study of emergency revocation actions taken by the FAA between 1990 and 1997. The most troubling result of the GAO study is that during time frame studied, 50 percent of the emergency renovations were issued four months to two years after the violation occurred. In only 4% of the cases was the emergency revocation issued within ten days or less of the actual violation. In fact, the median time lapse between the violation and the emergency order was a little over four months (132 days). Clearly, at issue is ``what constitutes an emergency?'' After working with industry representatives, I believe we have come up with a balanced and prudent approach to answer that question. Today I, along with Senators Murkowski, Burns, Grassley, Breaux, Stevens, Crapo and Frist am introducing a bill which will provide a certificate holder the option of requesting a hearing before the NTSB within 48 hours of receiving an emergency revocation to determine whether or not a true emergency exists. The board will have to decide within five days of the request if an emergency exists. During the board's deliberation, the certificate will be suspended. Should the board decide an emergency does not exist, the certificate holder will be able to use his certificate while the issue is adjudicated. Should the board decide an emergency does exist, the certificate will continue to be suspended while the issue is adjudicated. Not surprisingly, Mr. President the FAA opposes this language. They also opposed changes to the civil penalties program where they served as the judge and jury in civil penalty actions against airmen. Fortunately, we were able to change that so that airmen can now appeal a civil penalty case to the NTSB. This has worked very well because the NTSB has a clear understanding of the issues. This bill is supported by the Air Line Pilots Association, International; the Air Transport Association; the Allied Pilots Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; the Experimental Aircraft Association; National Air Carrier Association; National Air Transportation Association; National Business Aircraft Association; the NTSB Bar Association; and the Regional Airline Association. In closing, this bill will provide due process to certificate holders where now none exists, without compromising aviation safety. This is a reasonable and prudent response to an increasing problem for certificate holders. I hope our colleagues will support our efforts in this regard.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with my colleagues from Alabama, Senator Sessions, that will help our domestic oil and gas industry by reducing one of the many regulatory burdens that they must comply with. Last year, I was informed of a case in Alabama in which the EPA was sued over their policy regarding underground injection and specifically, ``hydraulic fracturing''. This procedure is used in cases where product, such as gas is located in a tight geological formation such as a coalbed. A hole is drilled into that area and a fluid consisting of water, gel and sand is pumped down the wellbore into the formation creating a fracture zone. The gel and water are extracted during the initial production stage of the well while the sand is left to prop open the cracks in the formation. When Congress originally passed the safe drinking water act (SDWA) in 1974, they intentionally left the underground protection control (UIC) program to the states. That act stated: ``the Administrator . . . may not prescribe requirements which interfere with or impede (injection activities associated with oil and gas production) unless such requirements are essential to assure that underground sources of drinking water will not be endangered by such injection.'' That concept was re-affirmed in 1980 when a provision was enacted specifically to recognize the adequacy of state programs, none of which required permitting for hydraulic fracturing in the construction or maintenance of oil and gas production wells. So, when the lawsuit was filed in Alabama, and the court ruled in favor of the environmental organization that filed the suit, I was shocked. It seemed clear to me that the intent of the law was to leave the regulation of this procedure to the states. I have neither heard nor seen anything that would lead me to the conclusion that there is any contamination of drinking water because of hydraulic fracturing. In fact, I believe the EPA agrees with me. Let me read a letter from Carol Browner, the Administrator of the EPA, to Mr. David A. Ludder, General Council for the Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc (LEAF), the group that sued EPA over this procedure. There is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing at issue has resulted in any contamination or endangerment of underground sources of drinking water. Repeated testing, conducted between May of 1989 and March of 1993, of the drinking water well which was the subject of this petition failed to show any chemicals that would indicate the presence of fracturing fluids. That statement seems pretty straight forward and implies to me that EPA would be willing to work with us to solve this problem. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Senator Sessions and I, with assistance from Senator Chafee, have received nothing but stalling tactics. In late January, we drafted this language and sent it over to EPA hoping that we could resolve this issue quickly to provide relief to our producers. Unfortunately, they were not willing to work with us. So here we are introducing a bill that is simple and solves the problem. This bill is short and to the point. In less than two pages we clarify that hydraulic fracturing is not underground injection and re- affirm that the administrator has the ability to determine what is regulated as underground injection, which is simply a clarification of an ability the administrator already possesses. It is my hope that EPA will work with us as this bill moves through committee and come up with a solution that will allow our oil and gas guys to get back to work and get EPA to focus on issues which may pose a more immediate threat.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been involved in the aviation industry for over forty years. In that time, I have logged roughly 8,000 flight hours and have had my share of flight challenges in all sorts of weather and conditions. For instance, in 1980 during a humanitarian mission to Dominica, I led ten airplanes through hurricane David to deliver medical supplies to the island. As recently as 1991 I piloted a Cessna 414 around the world reenacting the same flight of Wiley Post sixty years earlier. I mention this to establish my credentials as someone who is an experienced pilot. As such, I have a great respect for the important job that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does to make our air system the safest and best in the world. Notwithstanding my admiration for the job that the FAA does, I believe there are some areas of FAA enforcement that need to be examined. One such area is the FAA's use of ``emergency revocation''. After talking with certificate holders and based on my own observations, I believe the FAA unfairly uses this necessary power to prematurely revoke certificates when the circumstances do not support such drastic action. In a revocation action, brought on an emergency basis, the certificate holder loses use of his certificate immediately, without an intermediary review by an impartial third party. The result is that the certificate holder is grounded and in most cases out of work until the issue is adjudicated. Simply put, I believe the FAA unfairly uses this necessary power to prematurely revoke certificates when the circumstances do not support such drastic action. A more reasonable approach when safety is not an issue, would be to adjudicate the revocation on a non-emergency basis allowing the certificate holder continued use of the certificate. 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 FAA have the ability to ground unsafe airmen or other certificate holders; however, I also believe that the FAA must be judicious in its use of this extraordinary power. A review of recent emergency cases clearly demonstrates a pattern by which the FAA uses their emergency powers as standard procedure rather than an extraordinary measure. Perhaps the most visible case has been Bob Hoover. Bob is a highly regarded and accomplished aerobatic pilot. In 1992, his medical certificate was revoked based on alleged questions regarding his cognitive abilities. After getting a clean bill of health from four separate sets of doctors (just one of the many tests cost Bob $1,700) and over the continuing objections of the federal air surgeon (who never examined Bob personally) his medical certificate was reinstated only after then Administrator David Henson intervened. Unfortunately, Bob is not out of the woods yet. His medical certificate expires each year. Unlike most airmen who can renew their medical certificate with a routine application and exam, Bob has to furnish the FAA with a report of a neurological evaluation every twelve months. Bob Hoover's experience is just one of many. I have visited with other pilots who have had their licenses revoked on an emergency basis. Pilots such as Ted Stewart who has been an American Airlines pilot for more than 12 years and is presently a Boeing 767 Captain. Until January 1995, Ted had no complaints registered against him or his flying. In January 1995 the FAA suspended his examining authority as part of a larger FAA effort to respond to a problem of falsified ratings. The full National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) exonerated Ted in July 1995. In June 1996, he received a second revocation. One of the charges in this second revocation involved falsification of records for a Flight Instructor Certificate with Multiengined rating and his Air Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate dating back to 1979. Remember, an emergency revocation means you lose your certificate immediately, so in most cases this means the certificate holder loses his source of income. Fortunately in Ted's case, his employer put him on a desk job while the issue was adjudicated. Like most, I have questioned how an alleged 17\1/2\ year old violation in the Stewart case could constitute an emergency; especially, since Ted had not been cited for any cause in the intervening years. Nonetheless, the FAA vigorously pursued this action. On August 30, 1996, the NTSB issued its decision in this second revocation and found for Ted. A couple of comments in the Stewart decision bear closer examination. First, the board notes that ``The administrator's loss in the earlier case appears to have prompted further investigation of respondent . . .'' I find this rather troubling that an impartial third party appears to be suggesting that the FAA has a vendetta against Ted Stewart. This is further emphasized with a footnote in which the Board notes: [We,] of course, [are] not authorized to review the Administrator's exercise of his power to take emergency certificate action . . . We are constrained to register in this matter, however, our opinion that where, as here, no legitimate reason is cited or appears for not consolidating all alleged violations into one proceeding, subjecting an airman in the space of a year to two emergency revocations, and thus to the financial and other burdens associated with an additional 60-day grounding without prior notice and hearing, constitutes an abusive and unprincipled discharge of an extraordinary power. Another example is Raymond A. Williamson who was a pilot for Coca- Cola Bottling Company. Like Ted Stewart, he was accused of being part of a ``ring'' of pilots who falsified type records for ``vintage'' aircraft. As in all of the cases I have reviewed, Mr. Williamson biggest concern is that the FAA investigation and subsequent revocation came out of the blue. In November 1994, he was notified by his employer (Coca-Cola) that FAA inspectors had accused him of giving ``illegal'' check rides in company owned aircraft. He was fired. In June 1995, he received an Emergency Order of Revocation. In over 30 years as an active pilot, he had never had an accident, incident, or violation. Nor had he ever been ``counseled'' by the FAA for any action or irregularities as a pilot, flight instructor, FAA designated pilot examiner. In May 1996, FAA proposed to return all his certificates and ratings, except his flight instructor certificate. As in the Ted Stewart case, it would appear that FAA found no real reason to pursue an ``emergency'' revocation. I obviously cannot read the collective minds of the NTSB, but I believe a reasonable person would conclude that in the Ted Stewart case the Board, believes as I do, that there is an abuse of emergency revocation powers by the FAA. This is borne out further by the fact that since 1989, emergency cases as a total of all enforcement actions heard by the NTSB has more than doubled. In 1989 the NTSB heard 1,107 enforcement cases. Of those, 66 were emergency revocation cases or 5.96 percent. In 1995, the NTSB heard 509 total enforcement cases, of those 160 were emergency revocation cases or 31.43 percent. I believe it is clear that the FAA has begun to use an exceptional power as a standard practice. At my request, the General Accounting Office (GAO) did a study of emergency revocation actions taken by the FAA between 1990 and 1997. The most troubling result of the GAO study is that during time frame studied, 50 percent of the emergency renovations were issued four months to two years after the violation occurred. In only 4% of the cases was the emergency revocation issued within ten days or less of the actual violation. In fact, the median time lapse between the violation and the emergency order was a little over four months (132 days). Clearly, at issue is ``what constitutes an emergency?'' After working with industry representatives, I believe we have come up with a balanced and prudent approach to answer that question. Today I, along with Senators Murkowski, Burns, Grassley, Breaux, Stevens, Crapo and Frist am introducing a bill which will provide a certificate holder the option of requesting a hearing before the NTSB within 48 hours of receiving an emergency revocation to determine whether or not a true emergency exists. The board will have to decide within five days of the request if an emergency exists. During the board's deliberation, the certificate will be suspended. Should the board decide an emergency does not exist, the certificate holder will be able to use his certificate while the issue is adjudicated. Should the board decide an emergency does exist, the certificate will continue to be suspended while the issue is adjudicated. Not surprisingly, Mr. President the FAA opposes this language. They also opposed changes to the civil penalties program where they served as the judge and jury in civil penalty actions against airmen. Fortunately, we were able to change that so that airmen can now appeal a civil penalty case to the NTSB. This has worked very well because the NTSB has a clear understanding of the issues. This bill is supported by the Air Line Pilots Association, International; the Air Transport Association; the Allied Pilots Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; the Experimental Aircraft Association; National Air Carrier Association; National Air Transportation Association; National Business Aircraft Association; the NTSB Bar Association; and the Regional Airline Association. In closing, this bill will provide due process to certificate holders where now none exists, without compromising aviation safety. This is a reasonable and prudent response to an increasing problem for certificate holders. I hope our colleagues will support our efforts in this regard.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce Y2K Regulatory Amnesty Act of 1999. I believe this is a timely piece of legislation considering the current debate over the Year 2000 issue. Senators Bennett, Dodd, Hatch, Feinstein, and McCain have been working diligently on Year 2000 issues for quite some time. I applaud them for their efforts in dealing with such a unique and complex issue. However, as I have watched their progress and listened to their reports, I have noticed one significant omission in their discussions. Virtually nothing has been said about the potential regulatory nightmare that regulated entities could face as a result of a Y2K disruption. While the debate has been centered on getting government and businesses ready for the date change, very little has been said about how the government will actually deal with the private sector's problems associated with the year 2000. The last thing we need is for Regulatory Agencies to view a Y2K problem as an opportunity for a fine. As a result, I began to ask several regulated communities about their concerns over regulatory penalties as a result of a Y2K disruption. Surprisingly, many had not yet begun to think about the potential for regulatory problems. Instead, they have been focusing on becoming Y2K complaint, which is what they should be doing. However, one question remains; how will the federal government react to regulatory noncompliance due to a Y2K systems disruption? In response to that unanswered question, I am introducing the Y2K Regulatory Amnesty Act. My legislation will create a ``Y2K upset'', which is defined as an exception in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance beyond the reasonable control of the party. It will provide regulated communities with an affirmative defense from punitive actions from the federal government should they encounter a Y2K systems disruption. My legislation does not create a ``free pass'' for entities to violate federal regulations. A ``Y2K upset'' is strictly defined and can only be invoked if the entity has made all possible efforts to become Y2K complaint and meets other stringent requirements. Additionally, if the noncompliance would result in an immediate or imminent threat to public health, the defense is not applicable. For those individuals who do attempt to use this defense frivolously or fraudulently, there will be severe criminal penalties. Let me give you an example of how this provision will work. Assume that a small, local flower shop is run by a simple 3-computer network. The flower shop uses its computer network to manage payroll, accounts payable/receivable, and to track orders from customers. In an effort to become Y2K complaint, the flower shop hires an outside consultant to examine his network for signs of the Y2K bug and solve any problems that exist. This process costs the flower shop just over $1,000 but is well worth the investment considering the shop wants to be in business in January 2000. On January 1, 2000, flower shop finds that its payroll software is failing to operate. The shop owner contacts the software manufacturer, the computer manufacturer, and his consultant in order to find a solution. From the outset, the shop owner knows this delay means that he will be unable to calculate how much he owes the IRS in payroll taxes--not to mention, they will be late. For that small business owner that means a hefty penalty on top of the hassle and lost business the failure caused in the first place. Under my legislation, this small business owner would not be facing IRS penalties. The flower shop will still have to pay the taxes, but they won't be hit with a fine for a computer problem outside of their control. This is just one example of how this legislation would assist businesses as they attempt to become compliant. However, this legislation would also help many others. I have heard from several schools in my state that fear that if they lose federally required reporting information, they may face losses in federal funding. I have also heard from small, rural telephone cooperatives who fear that even a short-term Y2K-related systems disruption could result in significant FCC fines and penalties. The list is exhaustive. Virtually, anyone regulated by the federal government faces the unanswered question as to how the federal government will handle a Y2K systems disruption. There is also an added benefit to this legislation. Because this defense would only apply to those who have made good faith efforts to become compliant, it will serve as an added incentive for everyone to fix their Y2K problems upfront. Some people will say this legislation is unnecessary. However, I believe it is prudent to define how the federal government will approach Y2K systems disruptions in a regulatory context. But, more importantly, I believe we need to establish the rules of the game in advance so that everyone is operating from the same page. In closing, I would urge each of my colleagues to become a cosponsor of the Y2K Regulatory Amnesty Act and join with me in working to remediate the potential regulatory problems associated with the coming date change. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the bill be inserted in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. I am very familiar with this issue and have discussed it at length with the Army. We expect that the Secretary of the Army will provide the requisite certifications at the appropriate time, which is just prior to the actual conduct of the live-fire tests. I know that in the case of Starstreak, the missile contractor must make certain modifications at its own expense in order to make the missile compatible for use at air speeds consistent with the normal operating limits of the Apache helicopter and consistent with the survivability of the aircraft. The missile contractor has briefed these fixes to the Army and informed the Army in writing that the fixes will be made at no expense to the United States. By the time the Army is ready to conduct actual live firings the Secretary will be able to make all the certifications required by law.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. He and I have worked together on this issue over the past several years. We proposed that the Appropriations Committee address the issue of an operational test and evaluation in its bill and they did so after the Army failed to comply with report language that was included in the FY 1998 Defense Appropriations Conference Report. To me, it is clear that the Congress directed the Army, in bill language in Title IV of the FY 1999 Defense Appropriations Act, to begin the development of a test and evaluation plan during this fiscal year using the $15 million provided in Title IV as well as to commence work integrating the two candidate missiles on an AH-64D helicopter; and that the money could be used for no other purpose. Does the distinguished Chairman agree with me?

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it seems we are about to go to war with Yugoslavia. Our stated purpose is to stop the humanitarian disaster there caused by a civil war. If we do not act, we are told, innocent people will be killed, will be wounded, will be displaced from their homes. Indeed, over 2,000 have already been killed in the Kosovo civil war in just the last year. Many more have been uprooted. There are serious problems there. No one disputes that. My question is, Where is the vital U.S. national interest? The National Defense Council Foundation recently reported that there are at least 60 conflicts going on in the world involving humanitarian suffering of one kind or another. There are 30 wars being waged--civil wars, guerrilla wars, major terrorist campaigns. Many are driven by ethnic quarrels and religious disputes which have raged for decades, if not for centuries. Just consider a partial list from recent years: 800,000 to 1 million people have been brutally murdered in Rwanda alone; tens of thousands killed in civil wars in Sudan, Algeria and Angola; thousands killed in civil war in Ethiopia; in January, 140 civilians killed by paramilitary squads in Colombia; including 27 worshipers slain during a village church service. Why is there no outcry for these millions of people who are being brutally murdered in other places in the world, but we are all concerned about the humanitarian problems in Kosovo? I have to say this, and I know it is very unpopular to say it, but I am going to quote a guy whose name is Roger Wilkins. He is a professor of history and American culture at George Mason University: I think it is pretty clear. U.S. foreign policy is geared to the European-American sensibility which takes the lives of white people much more seriously than the lives of people who aren't white. Let me read a couple paragraphs from an article in the Minneapolis- St. Paul Star Tribune on January 31, 1999: But no one mobilized on behalf of perhaps 500 people who were shot, hacked and burned to death in a village in eastern Congo, in central Africa, around the same time. No outrage was expressed on behalf of many other innocents who had the misfortune to be slain just off the world's stage over the past few weeks. Why do 45 white Europeans rate an all-out response while several hundred black Africans are barely worth notice? And this is all in that same timeframe. Further quoting the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune: While U.S. officials struggled to provide an answer, analysts said the uneven U.S. responses to a spurt of violence in the past month illuminates not just an immoral or perhaps racist foreign policy, but one that fails on pragmatic and strategic grounds as well. So now the President wants us to send the U.S. military into Kosovo, not to enforce a peace agreement--we do not have a peace agreement, as we were told 2 weeks ago--but to inject ourselves into the middle of an ongoing civil war, with no clearly defined military objective, no assurance of success, no exit strategy and great, great risk to our pilots and men and women in uniform. We know that the Yugoslav leader, Mr. Milosevic, is a bad guy. No one disputes that. But are we absolutely sure that there are some good guys, too? Are there any good guys in the fight that stretches back over 500 years? When I was in Kosovo recently, I was horrified as I was going through the main road--Kosovo is only 75 miles wide and 75 miles long, and there is one road going all the way through it. I was only able to see two dead people at the time. They turned them over and both of them were Serbs. They had been executed at pointblank range. And they were Serbs, not Kosovars, not Albanians. So the national interest here is not at all clear. Let me quote Dr. Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser. In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on February 24, Kissinger said he was opposed to U.S. military involvement in Kosovo. He is not unaware of the humanitarian concerns that the President and others talk about. Here are just a few of the highlights of what he said: The proposed deployment in Kosovo does not deal with any threat to American security as traditionally conceived. Kosovo is no more a threat to America than Haiti was to Europe. If Kosovo, why not East Africa or Central Asia? We must take care not to stretch ourselves too thin in the face of far less ambiguous threats in the Middle East and Northeast Asia. Each incremental deployment into the Balkans is bound to weaken our ability to deal with Saddam Hussein and North Korea. I think this is very, very significant, the last two points. First of all, I have asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I have asked the Chiefs, I have asked the CINCs, the commanders in chief, this question: If we have to send troops into Kosovo--keep in mind that people may lie to you and say this is going to be an airstrike. Anybody who knows anything about military strategy and warfare knows you can't do it all from the air. You have to ultimately send in ground troops. So we are talking about sending in ground troops. That is in a theater where the logistics support for ground troops is handled out of the 21st TACOM in Germany. I was over in the 21st TACOM. Right now, they are at 110 percent capacity just supporting Bosnia. They don't have any more capacity. The commander in chief there said, if we send ground troops into Iraq or Kosovo, we are going to be 100 percent dependent upon Guard and Reserve to support those troops. And look what has happened to the Guard and Reserve now because of the decimation of our military through its budget, finding ourselves only half the size we were in 1991. Right now, we don't have the capacity. We have to depend on Guard and Reserves, and in doing this we don't have the critical MOSs. You can't expect doctors in the Guard to be deployed for 270 days and maintain their practice, so we now have ourselves faced with a problem, a serious problem, and that is we cannot carry out the national military strategy, which is to be able to defend America on two regional fronts. We don't have the capacity to do it. If we could do it on nearly simultaneous fronts within 45 days between each conflict, then we go up from low-medium risk to a medium-high risk, which is translated in lives of Americans. Going into Kosovo for an unlimited duration at who knows what cost, who knows the amount of risk, the risk will be higher. I chair the readiness subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. President, and I can tell you right now that we are in the same situation we were in in the late 1970s with the hollow force. We can't afford to dilute our military strength anymore. And that is not even mentioning the immediate risk to our forces that they will face in Yugoslavia where the Serbs have sophisticated Russian-made air defense and thousands of well-trained and equipped troops motivated to fight and die for their country. In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, some of our top military leaders were very frank about what they expected for any U.S. military operation in Kosovo. Air Force Chief of Staff General Ryan said, ``There stands a very good chance that we will lose aircraft against Yugoslavian air defense.'' Navy Chief of Staff, Admiral Johnson, said, ``We must be prepared to take losses.'' Marine Commandant, General Krulak, said it will be ``tremendously dangerous.'' And then George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, said this is not Bosnia we are talking about, this is Kosovo where they are not tired, they are not worn out, and they are ready to fight and kill Americans. So we are faced with that serious problem, Mr. President. We should not under any circumstances go into Kosovo. Our vital security interests are not at stake, where we don't have a clear military objective or an exit strategy, or where our policy doesn't fit into any coherent broader foreign policy vision. So let me go back to my opening statement. Since we have no national security risks at stake, there must be another reason for our involvement. It is not humanitarian because of the following: 800,000 to 1 million killed in ethnic strife in Rwanda; tens of thousands killed in civil wars in Sudan, Algeria, and Angola; thousands killed in civil war in Ethiopia; in January, 140 civilians killed by paramilitary squads in Colombia, including 27 worshipers slain during a village church service. Why is there no outcry for U.S. involvement in these obvious humanitarian situations? ``I think it's pretty clear,'' said Roger Wilkins, professor of history and American culture at George Mason University. ``U.S. foreign policy is geared to the European-American sensibility which takes the lives of white people much more seriously than the lives of people who aren't white.'' Anyone who supports our sending American troops into Kosovo must be aware this will come back and haunt them. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Medical Savings Account Expansion Act of 1999. There has been much said recently regarding the need to reform health care. I agree with many of my colleagues that health care is indeed in need of serious reform. However, the nature and the scope of reforms are open to debate. During the health care debate of 1996, the Congress focused its efforts on attempting to provide the uninsured with insurance. Included in the legislation, Congress created a demonstration project in order to test the effectiveness of Medical Savings Accounts. However, in establishing the demonstration project, the Congress created numerous legislative roadblocks to the success of Medical Savings Accounts. As we are all aware, Medical Savings Accounts combine a high deductible insurance policy and tax exempt accounts for the purpose of providing health care. MSA holders use these accounts to purchase routine health care services. When account holders spend all of the funds in their account and reach their annual deductible, their health insurance policy kicks in. If they don't spend all the money in the account, they get to keep what's left, plus interest for the following year. The creation of Medical Savings Accounts was the result of a bipartisan coalition that many in the Senate worked long and hard to achieve. Medical Savings Accounts are really based on a simple principle that should be at the heart of the health care reform, that being, empowering people to take control of their own health care improves the system for everyone. Expanding MSAs is one small, but important, step in that regard. Providing individuals with an incentive to save money on their health care costs encourages them to be better consumers. The result is much needed cost control and consumer responsibility. Mr. President, I think as the Congress begins to discuss health care reform this year, we must move away from the debate on the regulation and rationing of health care and focus our energies on providing health care to the uninsured. Instead of concentrating our efforts on reforms that will likely result in less health care, we should be trying to expand the opportunity for health care. At the same time, we must do so in a cost effective and market oriented way. MSAs meet that goal. According to the General Accounting Office, more than 37% of the people who have opted to buy an MSA under the 1996 law were previously uninsured. That bears repeating; people who have previously been uninsured, are now buying health insurance. We need to make it possible for more people to obtain health care insurance. Now, compare those 37% of previously uninsured who now have health insurance with the projected 400,000 people who would lose their current health insurance if the Congress does something that would raise current health insurance premiums by just one percentage point and the argument becomes even stronger to expand the use of MSAs. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today does just that, it makes Medical Savings Accounts more readily available to more people by eliminating many of the legislative and regulatory roadblocks to their continued success. The GAO report referred to earlier, points out that one of the key reasons why MSAs have not been as successful as originally thought is the complexity of the law. Let me touch on a just few of the problems my legislation addresses. First is the scope of the demonstration project. Mr. President, I believe we should drop the 750,000 cap and extend the life of the project indefinitely. The 750,000 cap is merely an arbitrary number negotiated by the Congress. By lifting the cap and making MSAs permanent, we will be allowing the market to decide whether MSAs are a viable alternative in health insurance. The cap and the limited time constraint create a disincentive for insurance companies to provide MSAs as an option. The GAO study I cited earlier supports this conclusion. The majority of companies who offered MSA plans did so in order to preserve a share of the market. The result, few, if any, are aggressively marketing MSAs. If Congress is serious about testing the effectiveness of MSAs in the marketplace, we must free them from unnecessary and arbitrarily imposed restraints. Second, under current law, either an employer or an employee can contribute directly to an MSA, but not both. The legislation I am introducing would allow both employers and employees to contribute to a Medical Savings Account. This just makes sense. By limiting who can contribute to an individual MSA, the government has predetermined the limits of contributions. I think many employers would prefer to contribute to an individual's health care account, rather than continue the costly, third-party payer system. By allowing both employers and employees to contribute to MSAs, we will be giving more flexibility to Medical Savings Accounts. That flexibility will allow more people to obtain MSAs and undoubtedly contribute to their success. One of the arguments frequently made against MSAs is that they are for the rich. Certainly that is an understandable conclusion, given the fact that we limit who can contribute to MSAs. By lifting the contribution restrictions, individuals of all income levels will find MSAs a viable health care alternative. As I travel throughout Oklahoma, a common complaint is the access to quality health care and the rising cost of health care. In my state, managed care is not always an option for many people in rural areas. However, Medical Savings Accounts are an option for many families because MSAs give them the choice to pursue individualized health care that fits their needs. These are the sorts of solutions that our constituents have sent us to Washington to find. They are not interested in more government. In fact, many want less. Yet, all we offer them is differing degrees of government intrusion in their lives. Mr. President, the debate in the 105th Congress clearly demonstrated we are all concerned about access to health care, doctor choice, cost, and security. As the debate moves forward in the 106th Congress, I want to urge my colleagues to consider alternatives to further big- government and to be bold enough to pursue them. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Medical Savings Account Expansion Act of 1999. There has been much said recently regarding the need to reform health care. I agree with many of my colleagues that health care is indeed in need of serious reform. However, the nature and the scope of reforms are open to debate. During the health care debate of 1996, the Congress focused its efforts on attempting to provide the uninsured with insurance. Included in the legislation, Congress created a demonstration project in order to test the effectiveness of Medical Savings Accounts. However, in establishing the demonstration project, the Congress created numerous legislative roadblocks to the success of Medical Savings Accounts. As we are all aware, Medical Savings Accounts combine a high deductible insurance policy and tax exempt accounts for the purpose of providing health care. MSA holders use these accounts to purchase routine health care services. When account holders spend all of the funds in their account and reach their annual deductible, their health insurance policy kicks in. If they don't spend all the money in the account, they get to keep what's left, plus interest for the following year. The creation of Medical Savings Accounts was the result of a bipartisan coalition that many in the Senate worked long and hard to achieve. Medical Savings Accounts are really based on a simple principle that should be at the heart of the health care reform, that being, empowering people to take control of their own health care improves the system for everyone. Expanding MSAs is one small, but important, step in that regard. Providing individuals with an incentive to save money on their health care costs encourages them to be better consumers. The result is much needed cost control and consumer responsibility. Mr. President, I think as the Congress begins to discuss health care reform this year, we must move away from the debate on the regulation and rationing of health care and focus our energies on providing health care to the uninsured. Instead of concentrating our efforts on reforms that will likely result in less health care, we should be trying to expand the opportunity for health care. At the same time, we must do so in a cost effective and market oriented way. MSAs meet that goal. According to the General Accounting Office, more than 37% of the people who have opted to buy an MSA under the 1996 law were previously uninsured. That bears repeating; people who have previously been uninsured, are now buying health insurance. We need to make it possible for more people to obtain health care insurance. Now, compare those 37% of previously uninsured who now have health insurance with the projected 400,000 people who would lose their current health insurance if the Congress does something that would raise current health insurance premiums by just one percentage point and the argument becomes even stronger to expand the use of MSAs. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today does just that, it makes Medical Savings Accounts more readily available to more people by eliminating many of the legislative and regulatory roadblocks to their continued success. The GAO report referred to earlier, points out that one of the key reasons why MSAs have not been as successful as originally thought is the complexity of the law. Let me touch on a just few of the problems my legislation addresses. First is the scope of the demonstration project. Mr. President, I believe we should drop the 750,000 cap and extend the life of the project indefinitely. The 750,000 cap is merely an arbitrary number negotiated by the Congress. By lifting the cap and making MSAs permanent, we will be allowing the market to decide whether MSAs are a viable alternative in health insurance. The cap and the limited time constraint create a disincentive for insurance companies to provide MSAs as an option. The GAO study I cited earlier supports this conclusion. The majority of companies who offered MSA plans did so in order to preserve a share of the market. The result, few, if any, are aggressively marketing MSAs. If Congress is serious about testing the effectiveness of MSAs in the marketplace, we must free them from unnecessary and arbitrarily imposed restraints. Second, under current law, either an employer or an employee can contribute directly to an MSA, but not both. The legislation I am introducing would allow both employers and employees to contribute to a Medical Savings Account. This just makes sense. By limiting who can contribute to an individual MSA, the government has predetermined the limits of contributions. I think many employers would prefer to contribute to an individual's health care account, rather than continue the costly, third-party payer system. By allowing both employers and employees to contribute to MSAs, we will be giving more flexibility to Medical Savings Accounts. That flexibility will allow more people to obtain MSAs and undoubtedly contribute to their success. One of the arguments frequently made against MSAs is that they are for the rich. Certainly that is an understandable conclusion, given the fact that we limit who can contribute to MSAs. By lifting the contribution restrictions, individuals of all income levels will find MSAs a viable health care alternative. As I travel throughout Oklahoma, a common complaint is the access to quality health care and the rising cost of health care. In my state, managed care is not always an option for many people in rural areas. However, Medical Savings Accounts are an option for many families because MSAs give them the choice to pursue individualized health care that fits their needs. These are the sorts of solutions that our constituents have sent us to Washington to find. They are not interested in more government. In fact, many want less. Yet, all we offer them is differing degrees of government intrusion in their lives. Mr. President, the debate in the 105th Congress clearly demonstrated we are all concerned about access to health care, doctor choice, cost, and security. As the debate moves forward in the 106th Congress, I want to urge my colleagues to consider alternatives to further big- government and to be bold enough to pursue them. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want you to listen. I am going to tell you a story of espionage, conspiracy, deception, and coverup, a story with life and death implications for millions of Americans, a story about national security, and a President and an administration that deliberately chose to put national security at risk, while telling everyone that everything was fine. If it was written in a book, Mr. President, it wouldn't sell, because no one would believe it. If it was fictionalized in a novel, few could conceive it. But it is true. For the sake of my statement today, I am stating that the President withheld information and covered up the Chinese theft of our technology. But I am realistic enough to know that a person with the history of deception this President has will have provided himself with some cover in case he got caught. So I am sure there is a paper trail that he can allege. The way the President probably covered himself was to include tidbits about this theft buried in briefings of 40 or 50 other items so the significance of it would not be noticed. But a paper trail would be established. Anticipating that, I, over the weekend, talked to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Porter Goss, and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time of the discovery of this secret, this information, Senator Arlen Specter. Neither chairman was notified of the W-88 nuclear warhead technology theft. And these would have been the first to be notified, Mr. President. There can be no doubt that President Clinton engaged in a coverup scheme. Let me read three paragraphs from last week's op-ed article by Michael Kelly in the Washington Post, entitled ``Lies About China.'' I am quoting now, Mr. President: In April 1996, Energy Department officials informed Samuel Berger, then Clinton's deputy national security advisor, that Notra Trulock, the department's chief of intelligence, had uncovered evidence that showed China had learned how to miniaturize nuclear bombs, allowing for smaller, more lethal warheads . . . Further quoting: The Times reports that the House Intelligence Committee asked Trulock for a briefing in July 1998. Trulock asked for permission from Elizabeth Moler, then acting energy secretary. According to Trulock, Moler told him not to brief the committee because the information might be used against Clinton's China policy. . . Further quoting: The White House's secret would have remained secret had it not been for a select investigative committee headed by Republican [Representative] Christopher Cox. . . But even using the President's fictitious paper trail, the earliest either chairman could have known about it would have been late in the spring of 1997, years after the Clinton administration learned of it and, of course, after the 1996 election. I start, Mr. President, by listing a few things which we now know to be true, factual, incontrovertible, and nonclassified. For years, the Clinton administration covered up China's interest of top secret U.S. nuclear weapons data. They never informed the Congress or the American people about what had happened or its significance to our national security. Let me tell you what President Clinton did during this period of time. During this period of time, the President misled the American people on numerous occasions about the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles in the post-cold-war era. During this period of time, President Clinton made statements on over 130 separate occasions, such as the following:--and I am quoting-- For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there is not a single solitary nuclear missile pointed at an American child tonight. Not one. Not a single one. During this period of time, he knew that China was targeting up to 18 intercontinental ballistic missiles at American children. During this period of time, President Clinton signed export control waivers which allowed his top campaign fundraisers' aerospace company to transfer sensitive U.S. missile guidance technology to China. During this period of time, he shifted the prime satellite export responsibility from the State Department, where it had always been to maintain security, to the Commerce Department so that it would be easier to share sensitive information with the Chinese and others. During this period of time, President Clinton hosted over 100 White House fundraisers as a part of a larger aggressive scheme to raise campaign contributions, many from illegal foreign sources primarily, including sources in China. Among guests permitted to attend these White House fundraisers were a convicted felon and a Chinese arms dealer. During this period of time, John Huang, Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, James Riady, and others with strong ties to China, were deeply involved, with the President's knowledge, in raising Chinese-tainted campaign cash for the Clinton campaign. During this period of time, John Huang, who had been given a security clearance without a background check, was permitted to receive numerous classified CIA briefings, both during and after his stay at the Commerce Department. And during this period of time, President Clinton was successfully stopping the deployment of a national missile defense system--exposing every American life to a missile attack, leaving us with no defense whatsoever against an intercontinental ballistic missile. Mr. President, China's theft of secret data on the so-called W-88 nuclear warhead may be one of the most serious breaches of national security in the history of our Nation, more serious than Aldrich Ames; perhaps more serious than the Rosenbergs. The public needs to understand that this story is true. This is not about partisanship. It is not about some ancient history of some long gone cold war. This is about the real world here and now. It is about national security in its most important aspects. It is about protecting our freedom and our existence as a Nation. This is ultimately a matter which concerns the life and death of every American citizen. The W-88 is the most advanced nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal and is carried on top of a Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile. This is the cornerstone weapon of our Nation's nuclear deterrent. As many as 8 can fit on top of a submarine-launched missile; as many as 10 can fit on top of a land-based missile--either ours or China's. We are talking about a miniaturized warhead much smaller in size than the Hiroshima atomic bomb but 10 times more powerful. This chart appeared in the New York Times on March 6 of this year. The first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima weighed almost 9,000 pounds, yielded 15 kilotons and was dropped from a plane. By contrast, the modern W-88 is more powerful than this. It is 2.6 feet in length and weighs about 300 pounds and yields up to 150 kilotons. Several fit into the head of one missile. The technology on which it is built is super top secret and represents billions of dollars and years, if not decades, of investment on the part of dedicated scientists and engineers working in the supreme American national interest. Some ask, why does America have such a weapon? Because it is part of our responsibility as a world superpower to have the most advanced, efficient, and credible nuclear deterrent, not only to protect our own freedom but the freedom of our allies. It is part of our policy of peace through strength. I think about my friend from Texas, the Senator who is always talking about how we want to see the day when the lion and the lamb lie down together. But when that happens, we want to make sure we are the lion and not the lamb. We don't intend to use any of these nuclear weapons. It is a fact of life, in the most dangerous world we live in, we have to be prepared to deter any potential adversary. The W-88 allows for multiple warheads to be placed on one missile. With this technology, China will now be able to put up to 10 warheads on a single long-range missile. Each warhead is targeted at a different city, each city subject to an explosion 10 times as great as that which destroyed Hiroshima at the end of World War II. Mr. President, I am from Oklahoma. I can remember in 1995 when the bomb went off. It was a truck bomb. A 4,800-pound truck bomb destroyed the Murrah Office Building, maiming and killing 168 Oklahomans. I remember standing out there and watching the police and the firemen enter the building where there was no security and pulling out parts of bodies and bodies. It was the most devastating thing I have ever experienced. It was the worst act of terrorism ever recorded on American soil. That bomb had a force of 1,000 pounds of TNT, half of 1 ton. By contrast, the Hiroshima bomb had an explosive force of 15 tons, or 30,000 times as large as the Oklahoma City bomb. The W-88, while smaller in physical size, had a force of 150 kilotons, or 300,000 times the explosion power of the Oklahoma City bomb. By carrying 10 of these, it would be 3 million times the force of the Oklahoma City bomb. The more compact W-88 warhead makes possible what is called MIRV technology, or multiple independent reentry vehicle, which allows the missile to reenter and then go to various targets. This is technology that we thought China was many, many years away from developing on its own, and they stole this technology, and President Clinton covered it up. We also used to think North Korea was many years away from building a long-range multiple stage rocket. I got a phone call and a letter from Henry Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on August 24. In this letter he said he was confident we would have 3 years warning of any new long-range missile threat--that is, any new country that we already didn't know about. Seven days later, on August 31, a multiple- stage rocket was launched in North Korea. Part of it reached the coast of Alaska. Because of the disparity over what our nuclear threat is, in the wisdom of the House and the Senate, the Democrats and the Republicans commissioned the Rumsfeld Committee. We were charged with the responsibility of finding the nine most informed scientists and authorities on missile technology, who formed a committee for assessing the threat that we have in this country. This was a bipartisan committee, appointed jointly by Democrats and Republicans. Of the nine, five were Republican appointments and four were Democrat appointments. They concluded unanimously that when it comes to advanced missiles and weapons, with countries willing to buy, sell, and steal technology, ``We live in an environment of little or no warning.'' That means we must immediately be prepared. Last year, you may remember it was revealed that the Clinton administration had changed the approval process for high-technology satellite transfers, how waivers were granted for American companies so they could launch satellites in China. This ultimately resulted in China acquiring advanced United States missile guidance technology, making their missiles more accurate and more reliable. President Clinton personally signed the waiver allowing China to acquire this missile technology. Let me repeat, President Clinton personally signed the waiver allowing China to achieve this missile technology. Executives of these two corporations which benefited, Loral and Hughes, were among the largest financial creditors to President Clinton's campaign ever but this is not important. The motive for aiding and abetting our adversaries could be money, or it could be some kind of perverted allegiance to some of these countries, or it could be just a callous disregard for the lives of American citizens. The motive is not important. The fact is, President Clinton did it and he knew exactly what he was doing. Accompanying the transferred missile guidance technology with the stolen nuclear weapon technology, China can threaten United States cities with accurate, reliable, and horribly destructive multiple- warhead nuclear missiles. This is not science fiction. Two years ago, a high-ranking Chinese official made a statement. Two years ago, when the Chinese were trying to intimidate the elections of the Taiwanese and they were launching missiles at the Taiwan Straits, it was suggested to this high-ranking military official in China that it could be that America would come to Taiwan's defense and would intervene. His response was, ``No, they are not going to do that because America would rather defend Los Angeles than defend Taipei.'' At the very least, that is an indirect threat to use missiles on the United States of America. By helping China develop their long-range missiles, President Clinton also helped North Korea and other rogue nations with theirs--nations like Iran. Let me read three paragraphs from last week's Washington Times article entitled ``China Assists North Korea Space Launches.'' China is sharing space technology with North Korea, a move that could boost P'yongyang's long-range missile program, White House and Pentagon officials told the Washington Times. . . . Another Pentagon report on the 1996 Chinese booster that failed to launch a U.S. satellite concluded that ``U.S. national security was harmed'' by the improper sharing of technology with China by Hughes and other satellite maker Loral Space & Communications Ltd. . . . Keep in mind, it was President Clinton who signed the waiver to give the Chinese this technology. In 1994, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency reported that it believed China had helped design the Taepo Dong 2 missile (this is the North Korea missile) because its first stage diameter is very close in size to the Chinese CSS-2 immediate range missile. It is factual to say that President Clinton knew he was giving our missile technology to North Korea as well as China. I take this moment to remind my colleagues once again that America today has no defense whatever against such a threat. The Clinton administration today, despite its rhetoric, opposes the deployment of any national missile defense system. Someone who is pretty smart, back in 1983 when they determined that we would have to have a defense against an incoming missile by fiscal year 1998--that is, last year--so during the Reagan administration, then the Bush Administration, they embarked on this thing called SDI, Strategic Defense Initiative, to make sure that by 1998 we would have something to defend ourselves in the event an ICBM came over from China, from Russia, from Iran, from North Korea, from anywhere. So we were on schedule to have this deployed by fiscal year 1998. Well, in 1993, that came to a screeching halt when President Clinton vetoed the defense authorization bill and vetoed all further efforts, including the bills that were introduced to put us on line with the national missile defense system. As an excuse for this, he said he had to protect the integrity of the 1972 ABM Treaty. Let me remind you that treaty was not a Democrat-inspired treaty. That was Republican- inspired; it was President Nixon and Henry Kissinger. The idea was that we had two superpowers, the U.S.S.R. and the United States of America. So we made a deal with them. Under the ABM Treaty, we said we won't defend ourselves, and you don't defend yourselves, and that way, if they launch a missile that goes to us, we launch one that goes back to them and everybody dies. I didn't like that theory back then, but it made sense when there were two superpowers. That is not true today. Today, virtually every country has a weapon of mass destruction. We have missiles that we are finding that now even North Korea has. China is exchanging technology and systems with Iran and other countries like that. So there is a proliferation of missiles as well as weapons of mass destruction. I have to say that the mutual assured destruction concept which was adopted at that time has no relevance today. Even Henry Kissinger, who was the architect of the ABM Treaty of 1972 said, ``It's nuts to make a virtue out of our vulnerability.'' He said we should not be looking at that. Besides, somebody should remind the President that was a treaty that was made in 1972, and it was made between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union no longer exists. So I have to say that President Clinton is solely responsible for the fact that we are totally defenseless against an incoming ICBM from China or any other place in the world. Now, Mr. President, from news reports, this is some of what we know about China's theft of our nuclear secrets. Apparently, a spy at the Los Alamos weapons lab succeeded in transferring data on this highly classified W-88 warhead technology to China in the mid-1980s. That was not during the current administration; nobody refutes that. But our Government did not find out about it until April of 1995. That is 3 years into the Clinton administration. This is a critical date, Mr. President. We did not know about the theft until April of 1995. Detection came when experts analyzed data from then-recent Chinese underground nuclear tests and saw remarkable similarities to the W-88 U.S. warhead to what they were experimenting with. Later in 1995, secret Chinese Government documents confirmed that there had been a security breach at Los Alamos. That was in 1995. Deputy National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was first briefed about it. President Clinton did not respond then because he was obviously a little preoccupied with what he considered to be more important matters at that time. After all, there were White House fundraisers to host, foreign campaign contributions, satellite transfers to approve, high technology trade with China to promote and, of course, an election to be won--at all costs. Mr. Berger was well aware of all this. We know that he sat in on strategy sessions for the campaign for 1996. So this was also the time when President Clinton was running around the country telling audiences that ``for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there is not a single, solitary nuclear missile pointed at an American child tonight. Not one. Not a single one.'' Of course everybody cheered, wanting to believe he was telling the truth. Of all the lies this President has told, this is the most egregious of all. He repeated this misleading, deceptive lie over 130 times between 1995 and 1997, right at the very time he and his national security advisors knew that this horrible breach of nuclear security had occurred and was under investigation. It was also at that very time that he knew that up to 18 American cities were being targeted by Chinese long-range missiles, missiles that had and have the potential of killing millions of Americans. During this time, he said 130 times: ``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there is not a single, solitary nuclear missile pointed at an American child tonight. Not one. Not a single one.'' So while the American people consume his misleading and dishonest public statements--helping to secure his reelection --nothing was done for over a year about the security breach at Los Alamos. The likely suspect spy was identified in early 1997, and the FBI urged that he at least be transferred to a less sensitive position. But inexplicably, he was allowed to keep his sensitive job at Los Alamos for a another year and a half. This was the spy who was responsible for the theft, and President Clinton kept him in that sensitive job for another year and a half. Finally, he was fired by Energy Secretary Richardson last Monday--a week ago today, March 8, 1999--but only after he was publicly identified in news reports as having failed two previous lie detector tests. In all of this, was Congress ever informed? As a Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee, I certainly was not. As I said earlier, I talked to the chairmen of both the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee and they weren't informed either. Did the President ever take the appropriate aggressive and timely steps that should have been taken in order to protect the national security interest in the wake of this matter? No, he did not. Why? Why the delays? Why the lack of consultation and communication? Why the seeming indifference to this very, very serious breach of national security? We will be asking some tough questions about this in the days to come. I note that the Armed Services Committee will have a hearing on this, and the Intelligence Committee will have a hearing the day after tomorrow, Wednesday. We will have a lot of questions. The American people need to know what is going on here. The President's National Security Advisor, Mr. Berger, has a lot to answer for here. He had better be prepared to answer questions from Members of Congress honestly, forthrightly, and without intention to deceive, mislead, or change the meaning of words. Otherwise, he should resign now and take the rap for President Clinton. I am convinced that we have not yet scratched the surface of the national security scandal exposed by these most recent revelations. This administration obviously wanted nothing to interfere with developing good relations with China. While it was soliciting and accepting campaign contributions from China, it was dragging its feet on investigating the most egregious espionage operation China had ever succeeded in pulling off in the U.S., a breach of security which could potentially put the lives of millions of Americans at great risk. This is, without doubt, the worst example yet of how this administration has put its own selfish motives above the national security interests of this country and above the protection of American lives. The American people and the Congress must demand that the President be held accountable for this gross dereliction of duty. I guess the question is, What can we do? We are Members of Congress and what can we do? I am not sure there is anything we can do except inform the American people and let public outrage solve the problem. And why are we in Congress so limited in what we can do? Our Founding Fathers never envisioned we would have a President who would do these kinds of things and act in these ways. This is why the Constitution gives the President great latitude of action in carrying out his duties and why he is protected from the other branches of Government under the separation of powers. When John Adams wrote to his wife after the first night he spent in the White House in 1799, he spoke of the expectations of all the founders during that time: ``May only honest and wise men rule under this roof.'' The White House. There was an assumption that the American people would always elect Presidents with a basic level of morality, honesty and integrity, who out of patriotism would always put the welfare of the country above any personal ambitions for power or glory. This President knew he was covering up information vital to the safety and well-being of every American--that China had stolen from us the advanced technology which would give them the capability to kill millions of Americans in multiple cities with just one missile, and he knew it. In 1945, World War II was ended when the atomic bombs were dropped in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Each explosion destroyed an entire city, killing tens of thousands. The death toll in Hiroshima was about 75,000 lives from that 15-ton nuclear bomb. Just think, that with the technology that this President has transferred to China and what China has stolen and the President has covered up, China is now capable of producing a 150-kiloton bomb small enough to fit ten of them on top of one missile, each bomb targeted at a different American city with accuracy and reliability. Just extrapolating the numbers, that--in theory--is enough destructive power to kill as many as 7,500,000 Americans--with just one missile. And, due to this President who stopped our national missile defense effort, we have no defense. We have a President who acts as if he doesn't care about us. So finally, Mr. President, let me repeat the six proven incontrovertible facts: 1. President Clinton hosted over 100 campaign fundraisers in the White House, many with Chinese connections. 2. President Clinton used John Huang, Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, James Riady, and others with strong Chinese ties to raise campaign money. 3. President Clinton signed waivers to allow his top campaign fundraiser's aerospace company to transfer United States missile guidance technology to China. 4. President Clinton covered up the theft of our most valuable nuclear weapons technology. 5. President Clinton lied to the American people over 130 times about our Nation's security while he knew Chinese missiles were aimed at American children. 6. President Clinton single-handedly stopped the deployment of a national missile defense system, exposing every American life to a missile attack, leaving America with no defense whatsoever against an intercontinental ballistic missile. Again, it doesn't matter whether President Clinton did these things for Chinese campaign contributions because the motive for aiding and abetting our adversaries is not important. The fact is President Clinton did it and he knew exactly what he was doing. I'm not a lawyer, Mr. President, but I have to ask, could President Clinton have been tried for impeachment for the wrong crime? Why am I here telling the truth about the President? I think it is because I haven't heard anyone else do it. They know this President will lie with such conviction that the American people will continue to believe him, and they don't want to take the risk. I happened to go yesterday to the McLean Bible Church, and the sermon was about taking risks--being willing to take a risk. They talked about the Israelites who were in the desert, and they sent a team up to Canaan to look to see what the risk was up there. They came back, and they said: There are giants up there. We don't have a chance. We are like mosquitoes next to them, except for Caleb.'' Caleb came back, and he said, ``We should take the risks. We can win. We can fight and win.'' What happened? The rest of the story you know. You know what that is. God left the Israelites out in the desert, and he sent Caleb to the Promised Land. With all these blessings, we just do not seem to learn. I think Henry Ward Beecher said it in a different way. He said, ``I don't like those cold, precise, perfect people who, in order not to say wrong, say nothing . . . and in order not to do wrong, do nothing.'' We have a lot of people around here who are more concerned about their jobs that they would go ahead and do nothing. So somebody has to tell the truth about this President. We can't all be appeasers. An appeaser is a guy who throws his friends to the alligators hoping they will eat him last. Hiram Mann said, ``No man survives when freedom fails, the best men rot in filthy jails, and those who cry appease, appease are hanged by those they tried to please.'' I believe that truth will ultimately prevail. It is just stubborn. Winston Churchill said, ``Truth is incontrovertible. Ignorance may deride it, panic may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is.'' Mr. President, everything I have said during the course of the last 30 minutes is absolutely proven and true. I hope America is listening. We have a nation to save from this President. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 257, the missile defense bill. The majority leader has announced there will be no rollcall votes during today's session. However, Members are encouraged to come to the floor and offer amendments in relation to the missile defense bill. Any rollcall votes ordered today on amendments will be postponed to occur on Tuesday at a time to be determined by the two leaders. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 35 minutes in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks Senator Orrin Hatch be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss my support for the Education Flexibility Partnership Act or Ed- Flex as it has become known. Ed-Flex provides much needed relief to the schools of 12 states currently included in a demonstration project begun in 1994. Like many of my colleagues, I believe it is time to give this relief to the other 38 states who suffer from government over- regulation. In preparation for each new school year, teachers and school administrators throughout the country face the challenge of providing the highest level of education with a limited amount of resources. This has always been the case and will remain the true for generations to come. I know this from personal experience. My wife was an educator in the Tulsa Public School District for many years and both of my daughters are current teachers. In my conversations with them, I have seen first hand the problems associated with bureaucratic mandates handed down from Washington. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. Over the last three decades, the Federal Government has piled on mountains of bureaucratic redtape on local school districts. Between 1960 and 1990, the average percentage of school budgets devoted to classroom instruction declined from 61% in 1960 to 46% in 1990. The most significant reason for this decline is traced to the explosion of administrators and non-teaching support staff while the overall number of teachers has reduced. One primary reason for the growth in administrative personnel is the growth in regulations, both state and Federal. Let me show you just one example of how this is evidenced in Oklahoma. In my hometown of Tulsa, the Tulsa Public Schools have approximately 42,600 students. In order to provide quality education to those 42,600 students, there are approximately 225 administrative staff employed by the Tulsa Public Schools system. Now, I realize that some of these are essential managerial and administrative staff, however, how many are doing nothing more than trying to keep Tulsa schools' in compliance with Federal regulations? How many of those staff could be better utilized in classrooms across the district instead of spending their time dedicated to paperwork? And, this is just one example of one public school system in my state. The problem is the same in every single school system. Mr. President, it is clear, the more people and resources it requires to comply with government regulations, the fewer people and resources dedicated to teaching our children. Each time we create a new Federal program, with it comes numerous forms and reports. The schools must understand, complete these forms and reports and submit to the appropriate departments within the appropriate agencies, by the appropriate deadlines. Whether schools use teachers and administrators, or support staff and volunteering parents, to fulfill this obligation, valuable time and resources are used for Washington's paperwork, not student education. Let me illustrate this point further. Currently, the Federal Government provides approximately 7% of overall school funding. However, Federal paperwork accounts for upwards of 50% of all school paperwork. It is estimated that completing this paperwork requires about 49 million hours each year. Mr. President, that is the equivalent of 25,000 employees working full time for an entire year. According to one expert, it is estimated that it takes six times as many employees to administer a Federal education dollar as it does to administer one state education dollar. Again, these people are not teaching or educating our children, but completing bureaucratic red tape. Earlier, I discussed the number of administrative positions in the Tulsa Public Schools; but the problem is more pronounced in the state as a whole. There are approximately 5,950 administrative and other certified staff performing non-teaching duties in Oklahoma. Those 5,590 people represent about 10% of the total public school personnel. That is 10% doing something other than teaching children. That concerns me greatly. I have to wonder whether we are using our resources in the best way possible to meet the educational needs of our children. Now, some of my colleagues, and the President, believe that we need the Federal Government to hire an additional 100,000 teachers in order to reduce class size around the country. However, I have to wonder if that is really the answer to the problem. As I have just demonstrated, we have too many professional and certified staff in my state that are not educating children. Instead, they busy themselves attempting to comply with government regulations. If we can unburden school districts of cumbersome regulation, the local districts can shift some of their resources back to educating our children. If the Federal Government does require the states to hire additional teachers, it will simply be one more mandate handed down from Washington for the states to comply with once the dedicated Federal funds expire. You can be sure that if there are additional Federal mandates there will be additional non- teaching certified staff required to administer the program and that means another professional staff member not in the classroom teaching our children. As the bureaucratic mandates from Washington have increased, states needed a way to gain some flexibility to address their individual concerns. Our answer to the states was the Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Act of 1994, an effort I was proud to support while I was in the House of Representatives. First authorized in 1994 for six states, and expanded in 1996 for six additional states, Ed-Flex has given 12 state legislatures the freedom to identify the most efficient and effective means possible to meet the needs of students and schools in their states. Under Ed-Flex, the Department of Education gives to states and local districts the authority to waive certain Federal requirements that interfere with state and local efforts to improve education. In exchange for this flexibility, the state and local districts must agree to comply with certain federal core principles and agree to waive its own state regulations. The states must also agree to use the affected federal funds for their original purpose. Mr. President, I think it says something about the nature of our current bureaucracy that we have to give states the power to waive Federal regulations. If there were fewer onerous regulations in the first place, we would not have to pass legislation to give states the power to ignore federal regulations. Wouldn't it make more sense to let the states be responsible for the education of our children, not bureaucrats in Washington? In my State of Oklahoma, we have great diversity in our education needs. We have schools of all kinds; urban schools, rural schools, inner city schools, and suburban schools. In my conversations with educators and administrators, I hear them tell unique stories about the challenges they face in trying to educate their students. All of these educators tell different stories. However, not surprisingly, almost to a person, they tell me of the problems they have in complying with government regulations. It does not come as a surprise to me that the education challenges presented at urban schools like Tulsa McClain High School differ widely from the needs of smaller rural schools like Weatherford High School. Yet, they all have to comply with the same Federal regulations. Given the failings of the public schools today, it is little surprise that the cookie-cutter approach of the Federal Government has been a disaster. The time has come to move beyond a one-size-fits-all Federal approach in educating our children. As I look around our country, I see the great successes that our Governors are having in making progress in education reform. I am continually amazed at the policy innovations going on in State legislatures all over the country with regard to education. However, now, it is the Federal Government's responsibility to join with those Governors and give them more flexibility to continue to innovate and improve our public schools. I understand the need for accountability. However, I believe accountability is best when it closest to home and vested in Governors, State legislators, and local school board officials than with faceless Federal bureaucrats in Washington. State leaders understand this. That is why groups like the National Governor's Association and the National Conference of State Legislators have endorsed this legislation. As I have watched and listened to the debate on Ed-Flex, I have been surprised by many amendments offered by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Many of the proposed amendments seem counterproductive to the central purpose of Ed-Flex. Ed-Flex is about easing government mandates and regulations. However, many of the amendments we have debated would add to the mountain of Federal mandates applied to State and local school districts. As much as I hate to say this, it appears that many of my colleagues would rather have a political issue than have meaningful education reform. Mr. President, the results Ed-Flex prove the effectiveness of the demonstration program. Whether it is giving local districts the resources to provide one-on-one reading tutoring or lower the teacher to student ratios in classrooms, Ed-Flex has been a tremendous success. These are all things we can agree upon. Based on its proven track record, the time has come to expand Ed-Flex to the rest of the country. We need to continue to identify programs that work and expand them, while eliminating the programs that are ineffective. In closing, Mr. President, I want to thank Senators Frist and Wyden for their leadership on this issue. Their efforts prove that we can work together to the benefit of our children when it comes to educating our children. As the Senate proceeds with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act later this year, I look forward to working with them to continue to progress we have begun here today. Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to discuss my views on Ed-Flex and I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. Chief Justice, in the absence of hearing something that I haven't heard or seeing something that is unforeseen up to now, it is my plan to vote for conviction on the two Articles of Impeachment. I think this is probably the most important vote I will cast during the course of my lifetime. I say it very sincerely. I believe we are going to rise to the occasion. I had an experience back in 1975, 24 years ago. I was a member of the State Senate in Oklahoma. I can remember being called for jury duty, and I was very happy to find myself assigned to a murder case about which I had already expressed a definite opinion. I said I believed this defendant was surely guilty, and besides, I was the author of the capital punishment bill in the state legislature. So I thought for sure I wasn't going to be qualified as a juror. Well, I went through the qualification procedure and somehow they qualified me. Five days later, I was the foreman of the jury that acquitted that accused murderer. This can happen. It is an experience that taught me a lot about our judicial system. I sometimes say one of the few qualifications I have for the U.S. Senate is I am not a lawyer. So that when I read the Constitution, I know what it says; when I read the oath of office, I know what it says; when I read the law, I know what it says. I don't have to clutter up my mind with what the definition of ``is'' is. So it makes it a little easier for me. From a nonlawyer perspective let me share a couple of observations. First, insofar as perjury is concerned--lying under oath--I might be wrong, but I don't think there is a Senator in this Chamber who doesn't believe the President lied under oath. I quote from the White House counsel, Charles Ruff, himself who said: ``Reasonable people can believe the President lied under oath.'' I quote from Senator Chuck Schumer who said: ``He lied under oath both in the Paula Jones deposition and what he said in the grand jury.'' I quote from Representative Robert Wexler, a strong supporter of the President, who serves on the House Judiciary Committee, who said: ``The President did not tell the truth. He lied under oath.'' I quote from former U.S. Senator Paul Simon, one of my favorite Democrat colleagues, who appeared with me on a television program before the trial, who said: ``You have to be an extreme Clinton zealot to believe perjury was not committed.'' Second, as a non-attorney, I have a hard time reconciling the idea that there might be certain permissible exceptions to telling the truth under oath. Maybe you who are attorneys, and have a different background than mine, see it differently. But how can you reconcile this idea that under some conditions--if the subject matter is sex or something else--you can lie under oath? I really have a hard time with this. I know that morality is not supposed to be the issue here. We are supposed to concentrate on the two specific Articles of Impeachment. However, I don't think anyone can completely compartmentalize himself and totally disregard other things going on. All of us get many, many letters from young children, parents, teachers, and others who are deeply distressed about the President's behavior and its impact on the moral health of the Nation. I think I am very fortunate because my kids are all in their upper thirties and my eight grandchildren (make that nine--I count them when they are conceived) are all under 6, so I don't get those embarrassing questions. But I know many parents are struggling with this. The other thing that concerns me is the reprehensible, consistent attitude this president has displayed over the years against women. Take Paula Jones as just one example. She may not win a popularity poll, but her civil rights have just as much standing as anyone else's, do they not? Is not our country based on the principle that even the least among us is entitled to equal treatment under the law? It amazes me how these feminist organizations continue to hold this President in such high regard--groups such as the National Organization of Women. I went back and read their bylaws. They claim to want to protect women with regard to ``equal rights and responsibilities in all aspects of citizenship, public service, employment . . . including freedom from discrimination.'' And here we have a president who not only misused his power to seduce a college-age intern, but who has also engaged in extensive similar misconduct outside of his marriage. It is not just Monica Lewinsky. There is Gennifer Flowers, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Dolly Kyle Browning, Beth Coulson, Susan McDougal, Cristy Zercher--the list goes on and on. This President has a consistent pattern of using and abusing women. You know that. I imagine most of you watched the Monica Lewinsky tapes as I did. I don't know why the House managers didn't pick this up-- somehow they let it slip through--about when she told this story concerning the two security badges. She came here to Washington, this wide-eyed kid, and there is a blue badge that lets you get into the White House proper and a pink badge that lets you only into the Old Executive Office Building. And she wanted to be in there--in the West Wing--where she could see what was going on. She had the pink badge so she had to be escorted to the West Wing by someone else. So the very first day she meets and talks to the President in person, he begins the relationship we're talking about. He didn't even know her name. And then he reached across and grabbed her pink badge, yanked it down, and said, ``This is going to be a problem.'' I don't think there is anyone in the room who doesn't know what he was referring to. He was preparing to use this girl and abuse her and discard her like an old shirt. But I know that these are not things the lawyers expect us to consider. I do want to give another observation, though. I thought the playing field would be very uneven when this trial started. The members of the Judiciary Committee who are the House managers are all lawyers. But mostly, they are Congressmen first. Many of these Congressmen-lawyers had not been in a courtroom for literally years. And here they were taking on the most prestigious, the most prominent, the most skilled, the most experienced, the highest priced lawyers anywhere in America. And yet when they finished with their opening statements, there was no doubt the House managers had risen superbly to the occasion, and I believe they have done a great job throughout. The White House lawyers are very skilled, very persuasive people. I would make this observation--again, a non-lawyer observation: I felt that three or four of them should have quit their opening remarks about 5 minutes sooner than they did. They had a tendency to close their presentations with arguments that undermined their credibility. Cheryl Mills, for example, was really doing well, and she was very persuasive until she started at the very last talking about the President's record on civil rights, as if the civil rights of a person his associates had dubbed as ``trailer park trash'' were not significant, or the dignity of the intern he had branded ``a stalker'' was not significant. I really think she destroyed her otherwise very persuasive presentation. I think the same thing was true with Gregory Craig. He ended by talking about how conviction in this case would somehow ``destroy a fundamental underpinning of democracy'' by overturning the results of an election, as if Bob Dole would come in if that were to happen. Even our good friend, Dale Bumpers--I knew Dale Bumpers long before I came here to the U.S. Senate--did a great job. But I think he should have quit early, too, because at the very last it sounded like he was predicating the innocence of this President on his foreign policy. And as I just look at Iraq and what is going on over there, I think if that had been the test for this, I could have made up my mind a lot earlier. Another perspective I bring to this is as chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. Having been in the service myself, and knowing how important discipline is, I am very disturbed that we have so many cases where severe punishment is dealt to individuals who have engaged in conduct far less serious than that of the President. Consider: Captain Derrick Robinson, an Army officer, was caught up in the Aberdeen sex misconduct case and is serving time in Leavenworth for admitting to consensual sex with an enlisted person who was not his wife. Delmar Simpson is serving 25 years in a military prison because a court-martial found that, even though his relationship with a female recruit was consensual, the power granted him by his rank made such consensual sex with a subordinate unacceptable. Think of the power granted this President by his rank. Remember Kelly Flinn. She is not flying B-52s anymore. She was forced out the Air Force for lying about an adulterous affair. Sergeant Major Gene McKinney, the Army's top enlisted man, was tried for perjury, adultery, and obstruction of justice--all concerning sexual misconduct. He was convicted of obstruction, but not before his attorney asserted at the trial how people in uniform rightly ask: ``How can you hold an enlisted man to a higher standard than the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief?'' So I have looked at this and studied it. I think anyone who votes to acquit has to say that we are going to hold this President to a lower standard of conduct and behavior than we hold other people. I do not understand how they can come to any other conclusion. My wife and I have been married 40 years. I have a thing called the wife test. You go home and when you want to get an opinion that is totally apolitical, you ask your wife. So I went home and I presented the case--as explained so eloquently by the White House lawyers and others--on why we could have a lower standard of conduct for a President than we have for a judge. And I know the argument. And I expressed the argument to my wife in the kitchen. I said, there are a thousand judges, only one President. I went through the whole thing. Then she looked up and said, ``I thought the President appointed the judges.'' You know, my wife is so dumb, she is always asking me questions I can't answer. But I really believe that in this case we are getting at the truth. I really believe that the President of the United States should be held to the very highest of standards. You know, Winston Churchill said: ``Truth is incontrovertible. Ignorance may deride it, panic may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is.'' I think we have seen the truth. And I think the final truth is that this President should be held to the very highest of standards. Sometimes when I am not really sure I am right, I consult my best friend. His name is Jesus. And I asked that question. Now I will quote to you the response that is found in Luke: ``From one who has been entrusted with more, much more will be asked.'' Mr. Chief Justice, I think Jesus is right. Mr. CLELAND, Mr. Chief Justice, inasmuch as the impeachment trial of the President has focused on the importance of oaths, I have begun to reflect on the oaths I have taken in my life. In terms of affirming my allegiance to this nation and the United States Constitution, I have taken an oath four times. I have followed up each oath with my signature. The first such oath I took was when I was 21 years old. I was sworn in to the United States Army as a young Second Lieutenant. Later I followed my flag and my Commander-in-Chief in being a part of the armed military forces in the Vietnam War. After the war, I took another oath. This time I was sworn in as head of the Veterans' Administration under President Carter. I still remember that turbulent time after the Vietnam War when so many of my fellow veterans were returning from that conflict. The words from Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address seemed to constantly echo in my mind: ``. . .to care for him who has borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' Having been wounded in Vietnam myself I felt a grave responsibility to carry out my oath on behalf of my fellow veterans. The next time I took an oath it was January, 1997. It was on the occasion of being sworn into the United States Senate. As Vice President Al gore swore the new Senators in, I placed my right elbow on my Bible and raised my left hand in an oath to defend the Constitution against ``all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' Once in the Senate, I was fortunate to have been selected to follow distinguished former Georgia Senators Richard B. Russell and Sam Nunn in service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I fully expected that any threat to our Constitution, our electoral process, or our delicately-honed system of checks and balances would come from outside our country, not from within. I was wrong. This leads me to my most recent oath to do ``impartial justice'' in the Senate in the impeachment trial of the President of the United States. In my personal view, this final oath, sealed with my signature in a book which will become part of the archives of American history, is a culmination of the other three oaths I have taken. I have sworn to defend this country. I have sworn to take care of its defenders. I have sworn to uphold the Constitution for which my fellow defenders have suffered and died. How can I now turn my back and ignore the challenge to that Constitution posed by this precedent-setting, first-time ever impeachment of an elected President of the United States? I cannot. When my name is called in regular order for my vote on the articles of impeachment, I will vote ``not guilty.'' I have reached my decision after much effort. I have tried to keep an open mind and an open heart. I have attempted to search the depths of American history and the lore of our English forebearers for insight and guidance. I have counseled privately with experts on American history and constitutional law. I have met with knowledgeable sources inside and outside the government. I have personally listened to constituents in my state and throughout the nation. I have talked to them on the phone, read their letters and scanned their e-mail. I have tried to weave an appropriate course through the barrage of media talk and the system of political reporters doing their duty. I have given it my best shot. I understand now what Alexander Hamilton meant when he predicted 212 years ago that individual Senators faced with an impeachment trial had the ``awful discretion'' of removing a President. Yet, I believe Hamilton was correct when long ago he advocated placing his faith in the Senators, where he hoped to find, ``dignity and independence.'' I believe that under the circumstances the Senate has conducted itself appropriately, and has complied with Hamilton's standards of conducting an impeachment trial with ``dignity and independence.'' I also believe the Senate should continue to follow the standards set by our Founding Fathers regarding the use of impeachment power. According to the Founders as articulated in the Constitution, the impeachment clearly should be reserved for ``bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' This language did not just turn up in the Constitution overnight. The language grew and evolved over a period of months in Philadelphia in 1787. One of the Founding Fathers who especially impressed me is George Mason. Mason had an interesting background. Like many of our country's early statesmen, he was from Virginia. For me, Mason is a bridge of insight into what the impeachment clause in the Constitution is all about. Mason was a soldier. Indeed, he was an officer, a colonel. He, too, understood the grave responsibility of military leadership, of leading men in combat and in caring for them afterwards. He certainly knew about the gravity of his own personal oath. It was Mason, then, who articulated during the Constitutional Convention that the phrase in the Constitution regarding impeachment must be more fully fleshed out and should more appropriately read ``. . . and other high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.'' Here was a soldier of the American Revolution. Here was an officer in that Revolution working with his fellow statesmen charting out a course for the Nation's future. Here was a brother of the bond from Northern Virginia who wanted to make sure the actual Constitutional language was clear that any impeachment must rise to a high level. According to the thrust of Mason's argument, for an impeachment of the President to be legitimate, the impeachable offenses must pose a threat to the nation itself. The Committee which reviewed the language believed that the phrase ``against the state'' was redundant, and, in effect, assumed. President Clinton has committed serious offenses. His personal conduct in this matter was, as I have said before, wrongful, reprehensible and indefensible. He has admitted to personal offenses, and will be appropriately judged for his misconduct elsewhere. In my judgement, under all the others I have taken under the United States Constitution, his offenses do not rise to the required level for impeachable offenses under the United States Constitution. I will be voting against conviction and removal from office of the President on both articles because I do not believe that these particular charges reach the high standard for impeachment which I believe that George Mason and the other Founders intended: that such an offense must be conduct which threatens grievous harm to our entire system. I provided more detail about the reasons for these conclusions in an earlier statement I submitted for the Record, and I ask unanimous consent that those remarks be inserted following this statement. As the Senate concludes this trial, I am reminded of other words from Abraham Lincoln's second Inaugural Address: ``with malice toward none, with clarity for all, let us bind up the nation's wounds . . .'' If Lincoln can say that as the nation was concluding the most divisive time in our history, which ultimately resulted in the first impeachment trial of an American President, surely we can say that to each other and to our nation as we conclude this historical second impeachment trial. It is time to end this trial. It is time to let the President conclude the term he was elected to by the American people. It is time to put an end to partisan bickering about the motives and conduct of all of those who have become involved in this sad episode. It is time for us all to bind up the nation's wounds. It is time to get on with the business of the American people we were elected to conduct. I ask that a supplement of my statement be printed in the Record. Thank you.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. First, Mr. President, now that the vote to impeach William Jefferson Clinton has been taken, and before I discuss my vote, let me say that this whole thing could have been avoided had President Clinton resigned months ago. I say this because I called for his resignation last September. Rather than explain my reasoning for calling for President Clinton's resignation, I believe it is better explained by an 8th grade school teacher from Tulsa, Oklahoma, Mr. Terrence Hogan. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Hogan's letter to the President dated September 26, 1998, be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Today I voted to convict William Jefferson Clinton on each of the two Articles of Impeachment presented by the House of Representatives. I find the President guilty, as charged, of high crimes and misdemeanors: lying under oath and obstructing justice. The President engaged in a deliberate and selfish pattern of conduct designed to thwart the civil rights of a fellow citizen. This conduct represents a serious breach of faith and trust. This conduct is incompatible with the solemn duties and moral responsibilities of the high office of President of the United States. Similar conduct by others results in consequences: perjurers, witness tamperers and obstructors of justice go to jail; supervisors lose their jobs; military officers are court-martialed, imprisoned or forced out of the armed forces; judges are impeached and removed from office. Shall we embrace a lower standard for this President under these circumstances? I think not. I believe that the President of the United States should be held to the very highest of standards. I believe that conviction and removal from office is justified in order (1) to preserve the integrity, honor and trust of the presidency; (2) to protect the sanctity of the witness oath in judicial proceedings; and (3) to uphold the fundamental principle of ``equal justice under law.'' introduction In accord with my sworn oath to do ``impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws,'' I have approached the trial of William Jefferson Clinton as a solemn constitutional duty. Voting on the Articles of Impeachment may be the most historically significant thing I will do in my entire career in public service. I have taken this obligation seriously, without concern for public opinion polls or for any partisan political advantage of consequence. This is a moment when one must put the longer-term interests of the country first. previous jury trial As a political opponent of this President, I have made an extra effort to weigh the evidence and the arguments on both sides with a sense of detachment and fairness. Having served on a jury in a criminal trial some 24 years ago, I learned how important it is to listen and to exercise impartial judgment. During jury selection in a local murder trial, I found myself assigned to a murder case about which I had expressed a definite opinion. From press reports, I was already convinced the defendant was guilty. With that and since I was the author of the capital punishment bill in the legislature, I thought for sure they would never qualify me for the jury, but somehow they did. Five days later, I surprised even myself when I became the foreman of the jury that acquitted that very defendant. I have approached the trial of the President with that experience in mind. I have also considered whether in good conscience, I would apply the same judgment I made here equally to a similar set of facts and circumstances if they applied to a Republican--and not a Democratic-- president. In 1990, I did not hesitate to publicly condemn a Republican President, George Bush, when he violated his ``read my lips'' campaign pledge. Politicians who deliberately violate public trust undermine good government and increase the level of cynicism in society. Today, I have a clear conscience in rendering the judgment I believe is just, and in the best interests of the future of the country. conclusions I have concluded that the President engaged in a deliberate and premeditated pattern of conduct which was corruptly designed to undermine the rights of a fellow citizen. That citizen was entitled under the law to obtain truth and justice in a duly constituted legal proceeding. The President had a legal obligation, as a citizen, to comply with ordinary and proper legal procedure and to faithfully abide by the standard oath to ``tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.'' I believe the President also had a moral obligation, as President, to refrain from engaging in any conduct which would, by example, undermine respect for the rule of law, the witness oath, or the dignity, honor, or public trust embodied in the presidency. The President failed to fulfill these obligations. He lied under oath, obstructed justice and tampered with witnesses. He sought to undermine the judicial system for his own personal gain. In so doing, he set a perverse example for every school child, parent, teacher, employer, supervisor and citizen in America. He brought dishonor upon himself and his office. president's supporters concede essential facts White House lawyers went to great lengths to try to deny the specific charges, but common sense and the weight of the evidence leave no reasonable doubt in my mind that the charges are true. I believe there are few, if any, members of the Senate who do not believe the President lied under oath and obstructed justice. Even many of the President's most ardent supporters in and out of the Senate have openly stated their belief that the essential facts of the case are not in dispute. Senator Robert Byrd pretty well summed it up in a recent TV appearance. He said of the President: ``I have no doubt that he has given false testimony under oath and . . . there are indications that he did indeed obstruct justice . . . It undermined the system of justice when he gave false testimony under oath. He lied under oath.'' non-lawyer perspective I have often said that one of the qualifications I have for the U.S. Senate is that I am not an attorney. So, when I read the Constitution, I know what it says. When I read the law, I know what it says. When I look at the evidence and apply common sense from a non-lawyer perspective, I know what it says. In this case, it says--without question--the President is guilty as charged. conduct warrants removal The President's attorneys kept arguing that the President's conduct does not amount to the technical crimes of perjury or obstruction of justice, but that even if it does, it should not warrant his removal from office. I have concluded the President's conduct does amount to the crimes of perjury and obstruction, but that even if it does not, it still warrants his removal from office because it is unacceptable behavior, incompatible with his duties and responsibilities as President. lying under oath I was not persuaded by the hairsplitting argument that the President did not lie under oath. The President lawyers claim he did not lie or commit perjury before the grand jury and they imply that his conduct there should be deemed acceptable. As a non-lawyer, I find their arguments preposterous and an insult to the intelligence and moral sensibilities of the members of the Senate of both parties, not to mention the American people. The President was afforded every opportunity to treat the grand jury with the respect it deserved. He was not blind-sided, tricked or trapped. He could anticipate all the key questions in advance. he had plenty of time to prepare. He was warned on numerous occasion by members of both parties in the Congress of the serious consequences of untruthful testimony. Yet he deliberately sought to continue weaving a self-serving and misleading web of deception and falsehood. obstructing justice Similarly, I reject the argument that the President did not commit obstruction of justice in an improper and illegal effort to undermine the legitimate search for truth in the Paula Jones civil suit. To believe the President's defense is to stand common sense on its head. Does anyone seriously believe the Lewinski job search would have proceeded to a successful conclusion in early January 1998--a critical moment in the Jones case--had her name not appeared on the Jones case witness list? Does anyone seriously believe the President was suggesting to Ms. Lewinski that she file a truthful affidavit? Does anyone seriously believe that the decision to conceal the gifts (evidence) was not blessed and ordered by the President? Does anyone seriously believe the President was seeking to ``refresh his memory'' while planting false stories with Ms. Currie when his conversations took place after he had testified that the Jones lawyers should talk to Ms. Currie. Does anyone seriously believe the President did not want and expect Mr. Blumenthal and other aides to repeat false stories to the grand jury? I do not believe any of these things. I believe--and I suspect most Senators believe--the President is guilty as charged of obstruction of justice. the president knew what he was doing The President's efforts to cover up his relationship with Ms. Lewinski, however understandable in a non-legal context, became textbook examples of obstruction of justice once her name appeared on a witness list and in a duly constituted legal proceeding. The President, after all, is himself a lawyer. He was well aware that--orchestrating a job search to silence a potential hostile witness, suggesting the filing of a false affidavit, concealing relevant evidence, and coaching potential witnesses to give false testimony--all are improper and illegal. Yet he chose to take these actions, not in some contorted belief that they were proper, but in the calculation that if successful, he could thwart the legal search for truth and justice in the Jones case. To accept this behavior by the President without Constitutional consequence is to permit the setting of a precedent which will reverberate negatively for years throughout our legal justice system and beyond. different standards for judges and presidents? I am amazed that there is any debate whatsoever over whether lying under oath before a grand jury is an impeachable offense. The precedent is clear: Judge Walter Nixon and others have been rightly convicted and removed from office for lying under oath. Is there to be a different standard for a president, or for this particular president, or for this particular set of circumstances? Are we to make exceptions for lying under oath so long as it is lying about some things but not others? If so, what precedent will that set? Our legal system depends of the sanctity of the witness oath. There can be no exceptions to the obligation every citizen incurs when he solemnly swears ``to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.'' Setting any other precedent would totally disrupt our system of jurisprudence by breeding disrespect for the rule of law. The White House lawyers argued that since the President is elected and judges are appointed, a different standard should apply. The only conceivable way they might be right is if the President is held to a higher--not a lower--standard. Important as each of a thousand judges is to our legal system, it is the President alone who stands at the pinnacle of our system of law and justice. He alone is constitutionally charged to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' He appointed the judges. He embodies the public trust to a degree far and above anyone else. He sets the example for the entire nation. His public conduct in abiding by the oath must be above reproach. young bill clinton's standard In speaking about President Richard Nixon in 1974, a young Arkansas congressional candidate spoke to the need for high standards: ``Yes, the President should resign. He has lied to the American people, time and time again, and betrayed their trust. Since he has admitted guilt, there is no reason to put the American people through an impeachment. He will serve absolutely no purpose in finishing out his term; the only possible solution is for the president to save some dignity and resign.'' The Candidate, Bill Clinton, set his own perfectly understandable standard: ``If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people, he should resign.'' Arkansas, Democrat Gazette (8/6/74) what kind of lying is impeachable? Recently, one of my Democrat colleagues, in a television interview, explained his standard for perjury as an impeachable offense: ``Perjury could be an impeachable offense,'' he said. ``If he lied about the national security interest of the United States, or if he did something else that had serious consequence for the country, or performing improperly in his official capacity, that's impeachable.'' But if he's ``not acting in his official capacity'' and only ``as an individual,'' that's different. That's not impeachable, he says. I believe this kind of making exceptions for lies about certain subjects, and not others, is a dangerous and slippery slope. I believe any lying before a grand jury by a sitting president will have ``serious consequences for the country'' if it is deemed to be in some way acceptable. national security implications Indeed, part of the reason this is so important is that if the President is capable of lying under oath about one thing, it reveals a predisposition and capability to lie about other more important things, while not under oath. For example, we already know this president has lied about the national security interest of the United States on numerous occasions. He lied to Congress in 1995 in pledging U.S. troops would not remain in Bosnia beyond one year. He lied or misled audiences over 130 times 1995 and 1996 in asserting that no nuclear missiles were aimed at American children. People know he has lied on numerous other public occasions. Such behavior eats away the public trust and the moral authority of the presidency, which are so vital to the national security. In addition, it should not go unremarked that the President's underlying conduct in this matter showed astonishingly bad judgment and disregard for the national security implications of his own behavior. In the modern world, the President is always a potential target of foreign intrigue, blackmail and salacious propaganda. Ms. Lewinski testified before the grand jury that the President himself speculated that his phone calls to her may have been monitored by a foreign embassy. In essence, he was admitting that he had exposed himself to potential blackmail. Such behavior by any president is not merely inappropriate. It is clearly dangerous and unacceptable. erosion of public trust Economic-driven ``popularity'' polls are masking an unprecedented erosion of public trust in this President which has already caused serious damage to his ability to rally the country in time of national threat or crisis. His consistent and long-term pattern of untruthful and deceptive behavior, as exemplified in the Articles of Impeachment, has undermined his credibility to such an extent that he can longer be afforded the benefit of any public doubt about virtually any topic. When the President took military action against overseas terrorists targets in August and when he ordered air strikes against Iraq in December, popular majorities (!)--in the polls--questioned his timing and motives--and rightly so. Suspicions about both of these actions linger to this day, draining the small reserves of trust the President may have left. What happens if and when there is a much more serious international or domestic crisis, requiring timely public sacrifice mobilized through presidential leadership? Will the President be believed--even if he is telling the truth? In a world of many lurking dangers of which much of the public is only vaguely aware (from information warfare to weapons of mass destruction), such questions raise very serious concerns. what do we say to previously convicted liars? If we do not hold the President accountable in this case, what do we say to the over 100 people who are serving time in federal prison for committing perjury in legal proceedings? What do we say to Ms. Barbara Battalino, who was convicted of perjury, sentenced, and lost her right to practice her profession because she lied under oath . . . about sex . . . in a civil case . . . that was eventually dismissed by the judge? What do we say to others in similar situations? I was waiting for the President's lawyers to address these issues. But they never did in any remotely satisfactory way. what do we say to military officers disciplined for lying about sexual misconduct? What do we say to the military officers whose careers and lives have been ruined over misconduct similar to the President's, including sexual misconduct, lying and obstructing justice? Capt. Derrick Robinson, an Army officer caught up in the Aberdeen sex misconduct case, is serving time in Leavenworth prison for admitting to consensual sex with an enlisted person who was not his wife. Drill Sgt. Delmar Simpson is serving 25 years in a military prison because a court martial found that, even though his relationship with a female recruit was consensual, the power granted him by his rank made such consensual sex with a subordinate unacceptable and--in the military--illegal. Lt. Kelly Flinn was forced out of the Air Force for lying about an adulterous affair. Sgt. Maj. Gene McKinney, the Army's top enlisted man, was tried for perjury, adultery and obstruction of justice concerning sexual misconduct. He was convicted of obstruction of justice, but not before his attorney asserted at trial how people in uniform rightly ask: ``How can you hold an enlisted man to a higher standard than the President of the United States,'' the Commander-in-Chief. double standard When we establish a glaring double standard in the law, we diminish respect for all law. This is why we must uphold the highest of standards for officials in public office. censure I will oppose any censure resolution that may be offered after the trial, as I opposed any so-called ``finding of fact'' during the trial, because it is little more than a thinly veiled effort to give people political cover. I believe some who might otherwise vote to convict look to censure as a way to justify or politically cover a vote to acquit. There is no precedent for censure in the Constitution or in an impeachment context. It would be dangerous and wrong to set such a precedent now. I believe it could threaten the separation of powers between the branches of government as Congresses start censuring Supreme Courts and Presidents for all manner of perceived misconduct. Senators should vote on the Articles of Impeachment, explain their reasons, and live with the consequences. I am struck that some of my colleagues who agree that the President did commit the serious offenses charged in the Articles of Impeachment, still believe Congress can render some effective consequence short of removal such as censure, which will uphold the presidency, the rule of law, and the sanctity of the oath. I believe they are wrong. I fear that they are not properly considering the precedent they would establish. Nevermind what we think of this particular president. A thoroughly corrupt president in the future will not be inhibited by the empty words of a non-biding ``sense of the Senate'' resolution. However, such a corrupt president will think twice about certain conduct, if he knows without doubt, by precedent, that such conduct is removable. If perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering are deemed--as a result of this trial--to be non-removal offenses in certain circumstances, then a corrupt future president may calculate them to be acceptable. We should not set that precedent. witnesses From the beginning, I strongly supported efforts to allow both the House managers and the White House lawyers to call whatever live witnesses they deemed necessary to make their case. I favored a full and complete trial, believing that it was more important to insure fairness to both sides than it was to get the trial over by some arbitrary date. This was in keeping with normal procedures in all previous impeachment trials. It also seemed to me to be essential to fundamental fairness and a full airing of the facts and issues in dispute. A hundred years from now, no one will care whether the trial lasted two weeks or six months. They will care, we must hope, about the extent to which justice was done. Overall, I was disappointed in the unnecessarily tight procedural restrictions imposed on this trial, including the limits on witnesses, I fear that a bad precedent has been unnecessarily set for the future. closed deliberations Throughout the trial, I opposed efforts to waive the time-honored rules of procedure which require that deliberations among senators be closed to the public. I am convinced this was the right decision. The closed meetings allowed for a more colleagial atmosphere among senators, limiting much of the posturing and grandstanding that often goes on before the cameras. The closed sessions also helped enhance a greater spirit of duty and cooperation concerning the tasks at hand. As with all jury trials going back for more than 2000 years in history, closed deliberations constitute proper procedure and I believe this tradition should be maintained. This need not, and does not, diminish the accountability of senators to their constituents and the public at large. All roll call votes remain open and I believe every member maintains an obligation to inform his constituents of the reason for his votes. constitutent letter raises key issue: the kids I received a letter from Mr. Terrence Hogan of Owasso, Okla., an eighth grade civics teacher at the Cascia Hall Middle School in Tulsa for the past 22 years. He wrote last September saying he ``was greatly concerned about the moral direction of our nation'' in light of the President's ``willful and repeated lying.'' He said the nation ``cannot tolerate from our President actions and choices that we would not tolerate from the principal of our neighborhood school.'' And this is exactly the point that people across America are asking. Is the President subject to the same moral accountability as every other responsible citizen in the workplace, or in any other position of public trust? And what do we say to the kids about truth and justice, about honesty and integrity, about the political and governmental heritage they should admire and emulate? impeachable offenses These acts, which were committed willfully and premediately by the President, are serious offenses which I believe clearly rise to the level of impeachable offenses. I reject the White House lawyers' argument that the President's conduct does not amount to the technical ``crimes'' of perjury and obstruction, but I'm content to allow a regular court of law to settle the issue. I also reject their argument that the President's conduct does not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. I believe the President's conduct (however it is ultimately labeled) constitutes absolutely unacceptable behavior on the part of the President of the United States, the nation's chief law enforcement officer who is constitutionally charged to ``faithfully execute the laws,'' and who, by word and deed, sets an example for every citizen. In finding the President guilty on both Articles of Impeachment, I believe the constitutional consequence of removal from office is warranted in order to uphold for future generations: The integrity, honor, and trust which are indispensable to the moral authority of the presidency; The sanctity of the oath which every citizen must take in any legal proceeding to tell ``the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth;'' and The viability of our judicial system, the rule of law, and the prinicple of ``equal justice under law.'' a final note to my fellow oklahomans Holding public office is a special privilege and I am continually grateful to the people of Oklahoma for the opportunity to serve in the United States Senate. During the past weeks and months, I have received thousands of letters, e-mails, faxes, phone calls and other communications relative to the impeachment trial and all of the subject matters surrounding it. Many have expressed strongly held views on one side or the other, often urging me to vote in accord with their wishes and thinking. My overworked staff and I have done our best to digest and respond to these inquiries and comments as best we could. To those who may have not yet received a personal response, I want to express my appreciation for sharing your thoughts, your ideas, and your concerns. Whether you agree or disagree, I want you to know that my votes for conviction on the two Articles of Impeachment represent my best judgment, based on my analysis of the facts, the law, the Constitution and what I believe is best for our country. They do not represent the results of any poll or political calculation about what may be popular, either in Oklahoma or elsewhere. I have viewed the trial as a serious Constitutional duty and have listened and deliberated with profound sense of history and patriotism. I have sought to respect the process and preserve for future generations those wise procedural precedents, including the rule of law, that have served this nation so well for over 200 years. I have stated my views and I accept the result of the trial. I harbor no personal bitterness or hatred toward the President. It is time to look to the future. I hope all of us on all sides of these issues can unite in a prayer for the future of our country and for the ideals of freedom and justice it stands for in the world. God Bless America. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for the time. I know it is very scarce, but I felt compelled, Mr. President, to make a couple of comments about what was not in the State of the Union Message last night. One of the most disturbing things was that out of 1 hour and 20 minutes, only about less than 90 seconds were devoted to our Nation's defense. We are facing a crisis, and it is on two fronts. And I, just briefly, would like to submit a couple things for the Record and discuss those two things. First of all, not many Americans realize that we do not have a national missile defense system. And that is to say, Mr. President, that if a missile is fired from anyplace in China at Washington, DC, it takes approximately 35 minutes to get over here. Now, the average person would think, well, if it takes 35 minutes to get over here--and we can remember the Persian Gulf war--we know you can knock down missiles with missiles, therefore, we have a defense. But, in fact, we have zero defense. We don't have any defense at all. And the reason is that when you have a trajectory, where a missile is fired in one area, it goes up, it is out of the atmosphere, and by the time it comes back in, it is coming at a velocity that is faster than anything we have in our arsenal; and, consequently, we have no defense. So you might ask the question, well, is there really a threat out there that is facing us that is imminent today? And I have to say that there is. I know that it sounds extreme to say this, but I have often said--and others are now agreeing--that I look back wistfully on the days of the cold war where there are two superpowers, the U.S.S.R. and the United States of America; and we knew what they had, they knew what we had. And we had this great agreement that was put together, not by Democrats but by Republicans, called the ABM agreement of 1972 that said: ``I will make you a deal. If you agree not to defend yourself, we'll agree not to defend ourselves, therefore, if you shoot us, we'll shoot you, and everyone dies and everyone's happy.'' That was something I didn't agree with at that time, but, however, today it makes absolutely no sense at all. I would like to repeat something that was said recently by Henry Kissinger, who was one of the architects of that ABM Treaty of 1972, when he said it no longer has any application today. Today, when you are looking at the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, when you see countries like Russia and China that have missiles that will reach any city in the United States of America from anyplace in the world, that is a very, very serious thing. And that means that there is not just one entity out there from which we must defend ourselves. I can remember--I am old enough to remember--the 1962 Cuban missile crisis when all of a sudden hysteria set out in the United States of America. We discovered that there were 40 medium-range intercontinental ballistic missiles, that were Soviet missiles, on the little island of Cuba, 90 miles off of our shore, and they could reach any city outside of the States of Washington, Alaska and Hawaii. And I would say now the crisis is even worse because they can reach anywhere. And we still have no defense at all. I want to submit for the Record--to evaluate this, we on the Armed Services Committee have the nine most professional people, most knowledgeable people on missiles anywhere in the world--and it was chaired by Don Rumsfeld--and they put together an assessment of what our threat really is. A lot of times people say the threat is not imminent when they talk about indigenous capabilities. In other words, if Iran were trying to develop a missile to reach us, it would take them 5 or 6 years to do it. On the other hand, we know that Iran is trading, as we speak, with China, trading technology, trading systems. And they have one that could hit us today. So I only read the Executive Summary concluding paragraph: Therefore, we unanimously recommend that U.S. analyses, practices and policies that depend on expectations of extended warning of deployment be reviewed and, as appropriate, revised to reflect the reality of an environment in which there may be little or no warning. I ask unanimous consent to have that material printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Recognizing my time is about up, I would only like to say that is only part of the problem. The other problem is--and I say this with some knowledge as chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee in the Senate Armed Services Committee--that we have roughly 60 percent of the capability that we had, in terms of force strength, that we had during the Persian Gulf war in 1991. And when I say that, I can quantify. Talking about 60 percent of the Army division, 60 percent of the tactical air wing, 60 percent of the ships floating around there; and yet we are in a more threatened world today. So I believe that little pittance that the President is talking about of $110 billion over 6 years, of which only $2 billion of new money would be in the coming fiscal year, does not meet the expectations of the American people. It has not fulfilled the requirements of his own Secretary of Defense, his own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the four chiefs who said: We are going to have to put a minimum of $25 billion of new money in each year for the next 6 years in order to get to a point where we can defend America on two regional fronts. With that, I thank the Senator from Georgia for this very scarce time that he has given me.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator. I appreciate his willingness to work with me on this issue which is of great important to the general aviation community.

Mr. INHOFE. I would like to enter into a colloquy with my friend Senator McCain, who is the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, in order to clarify an amendment to the Coast Guard authorization bill. This provision, which was adopted in committee as part of S. 1259, has the unintended effect of raising serious safety concerns for general aviation pilots. It would make it a criminal offense if a pilot knowingly disobeys an order to land, but there is no explicit requirement for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It also could make an aircraft owner responsible for paying thousands of dollars to reclaim their aircraft, even if they are totally innocent of any wrongdoing. As the Senator knows, I have been a pilot for over 40 years, and I understand that an ``order to land'' could be a dangerous and traumatic experience for a pilot. In fact, the International Standards, Rules of the Air, published by the International Civil Aviation Organization says ``interceptions of civil aircraft are, in all cases, potentially hazardous.'' The provision was intended to provide additional authority to U.S. law enforcement officers to curtail maritime and aviation drug smuggling near the border, which I'm sure all of us agree is a laudable goal. However, because of the potential danger and immense burden to pilots, I believe some relatively minor changes should be made to the amendment. With that in mind, I have drafted some changes to the language that I would appreciate the House and Senate considering during their deliberations. These changes will directly address the concerns of the general aviation community without undermining the ability of law enforcement to track and stop pilots involved in illegal activity.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I, too, rise in support of S. 1194, the Medicare Beneficiaries Freedom to Contract Act. You and I, Mr. President, and all other Americans not covered under Medicare, may obtain health services without informing the federal government. However, our nation's senior citizens must first seek out Washington's approval--even when they prefer to pay for those services out of their own pocket. Congress intended to correct this situation by permitting private contracts. Unfortunately, the President insisted he would veto the entire 1997 Balanced Budget Act unless this fundamental right of all Americans was eliminated or severely limited for senior citizens. Medicare beneficiaries should have the same freedom to obtain the health care they choose from the physician or provider of their choice--as do Members of Congress and virtually all other Americans. It's ridiculous that this right was taken away and unfortunate that it's taken so long to correct. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader, Senator Lott, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Roth for acknowledging the importance of this issue and for pledging to look into it further next year in the 106th Congress.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in the midst of all the confusion and anxiety of the last week, we are going to be asked to vote on the confirmation of three judges that I think should be looked at very carefully. First is the nomination of William Fletcher to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Groups are in opposition due to a Law Review article in which he stated that judicial discretion trumps legislative discretion when a legislature fails to act. Presently, Fletcher's mother is sitting on the Ninth Circuit, which is historically the most liberal and activist court in the United States. Over the last 3 years, the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit more than any other. In a book review, about which Mr. Fletcher was questioned before the committee, he stated that political circumstances outweigh a literal reading of the Constitution. In short, the Constitution is what Judge Fletcher says it is. Judge Fletcher is an extremist and should not be confirmed. Nomination of Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: In an outrageous ruling in 1997, Judge Paez ruled that an American company could be liable for human rights abuses committed by their partners in another country. Paez has shown a bias against religious and conservative groups. In one of the most publicized cases Paez heard as a District Judge was the 1989 trial of Operation Rescue leader Randall Terry. Paez became upset with some of the pro-life language Terry used and ``stormed off the bench.'' Additionally, he angrily warned the defendants that their Bible would be confiscated if they continued to wave or consult it. While a sitting District Judge, Paez gave a speech at UC-Berkeley's law school in which he called California's Proposition 209 an ``anti- civil rights initiative.'' In that speech, he also said, ``legal action is essential'' to ``achieving the goal of diversifying the bench.'' He characterizes himself as a ``liberal.'' Judge Paez is an extremist and should not be confirmed. Lastly, and briefly, the nomination of Timothy Dyk to the Federal Court: While in private practice, Mr. Dyk, successfully fought the FCC's ban on indecent programming to protect children. He has sat on the board of People for the American Way, and while working as an attorney for People for the American Way, he successfully defended a county school board that forced students to read materials their parents believed violated their deeply held religious beliefs. A member of Mr. Dyk's legal team called the concerned parents ``somehow less important'' and said ``the enemy was really not'' the plaintiffs ``but [Rev. Jerry] Falwell.'' I believe that Mr. Dyk is also an extremist and should not be confirmed in his nomination. I yield the floor.