Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask to set aside temporarily the consideration of the Wellstone amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask we turn to consideration of amendment No. 301.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not plan to take a long time. I would like to make a couple comments about some of the things that have been said here. I do not question the sincerity of any Member on this floor, but I think it should be obvious to you, Mr. President, and anyone else who may not be worn out right now, that there is a difference of philosophy often expressed on this floor. I think it goes back to the role of Government. I not only remind my friend from Minnesota that every country that has tried to take care of all these ills from a government perspective has not made it. I wonder sometimes, all these people who come to school supposedly that are hungry, how many of those parents perhaps are not able to feed them because they are overtaxed, or how many of those parents might have fallen into this mentality that permeated the 1960's that Government has the responsibility of taking care of all the human social ills? I agree with one thing the distinguished Senator from Minnesota said when he said we have lost our way. I think we have. I think that is what this is all about, trying to find our way back. I have to say, Mr. President, that I have not been supportive of this compromise, but for a totally different reason than the Senator from Minnesota. I look at this, and I have to correct the distinguished Senator from New Mexico about one thing that he said. He said we gave the President everything he wanted in his social programs. We actually gave him more. This is $5 billion more than his request was last year. It is not a matter of not having enough in this bill. I feel the spending is too high. I do not agree with all the assumptions, but I am very confident that this is going to be adopted and going to be adopted tonight. Also, I am not sure we are going to be able to accomplish all the tax decreases that we have promised some of the people. I had occasion this morning to talk to two large groups, both of whom are endorsing this, and they are endorsing this because they believe they are going to get an estate tax reduction; they believe they are going to get capital gains reductions. I do not believe there is going to be enough money to do that. But that is not the point of standing here now. What I would like to see happen with this, ultimately, in the year 2002 is to accomplish the goal that many people believe in their hearts we will accomplish with this. I am not that confident. I am going to assume that will happen and we will reach a balanced budget by the year 2002. I have offered amendment No. 301 because I think by just oversight, something was left out. Let's assume that everything we are trying to accomplish with the adoption of this budget agreement becomes a reality. Let's assume that the economic assumptions produced an additional $225 billion. Let's assume that these spending programs are going to stay within the limits and that we are able to do the tax cuts. And let's assume that we find ourselves with a balanced budget. Now, here is the problem that I have with this. One of the problems is, if we reach the year 2001 and we see, in fact, it is doing what we projected it would do, doing what we told the American people it would do, and that is balance the budget, eliminate the deficit, what happens in the next year? With that as a concern, I don't think there is anyone in this Chamber who is going to vote for this bill on the basis that they want to balance the budget who does not also want to keep the budget in balance in the years following that. So I have this very simple resolution that I wouldn't think there would be any opposition to. That is, if this passes, and that becomes a reality--I am going to read the sentence from the bill. This is, in essence, my entire amendment. It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any budget resolution or conference report on a budget resolution for fiscal year 2002 and any fiscal year thereafter that would cause a unified budget deficit for the budget year or any of the four fiscal years following the budget year. So, what we are saying is, once we get it in balance and we have eliminated the deficit, I would like to go further and say, let's then start spending down and paying down the debt. Instead of that, with this, all we are saying is once we eliminate the deficit, let's keep it eliminated. In the absence of this, all of this, that is on this plan, this road map can become a reality in the year 2001. But if that happens, then they can turn around and say, ``Good, that's over with, now let's start raising deficits again.'' That is the essence of it. I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time, but I understand the Senator from New Jersey wants to use some of his time.

Mr. INHOFE. No, I was waiting until the Senator yielded his time.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for the spirit in which he is addressing these things. I know there is a difference of opinion. But I would only say, in closing, that we have a list here of 66 people, Democrats and Republicans--you were not one of them--that voted for the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. I assume you don't want to change that vote today?

Mr. INHOFE. I would say it would be very difficult for me to understand how anyone could have voted for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and not support this. Because we are talking about, if you do not do this and you are saying, let's make the plan work, come up to 5 years from now, and then let's start in again on deficits. And we do not want to do that. With that, if the Senator from New Jersey would like to yield back his time, I will do the same.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is the last amendment of the evening. I would like to have your attention for a short period of time. I have not been a strong supporter of this budget deal, the basis of the assumptions and other things. But in the event it does come up with a balanced budget in the year 2002, I see one frailty with this, and that is, you can come into balance in the year 2002, only to find out that in 2003 you come along and go back into deficits again. So I am going to read one sentence very carefully. I would like to have you listen to it. [I]t shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any budget resolution . . . for fiscal year 2002 and any fiscal year thereafter . . . that would cause a unified budget deficit for the budget year or any of the 4 fiscal years following the budget year. I would like to reserve the last 10 seconds of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. I believe I have 15 seconds remaining. Let me just say that if it is the intent of anyone to vote for this in hopes it would achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002, and then coming back and starting into deficits again, of course you want to oppose it. This is your last opportunity to say that we want to reach that balanced budget by 2002, and then keep it in balance thereafter.

Mr. INHOFE. We are going to ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment, numbered 323, to the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise on a point of personal privilege.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed 2 minutes to count against either side.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I make the same request, that amendment 301 be called up and set aside.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just make a couple of comments.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding time. I think he made one of the best presentations I have heard on the floor of this body. I want to say that, when he deals with the facts, he is dealing with the facts but, you know, we are also dealing today with perceptions. I tried to make a list of those things I have heard over and over. There is a lot of redundancy on this floor but there are some things that have not been stated. I would like to share a couple of those with you. I am going to do something that is a little unusual, because I am going to read some Scriptures to you. It is not totally unprecedented in this body. In fact, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia does it quite often. So I would like to read a couple of Scriptures, just for those who care. Anyone who does not, don't listen. First of all, I have used this a number of times, Jeremiah 1:35 says, ``Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you.'' Or the 139th Psalm, no matter which interpretation you use, it makes it very clear when life begins. Then, I was, not too long ago, at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. I had been to the museum in Jerusalem, and I found the same thing was printed on the last brick as you are going through. This is Deuteronomy 30, verse 19. It said: ``I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.'' And, last, I am always concerned that something that is as dramatic and is as significant as this issue is going to go unnoticed; that maybe there are Senators out there who are not really into this issue and they might want to vote the party line, or they might want to say, well, maybe there aren't as many of these procedures out there, so they just really are not knowledgeable of the subject. So, I will read Proverbs 24, 11 and 12: Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death. Don't stand back and let them die. Don't try to disclaim responsibility by saying you didn't know about it, for God knows. Who knows all hearts knows yours, and He knew that you know. Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator from Massachusetts who said it does not do any good if we pass this because the President is going to veto it anyway. But I suggest to you that the President may not veto it, and if he does veto it, maybe some people will come over who were not here a year ago on this side of the aisle. Ron Fitzsimmons who just last year insisted that the number of partial birth abortions were a relative handful now admits ``I lied through my teeth.'' He was lying. So if the President is predicating his decision to veto this ban on the basis of what was told to him by Ron Fitzsimmons, there is every reason he could turn around on the issue. I suggest also that we are talking now not just about a procedure, but a culture. I have a very good friend by the name of Charles W. Colson who gave these remarks upon winning the prestigious Templeton Prize for contribution to religion. Listen very carefully. He puts it all together, not isolating one procedure or one issue: Courts strike down even perfunctory prayers, and we are surprised that schools, bristling with barbed wire, look more like prisons than prisons do. Universities reject the very idea of truth, and we are shocked when their best and brightest loot and betray. Celebrities mock the traditional family, even revile it as a form of slavery, and we are appalled at the tragedy of broken homes and millions of unwed mothers. The media celebrate sex without responsibility, and we are horrified by plagues. Our lawmakers justify the taking of innocent lives in sterile clinics, and we are terrorized by the disregard for life in blood-soaked streets. I think that kind of puts it into a context, which we are now approaching, that this is not just a normal type of an abortion. I have a great deal of respect for one of the most intellectual Members of this body. It is Senator Patrick Moynihan from New York, who is a self-proclaimed pro-choice Senator. He said: And now we have testimony that it is not just too close to infanticide, it is infanticide, and one would be too many. This is where we get into the numbers game. I heard it said on this floor many times that we are talking about maybe 1 percent or maybe talking about those that are in the ninth month may be an infinitesimal number. But, in fact, one is too many. It was said on the floor that we may be only talking about 200 lives being taken during the normal delivery process. That is when a baby is given a natural birth and, yet, they take the life by using this barbaric procedure. We have all kinds of documentation that it is being done in the ninth month and during the normal birth process. They say only 200. Mr. President, I am from Oklahoma, and we lost 168 lives in the Murrah Federal Office Building bombing. This was the largest domestic terrorist attack in American history. Did anybody say that is only 168 lives that were lost in Oklahoma City? No, the entire Nation came with compassion and mourned with us. One life, I agree with Senator Moynihan, is too many. One other issue that has not been discussed in this debate this year is that of pain, and rather than go into it, I do not think anyone refutes the fact that a small baby, if that baby is certainly past the second trimester, feels pain every bit as much as anybody who is in here, as any Member of the U.S. Senate would feel pain. There was a study conducted in London, and I have the results here, but I think everyone understands that this is something that is very real, that these babies do feel pain. I have a picture of a good friend of mine with me. His name is Jason--James Edward Rapert. Back when people our age were having babies, they would not even let you in the hospital, let alone the delivery room. When my daughter, Molly, called up and said, ``Daddy, the time is here, could you come over,'' and I went over to the hospital, she said, ``Would you like to come into the delivery room?" ``Wow, yes, I would.'' So I saw for the first time what many of you in this room have seen, and many of the women have experienced personally, but I was there when this little guy was born. It is hard to describe to some of the men here who have not been through that experience of seeing this wonderful life begin, and I can remember when, in that room where the delivery took place, it occurred to me that when Baby Jase, my grandson, was born, that that is at a moment when they could have used this procedure inflicting all of the pain you have heard described so many times: Going into the cranium with the scissors, opening up the scissors, suck the brains out, the skull collapses. Awful. And there are individuals who want to keep a procedure like this legal. If you did that to a dog, they would picket in front of your office. Somehow we have developed a culture that puts a greater value on the lives of critters than human life. So I watched Baby Jase being born, and I suggest to those of you who are concerned about choice that this is really the choice. It is either that choice or this choice. Those are the choices we are faced with today. Mr. President, this is something on which I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania. We should not be having to talk about it. To think 100 years from now they may look back and talk about that barbaric society that killed their own young, and here we are just trying to save a few lives from a very painful death. But nonetheless, that is the issue we are faced with today. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Are you sure that's right?

Mr. INHOFE. I think Senator Warner should go ahead since we are going back and forth across the aisle.

Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield, I made it very clear before my remarks that I hold him in the highest of esteem. However, the fact remains that he does work for those companies that have an interest, and that could be a conflict of interest. I think that could be drawn by anyone.

Mr. INHOFE. The first one is a Wall Street Journal editorial of September 9, 1996. I will just read the last paragraph. Ultimately the treaty's most pernicious effect is that it would lull most responsible nations into the false belief that they'd ``done something'' about the chemical weapons problem and that it now was behind them. Yes, the world would be a better place without chemical weapons. But this treaty's attempt to wave them away isn't going to make that happen. The other two, one by Frank Gaffney, Jr. and the other by Douglas Feith, address the regulation problems that would come from this to literally thousands of companies throughout America. In fact, the Commerce Department guidance on recordkeeping for affected businesses runs more than 50 pages. Mr. President, you have run companies. You know one of the major reasons we are not globally competitive here in the United States is that we are overregulated. There is a tremendous cost to these regulations. If the requirements exceed 50 pages, imagine what the companies would have to do. Mr. President, in a way I think the other side of this has perhaps used the wrong argument. There is an argument they are overlooking, and that is it does not seem to make a lot of difference whether Russia ratifies this or not because, as we have said several times during the course of this debate, they ratified a lot of treaties, including the 1990 Biological Weapons Destruction treaty, the ABM Treaty--that goes all the way back to the 1970's--the START I, CFE, INF. And while they have ratified these, they have not complied. There are three steps you go through. One is you have to sign them. Second, you ratify them. But, third, you have to comply. And they have been found out of compliance. I cannot imagine why we would expect that they would comply with this one if they ratified it if they have not complied with the previous ones. The distinguished Senator from Michigan quoted, somewhat extensively, Gen. John Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as saying that this would have the effect of reducing the proliferation of chemical weapons. I would only say, trying not to be redundant, if that is the case, then you are taking his word over four previous Secretaries of Defense: Dick Cheney, James Schlesinger, Don Rumsfeld, and Cap Weinberger, all four of whom said this would have the effect of increasing the proliferation of chemical weapons and their use in the Middle East. But, one of the statements that was made by the distinguished Senator from Michigan I thought was interesting. He said, if I got it right, and correct me if I am wrong: ``The single most important reason to ratify the treaty is to encourage Russia to ratify it.'' Again, if they do, it really does not seem to make that much difference because of their past history on what they have done. I would like to clear up something because I think we have gone through a lot of debate on this issue. It has been clearly implied by both Republicans who are supporting the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention as well as Democrats who are supporting it that this was started in the Reagan administration and that Ronald Reagan was in support of a chemical weapons treaty. I happened to run across something here that I am going to read. These are the conditions--I am going to save the best one until last-- the conditions under which Ronald Reagan said he would agree to the ratification of a chemical weapons convention. First, the condition was that strategic defense initiative and theater missile defense systems would be deployed and operational as one safeguard against cheating. As we know, currently we do not have those in place. No. 2, that the Chemical Weapon Convention's international executive council would consist of 15 members, including the United States as one of the five permanent members, just like the U.N. Security Council. The current treaty gives us a 41-member executive council, each with 2-year terms, and no permanent members; hence, no veto. Third, that the United States would have absolute veto power over all CWC decisions. Obviously, in this one there is no veto power. Obviously, the President would not have supported this. President Reagan also, even though it is not on my list, verbally indicated on more than one occasion that one of his conditions would be that we would not have to incur the financial responsibility, in the United States, of other countries complying with it. In fact, right now our compliance costs on this convention appear to be, according to the Foreign Relations Committee report, $13.6 billion and the cost of Russia complying with this would exceed that. It has been stated on this floor many times that Russia has somewhere between 60 and 70 percent of all the chemical weapons in the world, so, obviously it would be more than that. What is Russia going to do? Are they going to comply? Let us say they go ahead and ratify. If they ratify it, you know, everyone in this Chamber knows, that they are going to look to the United States to pay for their obligation under the treaty. That is what they are doing on START II. In fact, I have to go back and make that statement also, that we are hearing this same argument all over again right now that we heard 2 years ago. Mr. President, 2 years ago we stood in this Chamber and they said: If we don't ratify this, Russia won't ratify it. Here it is 2 years later and Russia has not ratified it. So I think this is a very significant requirement, the fact that Ronald Reagan said--and this is a direct quote, coming out of his committee at the time--for ratification, ``All Soviet obligations of previous arms control agreements would have to be corrected.'' And we have five such agreements that have not been corrected to date. So, I hope no one stands on the floor the rest of the evening and talks about how Ronald Reagan would have ratified this Chemical Weapons Convention. Exhibit 7 [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 9, 1996] Poisons for Peace The greatest misperception about the Chemical Weapons Convention, which comes before the Senate this week for ratification, is that it can't do any harm and might do some good. Former Reagan defense official Fred Ekle aptly calls this mind-set ``poisons for peace.'' Who could possibly be against making the world safe from the horrors of poison gas? In fact, this treaty would make the horrors of poison gas an even greater possibility. The first problem is that many of the nations we have cause to worry about most aren't about to sign. What good is a treaty that doesn't include Iraq or Libya or Syria or North Korea? Somehow knowing that New Zealand and the Netherlands have both ratified it doesn't help us sleep more soundly. Worse, the treaty would give all signatories access to our latest chemical technology, since Article XI enjoins signatories from keeping chemicals, information or equipment from one another. This means not only countries such as China and Russia, but also Cuba and Iran, which have both signed. In other words, forget about the trade embargoes and forget about foreign policy. The treaty would require the U.S. to facilitate the modernization of the chemical-weapons industry in a host of countries that just might use them. The second problem is verification. No one, not even its most ardent supporters in the Administration, is naive enough to claim that the treaty is verifiable. Chemical weapons are easy to make and easy to hide. The sarin that was used in the attack in the Tokyo subway last year was concocted in an 812 room. Instituting snap inspections of companies that make or use chemicals isn't going to stop a future Aum Shinri Kyo. Nor is it going to stop a determined government. In addition, the inspection and reporting procedures required under the treaty would be a huge burden on American business, which of course would become even more nervous about industrial espionage. Senator Jon Kyl estimates that up to 10,000 American companies would be affected at a cost approaching $1 billion a year. Every company that uses or produces chemicals would fall under the long arm of the treaty--companies like Pfizer and Quaker Oats and Strohs Brewery and Maxwell House Coffee and Goodyear Tire. Dial Corp., which uses 5,000 different chemicals to produce an array of household products, estimates that it will have to spend $70,000 a year to meet the treaty's reporting requirements. The small number of chemical companies that make the lethal stuff would of course be covered, too, and much has been made of the treaty's endorsement by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, which represents just 190 member companies and had a hand in formulating the treaty's verification procedures. The industry is already very heavily regulated, and the treaty's inspection and reporting requirements wouldn't be much of an additional burden. It also can't hurt that the treaty would increase its members' trading and sales opportunities thanks to Article XI. The list of problems with the treaty goes on and on. Constitutional scholar Robert Bork raises the possibility that the verification requirements might violate the Constitution's ban on search and seizure, and its property rights guarantees. The Pentagon isn't happy with it since, under the Clinton Administration's interpretation, it would prohibit the military from using non-lethal chemical agents. It's not hard to imagine a scenario in which the Army is forced to shoot people because it's not permitted to use tear gas. Ultimately the treaty's most pernicious effect is that it would lull responsible nations into a false belief that they'd ``done something'' about the chemical weapons problem and that it now was behind them. Yes, the world would be a better place without chemical weapons. But this treaty's attempt to wave them away isn't going to make that happen.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from North Carolina. I do want to address this particular amendment. Before I do, I have three articles, and I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. INHOFE. I inquire of the Senator from North Carolina if he has other Senators requesting time?

Mr. INHOFE. May I have 6 minutes?