Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the chairmen and ranking members. I appreciate their willingness to not only discuss this issue but to come to some resolution.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Yes. I will be very brief.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have had three experiences in this century of increasing revenues: One was in the 1920's, one in the 1960's, and then in the 1980's. All three times it was a result, economists had to agree, of the fact that we reduced taxes and gave people more freedom. As a matter of fact, it was not a Republican but it was a Democrat, it was President Kennedy back in the 1960's, who observed that we have to increase revenues and the best way to do that is to reduce taxes. Of course, history showed that it did work. It worked again in the 1980's when we went from a total expenditure to run Government in 1980 of $517 billion to $1.03 trillion in 1990, a 10-year period in which we had the most dramatic decreases in taxes. So I would certainly agree with the man who I believe will be the next President of the United States that the best way to get this country back on the right track is to reduce regulation, reduce taxes, and give people more individual freedoms. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is not my intention to offer an amendment at this time, as I told the Senator from Oregon, but just to make a brief statement about the concern that I have with the bill in hopes that, when you come up with the management amendments, you will include the proposed amendment as a part of those. It should be noncontroversial. I cannot imagine anyone would be opposed to it. Back in the 100th Congress, which is the year I was first elected to the other body, they passed Public Law 100-440, in that they made the requirement that the General Services Administration be required to hire up to, and maintain an average of, 1,000 full-time Federal positions for the full-time Federal Protective Officers. These are the people who serve as security in Federal buildings. Both the House and Senate versions have language that would take that section out. When the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma was bombed, they, the GSA, had only provided security of one individual. It was from a company called Rent-A-Cop. That Rent-A-Cop individual, one individual, had to cover that building and several other buildings. While it can never be known if the tragedy could have been averted, it is the opinion of the police officers from whom the American Federation of Government Employees solicited comments that any trained FPO would have noted the parked rental vehicle which carried the bomb and immediately raised questions about its presence. It is also the opinion of the law enforcement community that the physical presence of FPO's at the Murrah Building would have served as a major deterrent to those who might have been contemplating committing that crime. The current ratio is something in the neighborhood of one officer for every 21 buildings. If they complied with this, the GSA, they should have reached a ratio of 1 per 8 by 1992. They did not do this. I think, if we repeal this section, it is sending the wrong message out, saying we want to be more lenient in terms of protection in Federal buildings. So I have an amendment that would merely delete that particular section that would repeal Public Law 100-440, section 10, and would allow the GSA to continue and encourage them to go ahead and comply with the law they should be complying with right now. That would be the intent. I only ask the two managers of the bill, when the managers' amendments come up, that they give serious consideration to this.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator and thank the Senator from North Carolina for yielding to me. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the dedication, public service, and patriotism of Rear Adm. Thomas F. Hall, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Reserve. Admiral Hall retires from the Navy on October 1, after a distinguished 37-year career of service to our Nation. A native of Barnsdall, OK, Admiral Hall reported to the U.S. Naval Academy in 1959, graduated in 1963 and was designated a naval aviator in 1964. After earning his Wings of Gold, Admiral Hall chose to join the maritime patrol forces flying the new P-3 Orion. Excelling in flight training, he graduated No. 1 in his class, and was named the outstanding student. Admiral Hall continued to distinguish himself throughout his flying career amassing almost 5,000 pilot hours. His initial fleet assignment was with Patrol Squadron 8, flying combat missions in Southeast Asia. Subsequent tours included the U.S. Naval Academy, as a Company Officer and Executive Assistant to the Commandant of Midshipmen, Patrol Squadron 23, completion of the command and staff course at the Naval War College, graduating with distinction, and assignment to the Bureau of Naval Personnel, were his billets included aviation staffs placement officer, head of air combat placement, and assistant head of aviation junior officer assignment. Admiral Hall returned to VP-8 as executive officer and then assumed duties as Commanding Officer. Admiral Hall also completed the course of instruction at the National War College, again graduating with distinction, and served on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations where he served as Head of the Program Objective Memorandum Development section, as Chief of Staff to Commander Fleet Air Keflavik, and as a fellow to the CNO's strategic studies group. In addition to command of VP-8, Admiral Hall has also served in command of Naval Air Station Bermuda, the Icelandic Defense Forces, and most recently, command of the Naval Reserve. Since September 1992, Admiral Hall has been the Chief of Naval Reserve, leading the Naval Reserve Force through its largest drawdown, while maintaining readiness and significantly increasing reserve contributory support to the fleet. Under Admiral Hall's leadership, the total force policy became a reality--Regular Navy and Naval Reservists working side-by-side, in operations worldwide, meeting the Navy's forward presence requirements. In August 1989, Admiral Hall was promoted to Rear Admiral--lower half--and in July 1992 to his present rank of Rear Admiral--upper half. Admiral Hall wears the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Unit Commendation, and various unit and campaign awards, holds a masters degree in management from George Washington University and attended Harvard University senior executives program. In July 1992, Admiral Hall was awarded the Icelandic Order of the Falcon, Commander's Cross with star, by the President of Iceland. Our Nation, his wife Barbara, and his son Tom, can be immensely proud of the Admiral's long and distinguished career and his service to our country. I wish Admiral Hall and his family best wishes in his retirement.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Georgia. I am glad to have an opportunity to talk about this. I certainly agree with the Senator from Alabama when he talks about the situations that come up. I do not know why it is that people will not read a little history. In three decades in the last 100 years we have dramatically increased our revenues by reducing marginal tax rates. Of course, the last one that was the most obvious, the first one in our lifetime, was John Kennedy when he said we have to have more revenue, and to get more revenues we will reduce the tax rates. It worked. Of course, it happened again in the 1980's. Again, the problem we have with a number of bureaucracies, and certainly the IRS is probably the best example to use, is they have so much power and they are able to use that power to whip people into submission. I have several cases I will share with you, Mr. President. An IRS case, one William Pell Thompson, an Air Force captain based in Montana was expecting a modest $104 tax refund for 1995. Instead he was told by the IRS that his $104 had been seized for back child support payments in North Carolina where he was accused of owing $6,700 that soon would be taken from his wages. Captain Thompson has never lived in North Carolina, had only two children by his first and only wife, to which he was still happily married. Captain Thompson was awaiting transfer to Colorado Springs in which he was unable to get the credit to buy a home and a number of things that happened that really were destructive in his life. Here is a story that was testimony before a Senate subcommittee. Rather than go into the details, I will read the letter, a suicide note that was given by a man named Council. His wife's name was Kay. This is the letter: My Dearest Kay: I have taken my life in order to provide capital for you. The IRS and its liens which have been taken against our property illegally by a runaway agency of our government have dried up all sources of credit for us. So I have made the only decision I can. It is purely a business decision. You will find my body on the lot of the north side of the house. She eventually won a Federal court ruling and she and her husband owed the IRS nothing. I got off the phone a few minutes ago and there is a guy in Tulsa, Mr. President, named Iliff. He rebuilds airplanes. In fact, a couple years ago I flew an airplane around the world emulating the flight of Wiley Post. He is the one who rebuilt the aircraft for me that had been previously wrecked. In 1994--and I know this guy real well, and his family--we were contacted by Chuck Iliff regarding a problem his mother, Edna Faye Iliff, a 90-year-old widow from Muskogee, OK, was having with the IRS. The IRS was pursuing a case against his brother, a self-employed boilermaker. What had happened here was Mrs. Iliff, who is a widow, had failing health. She had a small savings of some $3,600 she put in her account, but she allowed her two sons to have their names on the account in the event something happened to her so they could get at the money without having serious problems. The IRS came along and seized her account because they felt they had a case against the son of failing to pay withholding taxes. They actually got that money from Mrs. Iliff, a 90-year-old widow. Later on they found they were wrong, and they were able to get back--at a cost to the Iliffs of $1,600--that $3,600 back, and there is no interest that was paid. What I can say is there are a lot of people in Government that are very good people. Unfortunately, the more power you give to someone, the greater the propensity to abuse that power. As Lord Acton said, ``absolute power corrupts absolutely.'' It is not just the IRS. We have a case in Tulsa, Jimmy Dunn, Mill Creek Lumber Co., called and said, ``Inhofe, the EPA has put me out of business.'' I said, ``What did you do wrong?'' And he said, ``I don't think I did anything wrong. I have been selling in our small family- owned lumber company, our used crankcase oil to the same contractor for 20 years.'' He said that contractor was licensed by the Federal Government, the State of Oklahoma, the county of Tulsa, and yet they have traced some of that oil from 10 years ago that went to the Double Eagle Superfund site, and now I have a letter in front of me which he read from the Administrator of the EPA that said, ``We are going to come after you for fines of $25,000 a day.'' Now, obviously, they did not do it, but the whole idea is many people in the bureaucracy consider it their job and they seem to enjoy abusing normal, honest, taxpaying citizens. These cases with the IRS just point out that not only are we an overtaxed society, we are paying too much in taxes, the American families are having to pay too much, but the way in which it is collected is also abusive. I am hoping--and we have made several proposals, Mr. President, the Republican Party, some call it a flat tax, some talk about having a VAT tax to replace income taxes altogether--something will come along and we will be able to propose and pass that. We know if we pass it with this Republican Congress that now the President will veto it. We have heard that over and over again. I am hoping we will be able to be successful in changing the personality in the White House so we can get real tax reform and the abusive practices of many of the bureaucracies off the backs of the honest taxpaying American citizens. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina for yielding to me and for the fine job that he has done in preparation on his committee of the Department of Defense authorization bill. It has been a very difficult and arduous time that we have had in trying to get this done with objections from the White House every step of the way. Since the beginning of our country's history, national security has been our Government's most solemn obligation to its citizens. In order to honor this obligation, sufficient resources must be given to the forces that protect us. These forces do not ask much of us for their service. But they do need a certain amount of support from their Government in order to carry out their duties and protect the security of the United States as well as maintain our status as the world's preeminent military power. In order to allow our military to honor their sworn duty, we have to provide them with the means to do many things. We must give them the authority to retain ample manpower in the form of adequate end strengths. Our military must have the means to recruit high-quality personnel to carry us into the 21st century. In addition, in order to keep our high-quality personnel, and protect the high quality of life which is so important in maintaining morale, we must provide them with equitable pay and benefits--including a 3-percent pay raise to protect against inflation--and appropriate levels of funding for the construction and maintenance of troop billets and military family housing. We must keep the sword sharp by providing enough resources to maintain current readiness, and to continue modernization efforts to provide the capabilities needed for future wars. Our military must also be given the means to field the type and quantity of weapons systems and equipment needed to fight and win battles decisively, with minimal risk to our troops, just as they did in the gulf war. An important lesson learned in the gulf war was that we need to be able to protect our troops from ballistic missiles, missiles that are capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction. Whether it is nuclear, chemical, or biological, we must protect our forces while they are in the field and we must protect their families at home. The way we do this is through the development and deployment of missile defense systems: land- and sea-based theater missile defense systems, which can protect U.S. and allied forces against cruise and ballistic missiles while deployed in the field; and a national missile defense system to defend America itself. The missile defense funding authorized in this bill is not sufficient to put in place the robust system I would like to see. It is a life support program, designed to keep as much of our program viable until a Republican President is elected. At that point, we will be able to move more aggressively toward building a national missile defense system, just as the American people expect us to. We know that most Americans think we have a missile defense capability, and we know that they are outraged and frightened when they learn that we do not. They hear the administration cite intelligence estimates to justify waiting and waiting on missile defense. But any American who witnessed Pearl Harbor in 1941, or the invasion of South Korea in 1950, or the invasion of Kuwait in 1990--and that's most of us, Mr. President--knows that intelligence estimates are wrong as often as they are right, and that even good intelligence gets misread by political leaders. I would rather have a defense and hope my intelligence was correct than have complete faith in intelligence; the Clinton administration apparently disagrees. I am particularly concerned by this emphasis on future threats because the administration uses it to justify doing nothing. They say that the missile threat isn't here yet. But isn't defense all about getting out in front of threats? And what about the technology that threatens us today? Russia and China have missiles--in the case of Russia, thousands of missiles--which could be accidentally fired at us today. More than 20 other nations are developing the technology. Terrorists and rogue nations, with enough money and some perseverance, will buy their way into the nuclear club. And until we get a missile defense system in place, there will be nothing we can do about it. Missile defense is complex. Sophisticated defense technology is seldom produced precisely on schedule. This is why we need to start now. We will have a national missile defense system; the question is whether or not it will be before or after the first time we need it. I have spoken about what we must provide for our military. I would also like to point out what burdens we should remove from them. We can eliminate defense spending that does not contribute directly to the national security of the United States; such as policing of the Olympic games. More importantly, we should stand back and evaluate U.S. involvement in nontraditional military operations, and its impact on combat readiness, budgeting, and our national interests. Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti; these and other police actions--some of them going on today--drain defense funds and put a strain on personnel who are already being stretched beyond their breaking point. In this part of our foreign policy, mistakes have certainly been bipartisan. George Bush, a Republican President, began the Somalia commitment. It took a humiliating defeat and the deaths of 18 Rangers in Mogadishu for us to learn about the limits of that humanitarian operation. Operations in Bosnia will have cost American taxpayers more than $3.5 billion in defense dollars if our troops leave by December. I say ``if'' because neither I nor anyone else in this body believes we will be out of Bosnia by December. The American people were truly deceived by the administration on this commitment. I went to Bosnia last November, before the IFOR mission began, and I watched experienced U.N. and NATO leaders laugh at the idea that we would be through in Bosnia after 1 year. One U.N. commander, General Huakland of Norway, said that involvement in Bosnia was like putting your hand in water--when you take it out, nothing is different. If the administration intends to keep troops in Bosnia longer, they owe it to us and to the American people to say so before our Presidential election. But I do not expect them to shoot straight on this, either. Some people, it seems, never seem to see a breaking point for our military. They say we are spending enough on defense. I have criticized the administration's defense priorities, but I am also dismayed by some of the voices I have heard in this chamber. I cannot believe that some of my colleagues believe their own antidefense rhetoric. Let me examine some of the most common attacks on this responsible defense budget that I've heard recently, four arguments that we hear over and over and over again: First: ``This is money the Pentagon has not asked for.'' My liberal friends make this statement as if they believe that the defense budget request is decided by admirals and generals based on what they need to fight and win wars. In fact, because each of the services and the Department of Defense itself is run by administration-appointed civilians, the Pentagon's budget request is based on the administration's priorities. It is then modified by Congress, just like every other Government agency's budget. It is the Congress' constitutional responsibility to review and either increase or decrease this and all department budgets based on our view of the Nation's needs. Congress never blindly accepts the Pentagon budget request. When the Reagan administration asked for increases in the defense budget in the 1980's, my liberal colleagues never suggested that the Congress accept them without argument. That is exactly the kind of argument we're having today--the President thinks we should continue to cut defense sharply, and we disagree. It is our view that military spending has been cut too deeply and is well below the minimum required for a sound national defense. The fact is that the real Pentagon agrees with us. This year the four service chiefs, in a public repudiation of the administration, made it clear that they need $20 billion a year more in procurement funding than what the Clinton administration has requested. Each warned of the dire consequences of the continued aging of their weapons and equipment. So when we consider ``what the Pentagon asked for,'' I intend to listen to the chiefs who have made a career of preparing for war, not the President's political appointees. Second: ``This budget focuses on the wrong threats.'' Of course there are growing unconventional threats to the United States and her citizens, including terrorism and information warfare. In fact, some of our additional spending on R & D is going toward programs such as counter proliferation support and chemical and biological defense. But we should not be forced to choose which threat to remain exposed to--as we address these new threats, we have to still be prepared for conventional warfare. I urge my colleagues to remember that defense spending is not an investment, but an insurance policy. And we need different kinds of insurance. Their odds of having a car accident may be far greater than the odds that their house will burn down, but most Americans have both car and fire insurance. This same logic underlies our continued readiness on conventional threats even as we prepare for the unconventional threats of the future. Third: ``Why buy advanced weapons when American weapons are already the best in the world?'' It is true that American weapons are the best in the world today. But as threats evolve and weapons technology throughout the world improves, we must stay ahead. When we go to war, we don't want a fair fight--we want to overwhelm the enemy with speed, stealth, and lethality. This costs money, but what is our alternative? To ask our troops to get closer to the enemy, to expose themselves more to enemy fire, to fight longer and harder in order to win? We need look no further than the gulf war. We sent a half-million troops to the other side of the world, where they won a major land war in less than 100 hours of ground combat. We suffered 146 killed and 354 wounded in that war, and mourned each and every one of them. But how many more would we have lost if we had not invested billions in the 1980's in stealthy aircraft, cruise missiles, Aegis ships, and advanced land combat systems? We bought those weapons in the 1980's at a time when we also had the most technologically advanced force in the world, and many opponents of the Reagan budgets criticized those purchases. In the end, I would argue that President Bush was very lucky to fight his war with Ronald Reagan's military. I often wonder how a future President will feel about fighting a war with Bill Clinton's military. Fourth: ``We spend far more on defense than other countries.'' Of course we spend more money on defense than other countries. But there are two problems with this comparison: it assumes that all countries are equal, and it suggests that the comparison between how much the United States spends versus other nations, accurately predicts which side will prevail in conflict. But because of geography, all things aren't equal. We are separated from our potential enemies by two great oceans. And rather than fighting wars in our own backyard, Americans prefer to fight over there. Because we prefer to fight abroad, it will naturally cost us much more than it costs our enemies to field the same force, since we have to transport, sustain, and operate our fighting force in a place where the enemy already is. Each of these activities--moving, sustaining, and fighting far away-- increases the cost of our military without significantly changing the friendly-to-enemy force ratio. This cost is raised further if we want to field a force that is not just equivalent to our enemy's, but one that can defeat his force with minimal casualties, just as we did in the gulf war. The question, therefore, is not whether we will be paying more for our Armed Forces than our enemy does, but rather how much more we must pay. Is the right number three times as much, as with Russia, or more? More than 2,000 years ago, Sun Tzu said you should have five times the strength of an enemy to assure success. Well, there have been some changes in warfare since Sun Tzu's time. We now have tanks, and planes, and submarines, so the ratio has changed a little. And we can stand here and argue until we are blue in the face over what the proper force level is; two times, three times, five times as much as the other guy. But the cost of our unique geography makes any comparison between what we pay and what our enemies pay irrelevant. The point is: if you want to fight over there, and win, decisively, with minimal losses, then you can expect to pay many times what the enemy pays for his military. So this argument is cruel and invalid. Now, the people who make these and other statements about this defense bill are smart. They know that we must cross our oceans to fight. They know that what we consider defense spending may not be what our enemies consider defense spending: First, there is the high cost of our high-quality volunteer military: recruiting, paying, providing medical care, and retirement. Many people don't realize it, but two- thirds of our defense budget is spent on paying people. Then there is the cost of supporting our world-wide surveillance network, our nuclear deterrent and so on. They know these costs are unique to the United States but they choose to ignore it in their arguments. Why? Because it supports their view of proper levels of defense spending. We can disagree about what it takes to field a given capability, but we should drop these invalid comparisons and deal with the facts. As we prepare to vote on the fiscal year 1997 Defense bill, I am truly concerned about the effects that decreasing levels of defense spending have had upon our armed forces. If the general public fully understood the severity of defense cuts under the Clinton administration, they would be outraged. In my State of Oklahoma, I have heard this message already. We can see the cuts all around us and it is time to put these reckless defense cuts to an end. History has demonstrated that superpower status cannot be sustained cheaply, nor can it be sustained by budget requests which do not provide for adequate funding of our forces. I am committed to maintaining America's superpower status, just as I am convinced that the Clinton administration is not. I was deeply disappointed by the administration's fiscal year 1997 budget request for defense spending. The administration's fiscal year 1997 budget request was $18.6 billion less in real terms than the level enacted for fiscal year 1996. In real terms, since the end of World War II, there have only been 5 years that the United States has spent less than the Clinton administration is recommending for fiscal year 1997. Only in fiscal year 1947, fiscal year 1948, fiscal year 1949, fiscal year 1950, those years immediately following World War II, and fiscal year 1955 immediately after the Korean war, has defense spending been less than the President's recommendation for this year. Not even during the hollow force years of the 1970s, when we could not afford spare parts to keep our equipment running, have we spent so little on defense. Clearly, it is the responsibility of Congress to address these shortcomings. Now we know that events in the Persian Gulf over the past several days have gotten President Clinton's attention. He appears to have reversed his earlier threat to veto this bill. But I wonder if he has considered the deeper ramifications of Saddam Hussein's recent activity. This latest round of cruise missiles has reminded me of two basic facts. One, of course, is that the Persian Gulf, like many other regions, remains a very unstable place. The second is that we must be prepared to project power on the other side of the world on very short notice. It is one thing to throw a few cruise missiles at easily identified desert targets. But what if more is required? What if the missiles do not stop Saddam's advance? Then we are right back where we were in 1990--we must build up a force, move it to the gulf, and fight Saddam Hussein the old fashioned way, of course with overwhelming firepower, but also perhaps man to man and tank to tank. My friends, should this worst-case scenario arise, we will have a problem. Why? Because, in terms of military strength, we are not right back where we were in 1990. In fact, we aren't even close. Listen carefully! We fought Desert Storm with 11 Army divisions plus two larger Marine divisions, 10 Air Force tactical fighter wings, and 6 carriers, and 100 ships from the Navy. We drew this Desert Storm force from an Army with 28 divisions, an Air Force with 38 tactical fighter wings, and a Navy with 15 carriers and 566 ships. But look at today's numbers: instead of 28 Army divisions in 1991, we have just 15 today; instead of 38 Air Force wings, we have 20 today; and instead of 566 ships and 15 carriers, our Navy has roughly 350 ships and 12 carriers today. This means, for example, that while we used about 42 percent of the Army's combat power in 1991, we would use more than 70 percent today. So what would we fight a second war with? It only gets worse--these comparisons assume that the administration's budgets will hold our forces at today's levels. But most outside analysis--General Accounting Office, Heritage Foundation-- shows that the Clinton 5-year budget plan is more than $150 billion short of the amount needed to buy the force level that the President himself says is necessary. This is worse than a difference of opinion over priorities--this mismatch between what we say we will do and what we actually can do is dangerous. It undermines confidence among our allies, invites miscalculation by the Saddam Husseins of the world, and gives the American people a false sense of security. No government should do this. It is our duty, as U.S. Senators, to do our part in providing for our national security. In doing our part, we must vote for a defense bill which gives our military the means to do their part. Our forces do not ask much of us for their service, but they do need a certain amount of support from their Government in order to carry out their duties and protect the security of the United States of America. I feel it is time we take a more responsible approach to defending this Nation. I urge my colleagues to make a good start, by supporting the fiscal year 1997 DOD authorization bill and its attempt to slow the administration's deep cuts to our Nation's military modernization. Even this level of funding is inadequate; however, it is the best we will be able to do until we have a President who remembers that his first responsibility is not to try to change Americans' behavior with gimmicks in the tax code, but to protect their lives, liberty, and property from threats around the globe. As inadequate as it is, we must pass this defense authorization bill. It is the best we can get until we change Presidents. I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I changed my 3 to 5, Mr. President, after listening to the distinguished Senator from Utah. I shared the same experiences in the Army, and I know exactly where he is coming from. Mr. President, when he stated that Jefferson would have been stunned if he would have known what we have here today, some who were around back then would not have been so stunned. It was de Tocqueville who made the observation after writing the book about the great wealth of this country and what made it so wealthy. He said that once the people find that they can vote money out of the public treasury, the system will fail. And I think we are getting dangerously close to that. As I watched the Chicago convention and all of this emphasis on the family, I was thinking, ``How in the world could any administration with such a dismal failure in their treatment of family values be talking about the family?'' Maybe that is the whole reason they are doing it. I think if you go back and look, Mr. President, at the tax increase that took place in 1993, it was characterized by then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, the distinguished Senator from New York, as the ``largest single tax increase'' in the history of public finance, or any place in the world. That is exactly what happened. What was the nature of that tax increase? It was a tax increase on the American family. It was a gasoline tax increase. That is not just for fat cats. That is for everyone who drives a car, drives a truck, or drives a tractor. It was a tax increase on small business and on individuals, and even retroactive--going back and saying, ``It is not enough that we go ahead and tax you from this point forward, but let us go back to January.'' I think that is the first time in history that has been done. It was a 70-percent tax increase on the Social Security recipients who cared enough to prepare for some of their senior years so they would have as much as $22,000 of income. It was an increase in estate taxes. And what is interesting about this is we passed a bill, several provisions that would have been geared just to the family, the $500 per child tax credit, the capital gains tax reduction, repealing some of our laws that penalize people who get married, who if you stay married--actually right now under the law on the books two individuals who are happily married, if they will get a divorce, can increase their take-home pay by reducing taxes. Is that what Government is supposed to do? Anyway, I enjoyed the statement by Senator Dole when he talked about doing something about the overtaxation. And if you will analyze what he was suggesting in repealing that Social Security tax increase, the $500 per child tax credit, the reduction of taxes by 15 percent, the reduction of capital gains taxes and the repealing of the estate tax, all he is saying there is let us go back and see what happened in 1993 and let us repeal a portion of that tax increase. So I would suggest that anyone today who was not supportive back in 1993 of the tax increase should be supporting what Senator Dole is proposing to do now. The Senator from Utah mentioned we cannot afford it. I would like to make one comment. I heard the distinguished Senator from Arizona quote John Kennedy several times on the fact that back when he was President, he said we have got to increase revenues and the only way to increase revenues is to reduce the tax rates. He reduced the tax rates and that did increase revenue. So I suggest to the Senator from Utah that we can afford to do this. We can effectively increase our revenues by reducing taxes. The formula works out that for each 1-percent growth in economic activity it increases revenues by $24 billion. However, we do not have the same kind of Democrat in the White House today that we had when we had John Kennedy. It was Laura Tyson who said there is no relationship between the level of taxes a nation pays and its economic performance. And if you have that philosophy, then you can say, yes, we cannot afford it. Indeed, history has shown us in three decades in the last 100 years, the twenties, the sixties, and the eighties, when we had dramatic reductions in tax rates, each time we increased our revenues. So I think it is a question now of are we really concerned about the family, are we really concerned about doing something about the lessons of those times? I think the time is here, and we have a Congress that is willing to do it. I applaud the Senator from Georgia for bringing up this subject to discuss today.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator, too. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, the Senate will soon be asked to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. The intent of this treaty is to implement a worldwide ban on the production, possession, and use of chemical weapons, which is something we would all agree to; if it were something that was enforceable or verifiable, that we would be a party to. However, most of the experts I have talked to--people like Caspar Weinberger, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, William Clark, I even had a conversation with Dick Cheney--have serious questions as to whether or not this is in the best interests of the United States. The problem we have, one of many problems, but the major problem we have with the CWC, the Chemical Weapons Convention, is that it does not include those countries that pose the greatest threat to our Nation's security. I am talking about Libya and Iraq, North Korea, Syria. They are not a part of this. Even if they were a part, I would not believe they would actually live up to their commitment. But, again, they are not. Some countries have signed onto the treaty but they have not ratified it. We seem to be acting as if all those countries that have signed the treaty ultimately will ratify it. I do not believe that is the case. Even in the case of Russia, if they did, the Senator from North Carolina here can remember, back in 1990, when the Russians and the United States, then the Soviet Union and the United States, had a bilateral destruction agreement, yet the Russians have not lived up to it--not because they do not want to, necessarily; because they say they cannot afford to. In fact, they said if you in the United States expect us in Russia to live up to the bilateral destruction agreement of 1990, it will cost you approximately $3.3 billion. I do not anticipate there will be a lot of support for that. They keep saying 160 countries have signed the treaty. This is fine, but they are the wrong countries. We do not have a problem, a threat of chemical warfare with Great Britain, with France, with Sweden, with these countries. It is the countries who are not a part of this that pose the threat. The compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention is not verifiable. Countries like China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia have signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, but our ability to verify their compliance is doubtful at best. I think the best quote I can give is from the former CIA Director James Woolsey, who was the CIA Director under Democratic Presidents. He said: The chemical weapons problem is so difficult from an intelligence perspective that I cannot state that we have high confidence in our ability to detect noncompliance, especially on a small scale. The U.N. inspectors, after the agreement was reached with Iraq back in 1991, have had all kinds of opportunities to look for chemical weapons in Iraq, yet many have gone undetected. So we will be asked to ratify this. I serve notice now I will be among the leaders in opposition to that ratification. I feel it is very similar to the ratification of the START II agreement. The START II agreement was an agreement that would force us back into a posture that we found ourselves in in 1972 with the ABM Treaty, which was with, at that time, the Soviet Union. It does not do any good for us to downgrade our nuclear capability, as was the case there, if we have 25 to 30 nations who are building a nuclear capability, who have weapons of mass destruction, who are working on the missile means of delivering them. I see a parallel here, an analogous situation. What good does it do for us to agree to destroy all of our chemical capability if we are allowing those rogue nations that pose the greatest threat to the United States to still be able to have theirs? I think one of the phoniest arguments, though, is on terrorism. I hope no one will give much credence to that. The President and his administration contradicted themselves the other day when the President was trying to lead us into this notion that, if we ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention, somehow it will make it more difficult for terrorists. He said: If the Chemical Weapons Convention were in force today, it would be much more difficult for terrorists to acquire chemical weapons. Then a short while after that, in a response, Warren Christopher said: It is difficult to predict what impact the CWC will have on actual terrorist use of chemical weapons, as the CWC was not designed to deal with this threat. He was exactly right. So I hope we are not lulled into a false sense of security by ratifying a convention that is not verifiable and that is not participated in by those parties and those countries that pose the greatest threat to the United States. I come from Oklahoma, and if a terrorist was able to get enough explosive power to blow up the Murrah Federal Office Building to the extent it happened there, I can assure you that the terrorists will also be able to get chemical weapons. So, Madam President, I hope my colleagues share my concern about this, the harmful impact of the chemical weapons convention on our Nation's security, and will join me in opposing the ratification of this flawed agreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding that as chairman of the appropriate committee, you made a request sometime ago for all of these documents in order for us to deliberate this, to debate this, to determine whether or not this was in the best interest of our Nation's security. Have you received any response so far to your request?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. If I might add an additional comment to address the Senator from Idaho's question, I want to assure my colleagues that I share their concern that there is evidence of potential harm to Americans from exposure to fine particles. I want to know what kinds of particulates cause health problems. And I want to know where those particulates are and what are the best ways to reduce them. I would note for the Senator from Idaho that the chairman of the subcommittee stated earlier the court order does not require the EPA to propose a change in the particulate standard. The EPA can satisfy its obligations by proposing not to change the particulate standard until there is a better understanding about which particulates cause health effects, and where those particulates are prevalent in unhealthful levels. I would like to add that the Clinton Administration's Executive Order or Regulatory Review states the Administration's own regulatory philosophy as requiring agencies that are deciding whether and how to regulate must ``assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.'' I believe the only prudent course would be for EPA to include consideration of retaining the current particulate standard in its proposed rule. In following this path, progress will continue to be made by the ongoing implementation of the existing Clean Air Act while the necessary research is being conducted to address the unanswered questions.

Mr. INHOFE

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

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues for including language in last year's report that accompanied the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill, encouraging the ground-water quality and remediation procedure research at the Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory in Ada, OK. I would like to particularly thank Subcommittee Chairman Bond and ranking member Senator Mikulski. I would also like to thank my colleagues for including the reauthorization of the Kerr Laboratory and University Consortium in the Senate-passed Safe Drinking Water Act. The Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory is a vital component of our country's environmental research. The laboratory is the premier ground water research facility in the United States and the world. The work accomplished at this facility is vital to both the Drinking Water and Superfund programs.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank my colleague from Missouri. As members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee we share a concern that the programs at the EPA should be grounded in sound science and that the Agency must continue to produce sound scientific research to be used in the regulatory process. Continuing and encouraging the ground water research at the Kerr Laboratory will not only help protect the environment but will ensure that newly developed knowledge and technology for ground water remediation at contaminated sites to be made available to the remediation industry in a usable and timely manner. This research facility is essential in continuing to protect our country's ground water resources and I urge the EPA to continue to support the Kerr Laboratory. epa funding for the sokaogon chippewa community

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. If my colleagues will yield for a moment, I would like to endorse the recommendation made by the Senator from New York. Requiring EPA to arrange for the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a full analysis of the science on endocrine disrupters will enhance our understanding of this new potential environmental threat. While I understand that the Academy's Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology is already undertaking a study at the request of the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency that focuses primarily on wildlife, toxicological mechanisms, and some human effects, this analysis could and should be broadened substantially to include a more comprehensive analysis of human exposures, sources of exposure, and the best ways to measure them, in order to help guide the EPA in developing these screening programs. In addition to comparing the relative risks between natural and synthetic endocrine disrupters and providing information on the proper way to prioritize chemicals and samples for testing, the Academy could also be useful in providing advice on how to use the resulting information in making public policy decisions and how to best communicate the results of any screening and testing program to the public.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3680 which was received from the House.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this particular act is known as the War Crimes Act of 1996. This was called to my attention by a very articulate young Congressman from North Carolina, Walter Jones, Jr., whose father we served with for many, many years over in the House of Representatives. He was very observant in discovering something, that after 40 years, after the ratification of the Geneva Conventions, that it was not self- enacting, and we actually have never passed the necessary legislation to accept jurisdiction within our Federal courts to prosecute war crimes that we were aware of. So this legislation will correct that after this long period of time. It is kind of inconceivable to me that we would send out to battle and to various parts of the world our young troops, trying to equip them properly--I would say properly, that if we ever get our authorization passed--and have these people ready to do the work that they are trained to do, and yet if a crime is perpetrated against them, and that criminal happens to be in the United States, we cannot even prosecute them in our Federal courts. That is all going to come to a stop. I think also this bill might even address another problem that is taking place right now in this country. As you know, I am from Oklahoma. And one of the worst terrorist acts took place just a little over a year ago in Oklahoma City with the bombing of the Murrah Federal Office Building. And with all of the terrorist acts recently, this could act as a deterrent, this War Crimes Act of 1996, for people who may be considering perpetrating some terrorist act that could be defined as a war crime. So I believe this is something that should have been done some 40 years ago, but was not. So we will correct that tonight. This has been cleared by both sides.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today the Senate is passing an important piece of legislation, S. 1873, the National Environmental Education Act amendments. I introduced this bill on June 13 along with my colleagues, Senators Chafee, Lieberman, Faircloth, Kempthorne, Moynihan, Reid, and Lugar. Since that date nine more senators have joined me in this bipartisan show of support for this legislation. This bill will reauthorize the educational efforts at the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation and the EPA's Office of Environmental Education. These programs support environmental education at the local level. They provide grant money and seed money to encourage local primary and secondary schools and universities to educate children on environmental issues. With the importance of the environment and the continuing debate on how best to protect it, it is vital to educate our children so that they truly understand how the environment functions. Over the last few years environmental education has been criticized for being one-sided and heavy-handed. People have accused environmental advocates of trying to brainwash children and of pushing an environmental agenda that is not supported by the facts or by science. They also accuse the Federal Government of setting one curriculum standard and forcing all schools to subscribe to their views. This is not how these two environmental education programs have worked, and I have taken specific steps to ensure that they never work this way. The programs that this act reauthorizes have targeted the majority of their grants at the local level, allowing the teachers in our community schools to design their environmental programs to teach our children, and this is where the decisions should be made. In addition, the grants have not been used for advocacy or to lobby the Government, as other grant programs have been accused of doing. This legislation accomplishes two important functions. First, it cleans up the current law to make the programs run more efficiently. And second, it places two very important safeguards in the program to ensure its integrity in the future. I have placed in this bill language to ensure that the EPA programs are balanced and scientifically sound. It is important that environmental education is presented in an unbiased and balanced manner. The personal values and prejudices of the educators should not be instilled in our children. Instead we must teach them to think for themselves after they have been presented with all of the facts and information. Environmental ideas must be grounded in sound science and not emotional bias. While these programs have not been guilty of this in the past, this is an important safeguard to protect the future of environmental education. Second, I have included language which prohibits any of the funds to be used for lobbying efforts. While these programs have not used the grant process to lobby the Government, there are other programs which have been accused of this and this language will ensure that this program never becomes a vehicle to lobby Congress or the Executive branch. This bill also makes a number of housekeeping changes to the programs which are supported by both the EPA and the Education Foundation which will both streamline the programs and make them more efficient. For those people who remain concerned about the Federal role in environmental education let me assure everyone that I will be personally monitoring these programs. If there are abuses or questionable grants or programs I will be the first to call for an investigation or to invoke the oversight functions of Congress. Educating our children is a serious matter and should not be abused by anyone. It is my intent and goal that these programs provide objective material in a balanced and scientifically sound manner that does not instill any particular viewpoint in our Nation's youths. We need to teach our children the facts and let them reach their own conclusions, and I believe this bill accomplishes this goal. I thank my colleagues for supporting this bill and I hope the House can act quickly and this legislation can be signed into law.