Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two resolutions that we voted on--Senate Joint Resolution 41, in 1994, and House Joint Resolution 1, in 1996--be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object to the unanimous consent request. The two resolutions that I asked to be inserted into the Record are Senate Joint Resolution 41, which was in the 103d Congress, first session, and Senate Joint Resolution 1, which is what we voted on yesterday, which are identically the same. I do not want the ones from 1993, 1989, or any other time. I want these two.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, you did. It is identically the same. You voted----

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield----

Mr. INHOFE. It is an identical resolution.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if I thought, 10 years ago, I would be making this statement, I would say someone is out of his mind. But I have to say now that it comes from the heart when I say this. There is no loss in the history of the institution of the U.S. Senate as great as the loss that will be incurred when Senator Simon submits his retirement and is no longer in this body. I say that in a very sincere way because Senator Simon and I have a few things in common, but certainly political philosophy is not one of them. He is a liberal. I am a conservative. But he is very honest about his liberalism, and he is one who puts his priorities first. His statement about his children and grandchildren is very touching indeed. Mr. President, I think that the vote we are going to be casting tomorrow will be the second most significant vote, perhaps in the last decade, but certainly in this session of the legislature. The first most significant vote happened yesterday when we made a decision in this country not to defend ourselves from nuclear missile attack. It is something I think we made a grave mistake on, because many of the other things are not significant now when you think about the threat that is out there. What we are going to do tomorrow is certainly significant. I decided that a way to approach this would be to take, verbatim, the arguments that have been made in opposition to a budget balancing amendment to the Constitution and address each one of them. There are ten arguments. I will read these: Proponents have refused to lay out a detailed plan to get a balanced budget. How can you tell if it would be good for the country if you do not know the details? Senator Simon talked about a figleaf. This is a figleaf. I can remember when we lost this earlier--I guess last year-- by one vote, and they tried to kill it in a way that they would not have to vote against it by putting an amendment on called the ``right- to-know amendment,'' which would outline everything that we are going to appropriate, everything that we are going to fund, every tax we are going to increase or decrease, for the next 7 years. Obviously, you cannot do that. In a minute, I will show you the political philosophy of those individuals who voted for the right-to-know amendment, because those individuals, each one of them, voted against the final bill, and there is a common thread there that we need to look at. I can tell you what we do know, which is that the status quo is bad-- bad for the country. Business as usual cannot continue. We are to the point where we have to make a change. We did not have that luxury last year, or 10 years ago, even though we are working on this as a problem. I will say this. Those individuals who are going to vote against our balanced budget amendment to the Constitution tomorrow are liberals, but they do not go home and campaign that way. They are not politically honest with the people back home on their philosophy. How many times have you heard someone on the stump stand up and say, ``Vote for me and I will increase your taxes, I will increase spending, and I will increase the deficit''? You do not hear it. Yet, that is exactly what happens. You cannot give a detailed plan as to how it is going to happen. Back in May 1961, President Kennedy decided that it was in our Nation's interest to have a man on the Moon in 10 years. He did not say what was going to happen, or how. He did not map out the details. We could not do it yet because the rockets were not built, the spacecraft was not designed, and the astronauts were not trained. Nobody said how we were going to do it. But we committed ourselves to it, and we did it. Here is another one, argument No. 2: Proponents want to treat people like children, hiding the hard truth from them. I can tell you that is not the case. My wife and I have been married for 37 years. We are into grandchildren now. One time, our No. 2 son was out learning to ride a bicycle. He was a very young child. I went out there and pushed him, and he got balanced. Finally, he was able to go all the way around the block. When he came back, he said, ``You know, Dad, I wish the whole world was downhill.'' The whole world is not downhill. What we are embarking upon, if we are successful in doing it, is not going to be easy. It is something that we have to do. We do not have a choice. We are out of time. We all know that the world is not downhill. We have to pedal uphill. It will take sacrifice. But for our children's sake and future generations, we have to do it. Third is that proponents say they are tired of Washington telling people what to do--the Washington-knows-best mentality--and that the balanced budget amendment is the ultimate Washington mandate. My response to that is, no, they have it backward. Those who oppose the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution are the guys who have been running this show for the last 40 years, who have created this $5 trillion debt. They are arrogant in saying that we know what is better. Yes; future generations are going to have to pay for this. But that Washington-knows-best attitude is what got us where we are today, that continuing business as usual for all these years. They say that despite the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the people in America support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Why? Because they know that without that fiscal discipline forcing them to do it, we are not going to do it. I think the public spoke loudly and clearly in the elections of 1994. It was, in fact, a Republican year, and in a minute I will document this and show this to you. A lot of people that are going to be voting against this will not be around much longer. In a way, the balanced budget amendment is a mandate for fiscal responsibility on Congress, and it will not mandate unwanted regulation on the States or the people. Argument No. 4: All these Governors who are boasting about cutting taxes in their States should know that the balanced budget amendment will require them to impose huge State tax increases. Well, that simply is not true. I think the Governors know it. The Governors are supporting this. In fact, let us keep in mind that if we are successful in passing this at noon tomorrow, three-fourths of the States are going to have to ratify this. It is not something we can do unilaterally. I agree with the statements made about the sanctity of the Constitution. That is why the Founding Fathers made it so difficult. The States will have to make the decision, and if they think it will increase taxes, they are not going to support it. They know it will not do that. These States that have been cutting tax rates are actually enjoying increasing revenue. History has shown that is the case. You can increase revenue by cutting tax rates. President Kennedy once said, ``We have to have more revenue, and we are going to cut taxes,'' and it worked. Look what happened in the United States of America. In 1980, our total revenues were $517 billion. In 1990, 10 years later, it was over $1 trillion. It doubled in that period of time. That was a period of time when the tax rates took the largest cuts we have had in any 10-year period in history, from the marginal rates. In 1980, it was $244 billion that was derived from income taxes. In 1990, it was $466 billion. That was after tax reductions. But this mentality we have in the White House and the administration does not agree with that. They do not look at history. They are too smart for that. Laura Tyson, the chief economic adviser to the President of the United States, was quoted in the Wall Street Journal on December 30, 1992. She said: In direct contradiction to the 12 years of Republican ideology, there is no relationship between the level of taxes the Nation pays and its economic performance. Of course, if you believe that, they just keep raising taxes. We know better. The people of America know better. The balanced budget amendment will require a rate of increase in Federal spending to be slowed down. The States will rejoice when they can do this, and three- fourths of the States have already said it shall be no problem at all in ratifying this. Three-fourths of the States have a balanced budget amendment to their State constitution. In 1941, my State of Oklahoma had a balanced budget amendment. These same arguments they are using today were the arguments they were using back then, and it has worked since 1941, and it has worked in the rest of States. Argument No. 5: The balanced budget amendment is a pig in a giant poke. I do not know what this means. I do not know that anyone else does. But I would say this: That the real pig in the poke was pointed out to me by someone who called me up. I was called up after that statement was made by a young lady, a beautiful young lady professor at the University of Arkansas, the home State of our President. She called up and had seen that apparently on C-SPAN. Of course, in Arkansas they know something about pigs. They have the Arkansas Razorbacks, and they use the pigs and the hogs and the hogs and the Razorbacks kind of interchangeably. This young lady was Dr. Molly Rapier on the staff at the University of Arkansas. She said the pig in the poke is in Washington--not outside of Washington. It is those individuals who are spending more and more and more and getting to the trough first. The sixth argument that has been used: The balanced budget amendment will give the politicians license to cut and slash and burn needed programs. This is the big argument they use to make it appear as if we are going to be slashing Government programs, and then they zero in on either the elderly or veterans or somebody else to make them think that we are going to be cutting programs. The Heritage Foundation came out with a study. This was conducted by economists and Ph.D.'s from all over the country from major institutions. They came up with the conclusion--this is a couple of years ago--that we could actually reduce and eliminate the deficit in a much shorter period of time merely by putting growth caps on. I called to get an update from them today. They said if we had growth caps on all Government spending of 1.5 percent we would balance the budget in 7 years including the major tax cuts that the Republicans are asking for to stimulate the economy. These are the economists that are saying this. So we know that this argument is being used, and it is another figleaf, as has been so articulated and presented by the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon. I think that it would do one thing, and that it would cause a counterpressure. A study was made not too long ago about all the people who come to see Members of Congress in the House and the Senate. Over 98 percent of them are in there to get more money for some cause. Some are lobbyists, some are citizens, and some are employees that are in for more money for their causes. So there is nobody out there speaking for that 80 percent of the people who want to reduce the size of the cost of Government. This would do this. I remember one of the best speeches I ever heard was way back in the 1960's when a great communicator, Ronald Reagan, gave a speech, his first political speech, called ``Rendezvous With Destiny.'' He said, ``There is nothing closer to immortality on the face of this Earth than a Government agency once formed.'' I think we have learned it is true. It is very difficult with the political pressures to cut the size of Government. The seventh argument is: Senators are sent here to make intelligent and well- informed decisions on the people's behalf. I have heard this so many times from liberals--saying, ``We do not need that because that is our job. We are elected to balance a budget.'' We have not done it. We have proven that we are incapable of doing it for 40 years. So we have been forced to do it. That is exactly what this would be. This is not anything that is a new idea. Thomas Jefferson said when he came back from France during the development of our Constitution that it could have been improved by having something in there to stop the Americans from going into debt. I can remember a guy named Carl Curtis from Nebraska back in 1974, Mr. President. I was in the State Senate of Oklahoma at that time. He had an idea. He was a great conservative from Nebraska. He said, ``I know how we can balance the budget.'' He said, ``We can get three- fourths of the States to preratify, and then we could use this an as argument saying this is a mandate from the States.'' So I introduced a resolution in the State senate in 1974, and it passed to preratify the Constitution. It is something that has been around for a long time. It is something that we have an opportunity to achieve tomorrow. In response to the opinion polls, a statement was made not long ago on this floor by one of the Senators who is opposed to a balanced budget. He said, ``The proponents talk about public opinion.'' Years ago Talleyrand said, ``There is more wisdom in public opinion than there is to be found in Napoleon, Voltaire and all the ministers of state present or to come.'' But this is true only to the extent that public opinion is informed opinion. In the case of a balanced budget amendment it is not informed opinion. I have to tell that very distinguished Senator in all respects that he is definitely wrong. I would submit that the people of America know that we cannot continue on the road that we are on. I would submit that Talleyrand was exactly right when he said, ``There is more wisdom in public opinion polls than there is. . .''--and to bring it to up today's vernacular, ``. . . to be found in the President, the President pro tempore, and all the ministers of the Clinton administration and the liberal Democrats who are lobbying against the balanced budget amendment.'' Let us keep in mind Talleyrand, who was there during the Napoleon reign, also had another quote which was ``Throw mud, throw mud. Some of it may stick.'' That is exactly what has been happening during this debate. The ninth argument was: The 1990 and 1993 budget deals worked. The way to deal with the deficit is to continue the successful deficit reduction effort for the last 5 years. Since 1990, we have achieved over $900 billion in deficit reduction. I do not know. There was an article in the Reader's Digest not long ago called ``Budget Baloney.'' They talk about how we are saying things here to make people think we are doing something constructive by eliminating the deficit. The debt has grown and grown during this administration. I will have to say this. I do not want to sound like I am blatantly partisan. In 1990, when George Bush was President of the United States, he caved in to the liberal Democrats that were controlling Congress at that time, and he agreed to a tax increase. It was the wrong thing to do. I voted against it. I spoke against it when I was serving in the other body with the distinguished Presiding Officer. I can remember being on ``Nightline'' as one of the few people to stand up against his own President because it was wrong. In 1993 when President Clinton had control of both the House and the Senate it was ``the largest single tax increase in the history of public finance in America or anyplace in the world.'' Those are not the words of conservative Republican Jim Inhofe. Those are the words of Patrick Moynihan who was the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee at that time. But in both cases the results belie the claims of success. If these two huge, painful budget deals were successful in reducing the deficit, then Heaven help us. Just look at the figures. This is the President's own budget book. Under his plan, by 1998 our debt will increase by $1.1 trillion. These are the President's figures. By the year 2000, $1.1 trillion. That is something that we cannot afford. The last one that I want to mention is to quote the argument: The balanced budget amendment is nothing more than a slogan, an empty promise. Most Senators who support it will not even be here in the year 2000 when it will take effect. You know the problem is that the Members of Congress who are responsible for creating this burdensome national debt will not be here when our children have to pay for it. It has been said several times on this floor. The Congressional Budget Office figures support the fact that a person born today, unless we change it, will have to spend 82 percent of his lifetime income just to support the Government's extravagance that we are guilty of today. So let me just mention that talk is cheap. There are those who oppose it. Those individuals who oppose the balanced budget amendment, they are the ones--the same ones as I suggested earlier in my talk. I suggested that those individuals who voted against a balanced budget amendment the last time and are planning to vote it against it this time, even though they will not go home and tell the people they are going to do this, are the liberals. How do you know if they are liberals or conservatives? You do it by looking at how they are rated. You do not want to stand up and call people names. There are ratings organizations out there. The National Taxpayers Union rates as to how we vote. If we are big spenders they say we are. Of those 33 individuals who voted against the balanced budget amendment when it was up last time, all 33 voted for the largest tax increase and the largest spending increase in the history of public finance. All 33 of them got either a ``D'' or an ``F'' by the National Taxpayers Union. That is incontrovertible. They are liberals. They will not say that at home. But they are. And I suggest there is something else that is incontrovertible; that is what has happened in the past. Those individuals who were voting for the large spending increases and the tax hike and who received a ``D'' or an ``F'' are the individuals who either were defeated or who retired in the 1994 election. So I think it is something we need to look at, and I am hoping that those individuals--as the distinguished Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] said, a lot of the Senators who are voting for this because they want to go the party line instead of voting with the people at home better really stop and think about it before noon tomorrow because the people at home are not going to forget. I can suggest to you that we have had several people who are going to be voting against it who have actually made these statements at home. The Senator from North Dakota, [Mr. Dorgan], said in the Congressional Record March 1, 1994: ``This constitutional amendment, no matter what one thinks of it, will add the pressure that we reconcile what we spend with what we raise.'' And he will most likely vote against it. If not, the resolution will pass. Senator Hollings said, ``I can offer my colleagues 3.5 trillion reasons for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It ought to be a minimal moral obligation of our National Government. So let us debate, pass and ratify the balanced budget amendment. By writing a balanced budget amendment into the basic law of the land, we will compel Washington to do its job.'' That is Senator Ernest Hollings, March 1, 1994. Then we had our very, very distinguished minority leader, Senator Tom Daschle, from South Dakota, who said on February 28, 1994: ``Too much is at stake for us to settle for the status quo. A balanced budget amendment will provide the fiscal discipline our Nation must have in order to meet the needs of the present generation without bankrupting those in the future.'' I only say that not to embarrass my colleagues because they are all very distinguished, but they certainly had a change of heart between the time they were making these statements and what will happen tomorrow. I am hoping that two out of three of these individuals who made the statement will turn around and remember what they said in 1994 and will vote for it, and we will pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Lastly, Mr. President, Senator Simon talked about his grandson, Nicholas Simon, and I think that is really what it is all about. Kay and I have a bunch of kids, and our No. 3 child, Molly, just last January 9 called me up and said, ``You know, Daddy, I'm about a month overdue, and they are going to force labor today. Would you come over.'' And I was right over there. She said to me, she said, ``Daddy, would you like to come in the delivery room when we deliver Baby Jase.'' Nowadays they peek. They know what it is. Back when we were having kids, they would not let you in the hospital, let alone the delivery room. And so I said, ``Yes, I want to do it.'' I went in there and stood behind the bed, and we made it through this process. It made me appreciate my wife a lot more than I did before. And finally Baby Jase was born, Baby Jase right here was born. This is on January 9. And he had taken his first breath. He was not even a minute old when she handed him to me. She said, ``Daddy, would you like to hold Baby Jase?'' I held Baby Jase, and I looked at him, and the thing that came to my mind at that time was, as we were speaking at that very moment, Baby Jase was inheriting $19,000 as his share of the national debt; that if we do not do something to change it like we are proposing today, if we do not pass this balanced budget amendment, then Baby Jase is going to have to spend 82 to 84 percent of his earnings paying it. What do you think he did to deserve that? He did not do anything. That is why I say, Madam President, this is not a fiscal issue that we are considering. It is probably the most serious moral issue we have dealt with since I have been in the Senate. I yield the floor. Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. We are in the middle of a debate we have heard over and over. I do not think I have heard anything today or yesterday that I have not heard already and we have not discussed at some length. The Senator from New Mexico mis-characterizes the threat that exists out there. I hope we can go back and recall some of that debate because it started, in characterizing the threat, 2 years ago, when James Woolsey, who has already been identified as the CIA Director under President Clinton, who has stated that we know of between 20 and 25 nations that have or are in the final stages of developing weapons of mass destruction, either biological, chemical, or nuclear, and are developing the missile means in delivering those weapons. He said this 2 years ago. I suggest that those who look wistfully back and say, ``Isn't it wonderful that the cold war is over,'' that the threat could very easily be, and I think it is, greater than it was during the cold war. During the cold war, we had the U.S.S.R. and the United States as two superpowers. So it made some sense to some people to come up with agreements to downgrade nuclear capability because there were only two nuclear superpowers out there. But if we are talking about 25 to 30 nations now and we establish some type of relationship with Russia, since the U.S.S.R. is no longer in existence, then we still have 25 or 30 other nations that are building up their nuclear capability at the same time we are tearing ours down. Is the threat out there? The Russians have the SS-25, the SS-18, which is a MIRV'd missile, I think, with 10 warheads. They have the capability of launching. And North Korea's Taepo Dong II missile that the Senator from New Mexico talked about, that is something that the experts say is within 5 years--and I have heard lower figures than that--of being able to reach the United States. We are talking about technology that exists. We are talking about missiles that can reach long distances and can reach the United States from such places as China, Russia, and North Korea. I also suggest that we do not need to talk about the gross national product of North Korea. That should not enter into this debate. I do not care what their gross national product is. If they have a Taepo Dong II missile that can reach the United States, it only takes one. Coming from Oklahoma, I can tell you, one bomb is enough. So when you look at the threat, I think you need to consult the individuals who are the experts and the ones who said we know what capability is there. We have had this debate already. We had this debate in 1991. We decided we would protect ourselves against the threat of a missile attack by the year 1996. Here it is 1996. We are having this debate again. Technology has improved. As far as the Senator from New Mexico's statement about hitting a bullet with a bullet--yes, that is a difficult thing, but there is not a person in the United States who was not watching CNN during the Persian Gulf war, and we all saw Patriot bullets hitting Scud bullets. That was 5 years ago. Mr. President, we can hit a bullet with a bullet. When you are talking about the proper function of Government, I cannot think of any function that is more significant than protecting the citizens of the United States. We had a lot of discussion about the cost of this. I hear these figures being batted around, $30 and $60 billion. The fact is we already have somewhere between $44 and $50 billion invested in our Aegis ships. We have 22 cruisers and destroyers already floating out there with launching capability. We want to get them upgraded so they can reach up into the upper tier and defend us against missile attack. I do not see anything un-American about that. That money has already been spent. We have that investment. We are down now to a very small amount of money that could bring us to the reality of being able to defend ourselves. Here is Team B of the Heritage Foundation, which is made up of a lot of very knowledgeable people, such as Lt. Gen. James Abrahamson, former SDIO Director and Associate NASA Administrator, and Lt. Gen. Daniel Graham, the former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. We have all of these people sitting down determining the cost of actually coming up with a system that will protect America using the Navy's Aegis system. They say it is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 billion, plus $5 billion if we are going to field the satellites we need to be able to detect where one of these missiles is launched. To be able to use our satellites to detect a missile that is coming toward the United States will cost, according to the Heritage experts, approximately $5 billion. If you take the CBO report and look at what it really says--and they talk about the figures $31 to $60 billion-- what they are talking about is if you want to buy every available missile defense technology there is. What we are suggesting in this bill right here is that the President and the Secretary of Defense look at all the technology, look at the land-launched missiles, look at the Navy's Aegis system and space systems and pick the right combination that will defend America. What the CBO did was to add up the cost as if we adopted everything. It is like going into a used car lot and buying every car in the lot, not just the one that is going to take care of our needs. So the cost is not that much. If the CBO is right, and if it is between the $30 and $60 billion--let us assume it is $40 billion--that is the total cost from 1997 to the year 2010. That is 14 years. So we would be taking approximately $3 billion a year. The Senator from North Dakota talked about the fact that there was not any real threat from North Korea. I suggest that the Senator go back and reread what Gen. Gary Luck, the United States commander in South Korea, came out and stated this year before the Armed Services Committee. He said we have very serious threats. Granted, we are talking about more of a theater missile problem there in Korea. But he said: With 37,000 Americans in South Korea, we need to start working on this system right now because we know what the Taepo Dong II missile is advancing and we know what kind of threat it will be not just to South Korea but to the United States. So I would like, rather than to listen to someone who has very little knowledge about the technology that is available out there, to listen to those who are the experts. I also add that the experts--I was very proud of the four chiefs of the four services the other day coming out and saying that out military procurement is underfunded by $20 billion underfunded--recognizing we in America are not paying proper attention to defending America. It took a lot of courage for them to say that. The Senator from North Dakota goes on and on talking about $60 billion, $90 billion, large sums of money, as if none of that has already been spent. I suggest, Mr. President, that the vast majority of what we need for missile defense has been spent, that we could take the amount of money that has been spent and spend about 10 percent more and have a system in place that would be able to shoot down an ICBM missile if it came toward the United States. Coming from Oklahoma, I think I am probably a little more sensitive to what kind of a disaster can take place. I was there the day after the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City. It is easy to sit here, read the accounts in the paper, maybe watch TV and not be too impressed with how personal this is. When you have a close friend whose son and daughter were in that building, were killed in that building, and they did not know it for 3 days; when you see the disaster, the millions of dollars that were lost, the half billion dollars that was identified in property damage, the 168 lives; and then you realize that the explosive power of the bomb that went off in Oklahoma City was equal to a ton of TNT, while the smallest nuclear warhead that we know about today that our intelligence community can document is 1 kiloton, a thousand times the size of the bomb that wiped out the Murrah Federal office building in Oklahoma City--I just say to those who like to keep their head in the sand, those who like to believe that there is no threat out there, a lot of the experts disagree with you. And what if you are wrong?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Four minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. ``Unless we recapitalize, we are not going to be ready to meet the threats of the future.'' That is the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Ron Fogelman, March 14, 1996. In the same meeting: ``If we do not modernize, we ultimately place future readiness at risk.'' That was Adm. Michael Boorda, same meeting. ``Further deferral of modernization will incur significant risks to future readiness.'' This is Gen. Dennis Reimer of the U.S. Army, March 13, 1996. It is there. The Senator from Texas talked about another great problem, and that is the problem that we have cut back, as a result of the veto of the DOD bill last year, on our ability to defend ourselves from a national missile attack. We do not have a National Missile Defense System in place. Most of the people in America believe we have one, and when they find out we do not have one, it scares them to death. Why are they scared? Because such great people as Jim Woolsey, who was the CIA Director under two Democrat Presidents, said that currently we have a great threat out there. We know of 25 nations that have or are in the final stages of completion of a weapon of mass destruction, either biological, chemical, or nuclear, and are developing the missile means of delivering it. So we are imperiled, Mr. President. We have a great deal to do to rebuild our defenses, to go back and take us out of the posture we were in in 1980 when we could not afford spare parts. What we are doing today is trying to get ourselves into a position where we have adequate spare parts, adequate procurement, so that our troops out there can be competitive with the others. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator for yielding. I also rise to oppose this amendment. I have to ask the question, what is this obsession that we seem to have around this place for cutting the military, for putting ourselves in a defenseless posture? I am just shocked every time this discussion comes up, and hardly a day comes by when there is not talk about this. It is interesting that a President who ran on a balanced budget, ran on a strong national defense, ran on all of these things, wants to cut only defense. He has increased spending in every other program. The only area where he has suggested, in his budget, he wants dramatic cuts is in defense. When he promised, prior to the 1994 budget, that he was going to ask for $62 billion, he ended up asking for $48 billion. For the 1995 budget, he promised he would ask for $55 billion and he only asked for $46 billion. The Senator from Maine talked about the various missions that are taking place around the world today. I opposed it even back during the Republican administration, in December 1992, when we sent troops to Somalia, even though they sent them over for 90 days and they did not come back until after 18 of our troops were murdered and their corpses were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. I opposed sending troops there then. I opposed sending troops to Bosnia. I opposed sending troops to Haiti. Not because I am not compassionate, not because I am not concerned for the plight of these people all around the world, it is just we do not have the military assets to go out and take care of all these social problems around the world and be able to defend ourselves. So I think we have a twofold problem here. We are dramatically reducing, year after year after year, our military budget, and at the same time we are taking on additional responsibilities. Currently, we have more troops deployed around the world than we have had at any other time that is supposedly nonwartime, and we have taken huge cuts in our defenses. Since 1985--this is 12 years--for 12 consecutive years we have taken cuts in our Nation's defense. What makes it even worse, it was pointed out by the Senator from Maine, our defense spending has fallen 41 percent since 1985. It is really worse than that, because procurement has dropped 72 percent since 1985. So, if overall defense spending has dropped 41 percent, procurement 72 percent, that is where the modernization is, that is where the new equipment is, that is where the accounts are that make us competitive. We have watched, year after year--1985, $405 billion using 1997 dollars, down to roughly $250 billion. We cannot afford any more cuts. One of the things that has been stated is that the Pentagon did not make these requests. It is interesting, I heard not more than a month ago when we had testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee-- it was also before the House committee--that we had the four Chiefs all in agreement that we have to have an additional $20 billion in our readiness account in order to be competitive. Yet, that is the first time I can remember in my recollection of American history when the Chiefs themselves came out and said, ``No, the President is wrong. We are sorry. He is the Ccommander in Chief, but we are the ones responsible for protecting America, and we are not able to do it.'' Look what has happened. You want to talk about administrations? During the Democratic administration of 1961, President Kennedy, in the percentage of the total budget, 50 percent was for defense, 16 percent for social spending. Now it is just reversed: 17 percent for national defense, 60 percent for social spending. The areas where we are going to be suffering are the very areas that affect our troops that are in combat situations, preparing for combat situations--quality of life, black boxes for aircraft. Time and time again I get in 141's and 130's and I look down there--I have been a commercial pilot for 40 years, and I look down and see they actually have equipment I have not seen in 20 years. We are sending our people out without GPS's, a very inexpensive piece of equipment. It is because we are cutting down those procurement accounts to a level that we are not going to adequately take care of those individuals who are in the field. I would just make one more comment about what has been said over and over again on the floor. It was said most recently by the very distinguished Senator from Illinois, that this amendment is still $3 billion more than the Pentagon requested. All I can say is, I hope all of America knows--certainly we know in this body here--that the President speaks for the Pentagon. He is the one, and they carry out his orders. But when you stop and ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Chiefs of the services--I will quote right here, ``Unless we recapitalize''--I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been sitting in on this debate, and I have been presiding during part of the time. There are some things that I think should be said at this point that have not been said so far that would be appropriate. It is shocking, it seems to me, the issue of raising taxes is a partisan issue. I mean, if you look at the way that the debate is going, those on the Democratic side are trying to raise taxes. I reread a statement that was made by Laura Tyson who is the chief economic adviser to the President of the United States. I am going to quote it right now into the Record. There is no relationship between the level of taxes a nation pays and its economic performance. If you really believe that, then it is understandable why we are having the discussion that we are having today. But the difference in the way we treat our attitude toward taxes, between the Democrats and the Republicans, is incontrovertible. In the 103d Congress, under a Democrat-controlled Congress, they had the ``largest single tax increase in the history of public finance in America or any place in the world.'' That is a direct quote from Patrick Moynihan who at that time was the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. INHOFE. I am kind of slow, and it takes me long to get my train of thought back. During that time, it was the first ever retroactive tax increase, in other words, we passed a tax increase that went back and imposed taxes on people who were adjusting their behavior and their activities predicated on the existing tax structure at the time. They made it retroactive. The third thing they did--the top tax rate increased to 39 percent, a dramatic increase. It has been increased again since then to 42 percent. The tax on Social Security for many of the senior citizens in this country went up by 50 percent to a total of 85 percent. I believe we need also to make a couple of statements in response to what has been said about the economy, this glowing economy that we supposedly have right now. I have some figures here that show there is no glowing. I know if you say it is long enough, the people will believe it. Then they will say, ``Well, someone's doing a very good job.'' But it is not. Right now, under President Clinton, the economy grew at a slower rate in the first quarter of 1996, 2.8 percent, than it did in the first quarter of 1992, which was 4.7 percent. There have been lost--this comes right out of the Bureau of Statistics, published on May 3, 1995-- in that particular year, 17,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in April, bringing the total number of jobs lost in that sector to 338,000 since last March. I guess the reason I bring this up is that I am one of those individuals who has read history and who believes that you can increase revenues by reducing marginal rates. We saw this happen in the 1980's, during the decade of the 1980's, when we saw the largest number of rate decreases. We increased revenues substantially. The total revenue that was generated in 1980 was $244 billion for marginal rates. In 1990, it is $466 billion. We almost doubled it by reducing dramatically the rates. This is not just a Republican concept. President Kennedy, back when he was President of the United States, made a statement, ``It is a paradoxical and economic statistic that the way to increase revenue is to reduce marginal rates.'' It is something we have seen history repeated over and over again. You are not going to increase revenue by increasing taxes. Therefore, if we can reduce any of these taxes, we should take this opportunity to do it. As he said, 1993 was the largest single tax increase in the history of public finance in America or any place in the world. If you opposed that increase, the largest increase in history, you should be supportive of repealing any part of it. This is just a small part of it. I think, also, if you remember what President Clinton said in Houston not too long ago when he was talking to a group of people who were pretty offended by the increases in taxes, he said, ``A lot of people think I increased taxes too much in 1993. It might surprise you to know that I think I did, too.'' I want to help the President. I want to help him reduce the taxes that he admits were too high in 1993. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Not until I am through with my remarks.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, as I was sitting in the chair presiding and I was listening to several people try to justify an argument against repealing the tax increase, a tax increase that was sold to the American people that it only affected the fat cats in this country, we are talking about the gasoline tax at 4.3 cents as if 4.3 cents is not a significant amount. I remind these people that this was part of a package in 1993, when Bill Clinton had control of both Houses of Congress, and they passed what was characterized by then the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as ``the largest single tax increase in the history of public finance, in America or any nation in the world.'' I think it needs to be in the Record after these statements justifying continuing these taxes that if anyone was opposed to ``the largest single tax increase in the history of public finance, in America or any place in the world'' back in 1993, they would be supportive of repealing any portion of that tax increase today. It was not just a gasoline tax. It was many other taxes which included a 50 percent tax on Social Security for thousands and thousands of senior citizens in America. So I think that those individuals who believe as the chief financial adviser to the President believes, that there is no relationship between the level of taxation in a country and its economic production, have lost the argument because truly that is not the case. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I salute 10 outstanding young women from Oklahoma who have been honored by Red Lands Council of Girl Scouts in Oklahoma City, OK. Each has received the prestigious Girl Scouts of the USA Gold Award. They were honored April 25, 1996, for earning the highest achievement award in Girl Scouting. The Girl Scout Gold Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. The Girl Scout Award can be earned by girls aged 14-17 or in grades 9-12. Girl Scouts of the USA, an organization serving more than 2.5 million girls, has awarded more than 25,000 Girl Scout Gold Awards to Senior Girl Scouts since the inception of the program in 1980. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must fulfill five requirements: Earn four interest project patches, earn the Career Exploration pin, earn the Senior Girl Scout Challenge, and design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award project. A plan for fulfilling the requirements of the award is created by the Senior Girl Scout and is carried out through close cooperation between the girl and adult Girl Scout volunteer. As members of the Red Lands Council of Girl Scouts, these young women began working toward the Girl Scout Gold Award in 1995, and all completed their projects in the areas of leadership and community service. The earning of the Girl Scout Gold Award is a major accomplishment deserving of special public recognition and commendation. I salute the following girls for their accomplishments and for their service to their community and their country: Melanie Brockman of Girl Scout Troop 55. She helped design, organize, and carry out a Special Kids Day. This was a program for the special education students in the community. The children were divided by age and abilities to provide them an opportunity to participate in normal activities. This very successful program gave each special education student a chance to feel good about themselves. Kansas Conrady of Girl Scout Troop 569. She designed an overnight lock-in for sixth grade Junior Girl Scouts and Cadette Girl Scouts to discuss the contemporary issues of substance abuse, facing a family crisis, youth suicide, and teen pregnancy. Professionals were brought in to speak and share their knowledge with the girls, and the girls then participated in activities from the Contemporary Issues Program for Girl Scouts in a round robin format. Melanie Foglesong of Girl Scout Troop 17. She undertook the massive project of cleaning and painting the Wichita Lodge at Camp Red Rock. She organized a work crew, collected supplies, and directed the cleanup from washing walls and windows through the painting of all the interior of the lodge. Leslie Hooks. She planned a program to help Junior Girls Scouts through Senior Girls Scouts know the joys of sailing by learning the fundamentals of sailing and culminating in a hands-on sailing event. Andrea Johnson of Girl Scout Troop 569. She created an informative video of Camp Red Rock and Camp Cookieland for the use of Red Lands Council of Girl Scouts to introduce the camp properties to prospective campers. Danette Kniffin. She planned a program to teach girls of the community the art of canoeing. The program is designed for both beginning and intermediate canoers and included a basic water safety program. Kimmie Kohl of Girl Scout Troop 55. She designed, organized, and carried out a Special Kids Day. This was a program for the special education students in the community. The children were divided by age and abilities to provide them an opportunity to participate in normal activities. This very successful program gave each special education student a chance to feel good about themselves. Amanda Newman. She organized the first active Youth Red Cross Chapter in Blaine County. The goal of the organization is to be trained to help meet the emergencies of their community. Ambra Prestage of Girl Scout Troop 55. She helped design, organize, and carry out a Special Kids Day. This was a program for the special education students in the community. The children were divided by age and abilities to provide them an opportunity to participate in normal activities. This very successful program gave each special education student a chance to feel good about themselves. Nicole Robertson of Girl Scout Troop 127. She organized a Girls' Day Out to introduce the girls to the joys of being a Girls Scout. She also worked with the In-School Program for Red Lands Council Girl Scouts and helped bring the Scouting program to numerous girls.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if you happened to have read the current edition of U.S. News & World Report, there is a front page story about some very heroic people. One of those persons is from Oklahoma. Many years ago, back in 1944, when we were trying to push the Germans out of France and the Alsace-Lorraine area, it was the 761st Tank Battalion that was sent over to try to remove, to extract the Germans from that area. There is one thing that was unique about the 761st Tank Battalion. All of the soldiers in that battalion were black. They called them the ``Black Panthers.'' One of the bright young soldiers was a staff sergeant by the name of Ruben Rivers. Ruben Rivers was born in Tecumseh, OK, a very quiet, soft-spoken person, the kind who everybody liked. When he went into the service, his desire was to see combat. Back then, even though we had 1.2 million blacks serving in World War II, less than half of them saw combat, and not one of them got the Congressional Medal of Honor, in spite of the fact that they had performed all kind of heroic acts. Back in 1990, I was serving over in the House, and it was called to my attention by some surviving members of his family some of the things that he had done. When I heard this story, I called his commander, whose name is Capt. David Williams, retired, who was getting quite elderly, and I asked him to verify the story. This is what Ruben Rivers had done. He was a tank driver. He had won a Silver Star by walking through a minefield and putting a chain on fallen chains and backing out with this tank to detonate all of the mines, taking great personal risk in doing this. A few weeks later--it was November 14, 1944--Ruben Rivers was driving the lead tank, as he always wanted to do. He went through a minefield in order to detonate the mines so that the 761st Tank Battalion Group A could get through. When he did this, he went over several mines. One mine went off, and it blew up the undercarriage of his tank and severely wounded Ruben Rivers. In fact, the bone in his right leg was penetrated all the way through. You could see the shiny white bone. Of course, Captain Williams came over, and he, with the medic, tried to extract him and said, ``Take the morphine. You have done enough for America. We're sending you back.'' He said, ``No, my job isn't done yet.'' He got out of the tank and got in another tank, hobbling over with some help, with one leg, got on the turret and went out into the clearing. The Germans surrounded them from the north. They had our tank battalion completely pinned down where they could not penetrate. Ruben Rivers, in order to find out where they were, drew fire from them. He drove this tank out into the opening. All of them fired, and we were able to go in with our artillery and wipe out the German tank battalion. Of course, Ruben Rivers was dead. Right after that Capt. David Williams went to the Army and put him up for the Congressional Medal of Honor. I will not go into detail as to what some of the responses were, but they kind of laughed. They said, ``Well, I don't think that's going to happen.'' In fact, the paperwork mysteriously disappeared, not once, but twice, so that nobody had the record on record of Ruben Rivers. Capt. David Williams, as I mentioned, is getting quite elderly. He said, ``I'm going to live long enough to see that Ruben Rivers is posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.'' Back in 1990, I introduced a bill in the House of Representatives and told the same story I am telling today, except in perhaps a little more detail, to waive the statute of limitations past 1952 so the President could make that award. The medal has to come from the President of the United States. Then-President George Bush said he would do it, after he had read about the case. But I was unable to get it passed. I tried it again in 1991, 1992; and until finally in 1995 the Army said, ``If you don't introduce any more, we'll go ahead and conduct a study of blacks in the military in World War II to see if any of them had been deserving of the Congressional Medal of Honor who had not received it only because they were black.'' That report, I am very happy to say, has come out just a few days ago. They have nominated seven blacks--one is still living today--to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. The President of the United States, Bill Clinton, had said whoever they recommend, he would go ahead and allow them to receive that medal--their families to receive it. So that is exactly what is going to happen. So, I am very happy to say--we hear a lot of negative things that are going on--that something wonderful has happened. A great Oklahoman from Tecumseh, OK, will be awarded posthumously the highest honor to be given for valor in battle, the Congressional Medal of Honor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I withhold my request.

Mr. INHOFE

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

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

Mr. INHOFE

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

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been watching and listening with a great deal of interest to the debate on term limits. I think there are a lot of us who believe that, regardless of the arguments that come forth on term limits, there are not many minds that will be changed in this Chamber. But many of us have been concerned about the term limits issue long before we got to Congress. I know I became interested in it back in the 1970's, long before I was a Member of Congress. I think a lot of the reason is that you look and you see the things that are going on in this country, and you see that there is a necessity to change the way we have been doing business. One argument that has not been used during the course of this debate, that I have heard anyway, is the argument that if we had term limits, it would deter a lot of people from getting into a legislative position for perhaps the wrong reasons. I think quite often people with whom I have served who came here to Congress directly out of college never really had a real job in terms of the real world and did not have any idea of how tough it was out there. I look at a lot of the things that passed, such as the deficit that has piled up over the years. Certainly, in my position, I look at this as if this is a moral issue, and it is not going to be changed until we are able to change the type of individuals that serve here. We have excellent people serving here in Congress, but the thing that has always been a problem with me is that people who come to Congress, never having been exposed to the real world, have a different set of values and have a different outlook on life than we have. I would agree with some of the previous speakers that we ought to have a situation in America where Members of Congress should all have to go out and make a living under the laws that they pass, and we would not have these problems. Someone not too long ago said that we have an overregulated society here. We certainly do. It is overregulation which mostly came about by people who have been in Congress for their entire adult life. This is something that can be changed. I am not optimistic that anything is going to happen with this today. But I will say this. There is going to be a record that will be established so that people who are running for office will know that the public will know how they stand on this very contentious issue. Over in the other body, in the House of Representatives, there is a Contract With America; 9 of the 10 items were passed over there. The tenth one that was not passed was term limitation. I believe it is something that is very healthy for our system, something that we all need to get on the record, and I think we will have that opportunity today. I believe that is in the best interest of this country. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the 1-year anniversary of the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City reminds us of many things. We recall the emotional shock and grief. We visualize the physical destruction and devastation. We revisit the still unanswered questions: Why this terrible deed and why Oklahoma, of all places? But at the same time, we must also remember the remarkable flowering of the true spirit of our great Nation. In the wake of unspeakable pain and adversity, there came extraordinary acts of heroism, compassion, and voluntarism. There came a unity of purpose and strength of faith few would have believed possible. We were moved beyond words by the outpouring of help and assistance which came without solicitation from friends far and wide, from caring individuals, public servants, private organizations, and communities throughout Oklahoma and throughout America. We were reminded what a truly great country this is and how blessed we are here in the land of the free and the home of the brave. On behalf of all of us in Oklahoma, thank you, America. Thank you for helping. Thank you for caring. Thank you for being there in this most difficult time of need. Nothing anyone can do will erase the indelible scars, pain, and loss that innocent citizens in our State have suffered. But the memories of the generosity and compassion displayed by so many will live in our hearts forever.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as we commemorate the 1 year anniversary of the horrific bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, I would like to share with my colleagues excerpts from poem written by S.L. (Spud) Beckes the day after the bombing. April 19th, of 95; A day Oklahoma and the world will remember, for the rest of their lives; It's nine a.m. and most is calm; Then comes nine-0-two and straight from hell comes devastation in the form of a bomb; Quickly, we turn to the TV, we see panic and fear, we see death and destruction and for some, death grows near, Death and destruction by terrorist, how can this be; it's just not heard of in OKC; We listen close, as the body count grows; then we realize ``Oh my God'' that can't be, that's someone I know; Then comes the helplessness, from within; because, we realize there's nothing to justify this act, that cost us relatives and friends; We ask ourselves, ``Why Oklahoma'' but if we stop and think, the answer is simple; the actions of the hunter, is to kill not cripple; The hunter, goes for the heart and the rest of the body falls; but the cowards, that hit the heart of the United States, did not know, how strong faith in Oklahomans can be and this they did not anticipate; Oklahoma is not only, the heart of America, it is the backbone; and our pride in faith will show the world, even in tragedy, we will hold our head up, trust in god and walk tall; We think of the loss, Men, Women and Children, and ask the Lord ``Why''; We try to be strong at first but it's too much, we are but man, so for most, We bow our head and cry; but when the tears stop and our eyes clear; Nothing on this earth can stop an American, and even in tradegy, we will show the world, there is nothing to fear; ``We'' are a proud Country, the best on the planet; and from our childhood, to our death, our pride in faith, become part of us and this we never regret; So for the good of the world, I say this; ``Be with God, fear not the evil from Hell, for hell has not the courage, the pride, the body or the heart of an American, and this day, today, the world and Oklahoma will never forget; ``God Bless America'' By S.L. (Spud) Beckes, The Oklahoma Poet.