Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. I recall the Senator bringing up and discussing some of these things that need to be done within our health care system. I remember so well back when we had the proposal by the President to have Government take over a system that has been run well but needed some improvements, we committed ourselves at that time to incremental improvements. I think the bill that is before us today is good. But I also think that the amendments that will be offered, some of the provisions of which the Senator has talked about, are going to make it better. The MSA element of this bill I think is very significant. You know, this is the only product or service anywhere in America where it has built in a factor to pay more. I do not know of anyone in America, that once they pay their deductible on a health policy, watches what they spend as much as if they were paying their own money. This is human nature. I am hoping that this bill that is a good bill, can be made a much better bill and we can come through and take care of some of the things that the Senator is talking about. I am particularly interested in some items that are not going in there. I would like medical malpractice reform but I also realize that would be a very heavy thing that would cause it to go down and perhaps cause a veto. I think with these very moderate and modest reforms that the Senator is talking about, I think it will be a better bill, better bill for our health delivery system in America. I applaud the Senator for bringing these up and discussing them.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think anything that is said further tonight on this bill will be redundant, but I think some things are worthy of redundancy. I think it is virtually impossible for anyone in this Chamber who was not in Oklahoma City when the tragedy happened-- the bombing of the Murrah Federal Office Building--to really appreciate the significance of the trauma, the disaster, the emotions at the time. I think it was well said in a magazine called Oklahoma Today, talking about the first wave of the super-hot gas moved at 7,000 miles an hour, fast enough for someone 10 feet away to be hit with a force equal to 37 tons, and in about half a second the gas dissipated only to be replaced by an equally violent vacuum. The resulting pressure waved outward, lifting the building up and causing beams, floor slabs, and connections to weaken and collapse. When the pressure wave passed, gravity took over. Nine stories of the north side of the building pancaked, creating a crater 30 feet deep. People who had been on the ninth floor ended up in the basement. I think one of the most memorable experiences I had was the very first night. The firefighters had arrived. They were all volunteers. They were taking turns 1 hour at a time crawling on their bellies through there to pull out parts of bodies. I actually saw on the first floor human hair and one hand that was stuck to a wall. As they pulled the bodies out--some alive, some dead--they did not know at that time whether or not it would come crashing down and kill them. When one group came out after an hour, there was blood all over the individuals. Then you could hear the cadence, almost like you heard in World War II, of the firefighters marching down the streets to take their turn, and this is what we experienced there. The majority leader a few minutes ago said the habeas provision is the heart and the soul of this bill. It may be that some of you do not agree with that, but I can assure you the families of the 168 victims who died in the Murrah Federal Office Building, they believe that, because they came up here 2 months after the explosion and sat across the table from many of the Senators in here and said, ``The one thing we want in legislation is habeas reform. We do not want the same thing to happen as happened when Roger Dale Stafford in Oklahoma murdered nine Oklahomans and sat on death row for 20 years.'' So I guess all I can say is, on behalf of the families of the 168 victims, those who lost their lives in the Murrah Federal Office Building, I appeal to you to pass this bill tonight.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have listened to the debate not just today but the debate on this for the past year. I remember so well the incident, when my fellow Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, and I were in Oklahoma City right after it happened for the days following that, talking to families and the ones who actually had their own loved ones that were still in the building, not knowing whether they were alive or dead. It is very difficult to get the full emotional impact watching TV of some remote place like Oklahoma from outside. When you are there, you feel differently about it. This is why Senator Nickles and I have such strong feelings about this bill. There is some opposition in this bill even in the State of Oklahoma by many people who felt that perhaps the wiretapping provisions went a little bit too far, the invasion of civil rights and privacy, perhaps was a little too strong. Many of my conservative friends did not want me to support it. I was very pleased when the conference came out with its report. I believe the bill we have today is better than the House bill was. It is better than the Senate bill that we sent to them. I feel much stronger about it now and much more supportive than I did before. I think Senator Nickles has covered most of the things that people in Oklahoma are concerned with. I can just tell you it is not a laughing matter that these people do want an opportunity. These are not wealthy people. They feel they should participate, at least be able to view the trial taking place. That is something that is in this bill. It will allow them to do it. Many of them could not sustain the hardship of making a trip to Denver. There are a lot of things in here that I think are better than they were when we sent it over. The one area I want to concentrate on and just emphasize again is the habeas reform. My concern, and in fact, I can tell you, if that had been taken out I probably would have opposed the bill. Two months after the tragedy, the bombing tragedy in Oklahoma City, we had the families of the victims up here, in Washington, DC. I personally took them to many Senators' offices. They expressed to them that of all the provisions that would come out in an antiterrorism bill, the one that was the most significant to them was the habeas reform. It happened to coincide with something that Senator Nickles and I are very familiar with, a murder that had taken place 20 years ago, by a man named Roger Dale Stafford. Roger Dale Stafford murdered nine Oklahomans in cold blood. He sat on death row for 20 years. We just finally carried out that execution. These families are looking and saying, ``Here is a guy that sat on death row. He gained over 100 pounds, so the food was not too bad. He was in an air-conditioned cell and watched color TV.'' They are thinking about what happened to their own members of their family. I look at it behind that. If you get someone with a terrorist mentality, and particularly, someone, perhaps, from the Middle East who has a different value on life than we do, if he is looking at the down side and saying, should I do this act, should I perform this act, and the worst thing that can happen to me is that I will sit in an air-conditioned cell and watch color TV for 15 years, punishment ceases to be a deterrent to crime. So I think that is a very significant provision that has to be saved. I think any chance on sending this back might jeopardize the chances of having that type of reform. Again, that was the one thing that was in this bill that the families of the victims in Oklahoma said we really have to have; that is the one thing that has to be in there that is going to give us any relief at all. Once the person is apprehended and the trials and sentence are over, and if it is an execution, they want to go ahead and go through with it and not have the perpetrator of the crime that murdered their families sitting on death row for most of their lifetimes. So I think this is a very good bill. I will just repeat an emotional appeal from the victims and families of the victims in Oklahoma. Let us get this passed and let us get it passed before April 19, on Friday. It is very, very important for us, and I hope we move along on this. We have been considering this for quite a period of time. We started right after the bombing. So we have had adequate time to be deliberative--as deliberative as this body is famous for being. I think it is time to go ahead and pass it. I yield the floor. Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to share some thoughts on a subject of growing concern to many Americans, particularly to parents who seek a better and brighter future for their children through education. It is that we are failing to teach our children to read effectively. In 1940, the literacy rate in the United States was 97 percent. It has now plunged to 76 percent--a rate which is lower than that of over 100 other nations. To me, this is intolerable. America's future depends on restoring the reading skills of its people. If we value our responsibility for leadership; if we seek to stay competitive in the world economy, we must address the problem of illiteracy in America. We cannot stand by and watch our children sentenced to a life of mediocrity and illiteracy. This problem exists in spite of the good intentions of Government and the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars over many years. Reading is the most basic skill every child needs to achieve individual success and happiness--both in work and in life. Yet in failing to impart this skill effectively, we are directly undermining the success our children seek and deserve. The evidence of our failure is all around us. Teachers and administrators see it in our schools, where 60 percent of entering college freshmen find themselves in need of remedial courses in reading or math. Employers and businesspeople see it in the workplace, where industry spends exorbitant amounts on employee remedial training in basic verbal skills. Researchers and scholars detect it in their studies. Hardly a week goes by that we do not see stories in the media about declining test scores or startling accounts of the growing problem of lagging reading skills in America. For example: According to the U.S. Department of Education report known as the National Assessment of Education Progress [NEAP], ``the average reading proficiency of 12th grade students declined significantly from 1992 to 1994.'' This important study is widely considered to be one of the best barometers of overall student achievement. It reported that ``70 percent of 4th graders, 30 percent of 8th graders, and 64 percent of 12th graders did not attain a proficient level of reading.'' In other words, these students did not reach a minimum skill level in reading which is considered necessary to do the work at that grade level. According to a recent 5-year study, entitled ``Adult Literacy in America,'' conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics, similar startling results were found. It stated that: 42 million Americans, 22 percent of the population cannot read; 50 million, 27 percent, can recognize so few printed words they are limited to a fourth or fifth grade reading level; 55 to 60 million, 30 percent, are limited to sixth, seventh, or eighth grade reading levels; only 30 million, 16 percent, have ninth and tenth grade reading levels; only 6 to 7 million, 3.5 percent, demonstrated skills necessary to do college level work. SAT scores have declined steadily for most of the last 35 years. Verbal achievement has declined by nearly 90 points since 1960. A U.S. Department of Labor study found that 20 percent of U.S. high school graduates could not even read their diplomas. Mr. President, this is serious. All of this has consequences--in our economy, in our standard of living, in our competitive position in the world, and in our national security. For example: The lower the literacy rate: the less productive our economy becomes, the less hours are worked and the less money they make in the form of wages and income, the higher the incidence of crime and welfare and their costs to society, the less effectively we are able to compete in world markets, the less capability we will have in our Armed Forces which are increasingly dependent on advanced technology and highly trained personnel as opposed to just sheer numbers. Clearly, our level of literacy is closely linked to our success in the world. If we fix this problem, the benefits will spread through our entire society. I firmly believe that if we know how to read, we will know how to succeed. Secretary of Education Richard Riley recently confirmed the problem when he said: Our Nation's reading scores are flat and have been flat for far too long . . . Too many of our young people are groping through school without having mastered the most essential and basic skill. Riley said that ``the most urgent task'' facing American schools is to improve reading instruction. So we know the problem exists. We can rejoice there is a solution. Right now, we can take a giant step forward simply by doing what we can to demonstrate and celebrate what works when it comes to basic reading instruction. Mr. President, we know what works in teaching children and adults to read. We can point to evidence backed by more than 60 years of educational research and experience. What works is when our teachers and administrators return their emphasis to the use of phonics as the basis of reading skills instruction. Phonics refers to that body of knowledge which allows us to break down the letters of the alphabet into sounds so that words can be deciphered and sounded out according to simple rules. With phonics-based programs, students learn not by memorizing huge numbers of whole words, but rather by mastering the very limited number of sounds and corresponding letter combinations which are the building blocks of all words. With this essential grounding, they are better equipped to move ahead to learn more advanced reading skills and techniques. I do not argue that phonics is the only answer to the many problems faced by today's teachers in improving reading skills. The breakdown of the family, the impact of television, the force of popular culture--all of these and more pose challenges which were unheard of a generation ago. But clearly it is time for the pendulum in emphasis to swing back toward phonics--and not away as we have been moving more and more in recent years. Phonics-based programs work. History and statistics have proven it. Now, similar grassroots evidence is sprouting up in more and more parts of the country. For example, in one of the poorest districts in Houston, TX, there is a success story from which all of us can learn. There at the Wesley Elementary School, its principal, Dr. Thaddeus Lott, has encouraged teachers to use proven methods such as phonics in a concentrated effort to improve reading skills. The program is working. Students are leaving this school reading at two or three levels above their grade. Many go on to private academies because their achievement levels are so far beyond the public schools they would otherwise attend. Now, Dr. Lott has been appointed to a blue ribbon committee in the Houston Independent School District to expand his quality education techniques to other schools in this, the seventh largest school district in the Nation. It worked in Houston and it is working elsewhere. Near one of Chicago's low-income housing projects, Mrs. Marva Collins of the Westside Preparatory School is making a real difference. Her phonics-based methods are helping all her students learn to read by the end of first grade. By the time her students reach third grade, they are memorizing poetry, discussing Shakespeare, and talking about early American history. In Inglewood, CA, similar targeted programs have also proven highly successful. Now, as the Washington Post reported last week, the State of California is urging all of its 7,700 school district ``to place more emphasis on phonics'' in order to reverse the dismal results they have been seeing on their statewide reading exams. These are just a few recent examples--out of many--which show that the trend back to a renewed emphasis on phonics is growing. But much more needs to be done. To help foster similar successful programs and to help focus public attention on what can and should be done, I propose to take the initiative in my home State of Oklahoma. In the near future, I plan to help establish a limited in scope, privately funded, reading foundation in Oklahoma City. Its purpose, broadly stated, will be to identify children, as well as adults, in need of enhanced reading instruction and to help them take advantage of a good phonics-based reading program that works. If this limited demonstration project is successful, I would hope to expand it to Tulsa and perhaps to other cities throughout Oklahoma. The goal is to show through private voluntary efforts that we as concerned citizens can address this one serious problem constructively, without resorting to Government mandates or vast infusions of Federal tax dollars which obviously have not worked. Indeed, I want to make it very clear that I do not seek to establish a new Federal program, nor do I seek any new expenditure of taxpayer dollars. I propose no new legislation or Government mandate. At the same time, I seek no direct intrusion into the day-to-day business of the public schools. I have long been opposed to Federal control of local education and I am not about to change my position now. Rather, what I am talking about is fostering voluntary and cooperative efforts through the use of private funds, through persuasion, through example, and through a genuine concern for helping our young people and others achieve success in life. This is a good cause. I intend to demonstrate that what works in Dr. Lott's school in Houston and Mrs. Collins' school in Chicago can and will work in Oklahoma City. When it does, we will offer it throughout the State. Mr. President, there is absolutely no excuse for us in the United States of America to lag behind other industrialized nations in our reading skills--we are going to take the initiative and correct it.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this past Saturday, March 23, marked the 13th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's address to the Nation in which he outlined a vision of the future based on the common sense wisdom of developing a national defense against missile attack. To commemorate this occasion, I ask unanimous consent that a transcript of President Reagan's remarks on missile defense from this historic speech be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on that day in 1983, President Reagan announced his decision to begin the long march away from the suicidal defense doctrine known as mutual assured destruction. In one bold stroke, he singlehandedly committed the Nation to an intense research and development program designed to harness our technology to the task of countering the threat posed by ballistic missiles, and to do it with measures that are defensive. Wouldn't it be better, he asked, ``to save lives rather than to avenge them?'' In retrospect, we can see that it was a speech that truly rocked the world. In the context of the closing strategy of the cold war, it posed the decisive final challenge to the Soviet Union. Three years later, at the Reykjavik Summit, extraordinary Soviet efforts to deter Reagan from his commitment to missile defense failed. As a result, the evil empire's days were numbered and Soviet leader Gorbachev knew it. In the context of domestic politics, Reagan's 1983 speech ignited a passionate debate over defense policy which still continues today. Within just hours after the speech, one of our distinguished colleagues in this body coined the term star wars. Opponents claimed Reagan's idea was a fantasy, that he wanted a perfect astrodome defense which would cost trillions of dollars. Despite such rhetoric, in the context of science and technology, the speech helped focus inquiries on numerous fronts which led to remarkable breakthroughs. Is it technically feasible, at an affordable cost, to ``intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reach our own soil or that of our allies?'' In 1983, many critics answered ``no.'' Today, such questions are themselves--as Reagan would say--largely ``impotent and obsolete.'' But still, 13 years later, America has not deployed, nor is it committed to deploy, any national missile defense system. Why? In a fundamental sense, the answer lies in the triumph of politics over science. The real technological barriers have been broken. We have the know-how. Even funding is no longer the real issue. Rather, it is the many political barriers that remain, and they are formidable. The Soviet Union is gone, and with it, the perceived threat posed by its awesome missile arsenal. Proliferation of missiles to other countries continues, but we are told that any real concern about it is premature. Today's Democrat President, like the Democrat Congresses before him, argues strenuously that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty should remain as the ``cornerstone'' of U.S. strategic defense policy. It prohibits the deployment of effective defenses on the theory that deterrence should rest solely on threat of instant retaliation--the same theory President Reagan sought to transcend. So the struggle for national missile defense continues. ``It will take years, probably decades, of effort on many fronts,'' President Reagan said, and he was right. Today, I stand proudly with those who remain committed to the moral vision articulated by President Reagan: ``That the human spirit must be capable of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by threatening their existence.'' We will continue the efforts President Reagan began. And I hope, that in marking this anniversary, we can take increased devotion to the cause of world peace and freedom--that we can learn from the wisdom, the foresight, the courage and the example of President Reagan. Like Ronald Reagan before us, we pursue this cause not because some public opinion poll told us it was the popular thing to do. We act because we know it is the right thing to do for our country and for future generations. Exhibit 1 Address to the Nation on National Security By President Ronald Reagan, March 23, 1983 The calls for cutting back the defense budget come in nice, simple arithmetic. They're the same kind of talk that led the democracies to neglect their defenses in the 1930's and invited the tragedy of World War II. We must not let that grim chapter of history repeat itself through apathy or neglect. This is why I'm speaking to you tonight--to urge you to tell your Senators and Congressmen that you know we must continue to restore our military strength. If we stop in midstream, we will send a signal of decline, of lessened will, to friends and adversaries alike. Free people must voluntarily, through open debate and democratic means, meet the challenge that totalitarians pose by compulsion. It's up to us, in our time, to choose and choose wisely between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom and the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day. The solution is well within our grasp. But to reach it, there is simply no alternative but to continue this year, in this budget, to provide the resources we need to preserve the peace and guarantee our freedom. Now, thus far tonight I've shared with you my thoughts on the problems of national security we must face together. My predecessors in the Oval Office have appeared before you on other occasions to describe the threat posed by Soviet power and have proposed steps to address that threat. But since the advent of nuclear weapons, those steps have been increasingly directed toward deterrence of aggression through the promise of retaliation. This approach to stability through offensive threat has worked. We and our allies have succeeded in preventing nuclear war for more than three decades. in recent months, however, my advisers, including in particular the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have underscored the necessity to break out of a future that relies solely on offensive retaliation for our security. Over the course of these discussions, I've become more and more deeply convinced that the human spirit must be capable of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by threatening their existence. Feeling this way, I believe we must thoroughly examine every opportunity for reducing tensions and for introducing greater stability into the strategic calculus on both sides. One of the most important contributions we can make is, of course, to lower the level of all arms, and particularly nuclear arms. We're engaged right now in several negotiations with the Soviet Union to bring about a mutual reduction of weapons. I will report to you a week from tomorrow my thoughts on that score. But let me just say, I'm totally committed to this course. If the Soviet Union will join with us in our effort to achieve major arms reduction, we will have succeeded in stabilizing the nuclear balance. Nevertheless, it will still be necessary to rely on the specter of retaliation, on mutual threat. And that's a sad commentary on the human condition. Wouldn't it be better to save lives than to avenge them? Are we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a truly lasting stability? I think we are. Indeed, we must. After careful consultation with my advisers, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I believe there is a way. Let me share with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that we embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today. What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies? I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it's reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But isn't it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is. In the meantime, we will continue to pursue real reductions in nuclear arms, negotiating from a position of strength that can be ensured only by modernizing our strategic forces. At the same time, we must take steps to reduce the risk of a conventional military conflict escalating to nuclear war by improving our nonnuclear capabilities. America does possess--now--the technologies to attain very significant improvements in the effectiveness of our conventional, nonnuclear forces. Proceeding boldly with these new technologies, we can significantly reduce any incentive that the Soviet Union may have to threaten attack against the United States or its allies. As we pursue our goal of defensive technologies, we recognize that our allies rely upon our strategic offensive power to deter attacks against them. Their vital interests and ours are inextricably linked. Their safety and ours are one. And no change in technology can or will alter that reality. We must and shall continue to honor our commitments. I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy, and no one wants that. But with these considerations firmly in mind, I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete. Tonight, consistent with our obligations of the ABM treaty and recognizing the need for closer consultation with our allies, I'm taking an important first step. I am directing a comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles. This could pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the weapons themselves. We seek neither military superiority nor political advantage. Our only purpose--one all people share--is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war. My fellow Americans, tonight we're launching an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of human history. There will be risks, and results take time. But I believe we can do it. As we cross this threshold, I ask for your prayers and your support. Thank you, good night, and God bless you.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just comment that many editorial writers around the country that normally are more of a liberal persuasion came out and editorialized in favor of the Republicans and the fact that we recognized that we have a system that was going into bankruptcy. I ask unanimous consent that these be printed in the Record, the two editorials from the Washington Post that made this very clear. The names of the editorials are ``Medagogues'' and ``Medagogues, Cont'd.'' The last sentence of the second editorial reads, ``The Democrats have fabricated the Medicare-tax cut connection because it is useful politically. It allows them to attack and duck responsibility, both at the same time. We think it's wrong.'' And America thinks it is wrong.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, the freshman class of the U.S. Senate made a trip around the United States to talk to different groups, different gatherings. We went all the way from Philadelphia to Knoxville, to Minneapolis, to Cheyenne, WY. One of the things we talked about, probably more than anything else, was welfare reform, changing the system as we have come to know it since the 1960's. The Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, was with us during this. He came up with some evidence from the State of Missouri that I thought was quite remarkable. He was talking about the administration of the Medicaid program, how they have been able to file and get out from under the red-tape of the Federal Government. The year prior to their being able to administer the Medicaid Program with the amount of money that they had, they reached some 600,000 families throughout the State of Missouri. The next year, or the year following the year that they were able to take over the total jurisdiction and control and administration and come out from under the redtape of the Federal Government--and this was done, I might add, under a Democrat administration, a Democrat director of the department of human services for the State of Missouri--they were able to use that same amount of money and reach 900,000 families. In other words, 50 percent more services were given to families just by eliminating the unnecessary trip and expense and redtape of the Federal Government. I believe it has been our policy to get as many of these things back to the local level. Having served myself in the State legislature, having served as a mayor of a major city, Tulsa, OK, for three terms, I can tell you that the closer you can get to the people at home, the better a program will be administered. On welfare, we spent some time looking at the welfare system. The President of the United States, when he ran for President, when Bill Clinton ran for President of the United States, he had a pretty good welfare reform system. In fact, the welfare reform system that he advocated during the time that he ran for President of the United States had work requirements, had elements in it that were precisely the elements of the welfare reform package that passed the House of Representatives and then passed the Senate by a vote of 87 to 12. It was a shock to everyone, even on his own side of the aisle where 60 percent of the Democrats voted to support this, when he came out and vetoed it. I would like to think that America woke up during the demagogy of the Medicare reform. I know that many----

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended by 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this has been a very enlightening morning listening to both Democrats and Republicans refuting this myth that seems to be floating around the country that we are enjoying this great economic time when, in fact, the indicators show just the opposite. I happened to be presiding when the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, observed that people who are doing the work in America are getting less and more rapidly plummeting down to the point where we were in 1967 in terms of real income or purchasing power for the American people. Also we can observe that it is worse than might be indicated by family income because we increasingly have multifamily members working in America. When I was quite young, it was somewhat unheard of. It was not a way of life in America. Nonetheless, the real purchasing power is going down. I do not like to point fingers as to why this is happening, but I think, Mr. President, when you look at the policies that were adopted by the current President of the United States, Bill Clinton, it is four-tiered. It is increased spending, increased taxes, increased borrowing, and increased regulations. I do not very often quote a very distinguished talk radio show host but I remember the other day he said, ``If you really want to be competitive with the Japanese, export our regulations to Japan and we will be competitive.'' I think there is a lot of truth to that. Some people may have forgotten that back in the first year of the Clinton administration, in 1993, there was a tax increase that was characterized by Democrats and Republicans alike, and I specifically recall the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee characterizing that tax increase as the largest single tax increase in the history of public finance in America or anyplace in the world. That was a very large tax increase. I recall, also, when the chief adviser to the President, prior to being sworn in for her duties, made the observation that there is no relationship between the level of taxation in a country and the economic activity, and further went on to say what we need in this country in addition to the taxes we currently have is a value-added tax to be comparable to that in other industrialized nations that would immediately increase revenues $400 billion. I suggest this is where this administration has gone wrong, because the problem we are having in America is not that we are taxed too little, but we are taxed too much. I, the other day, on the 9th of January, witnessed the birth of a charming little man by the name of James Edward Rapert, in Fayetteville, AR. At that time I looked at this very small baby, where I was actually there in the room during the delivery of that small child in Arkansas, and I realized that innocent child, who had not done anything wrong on his own, inherits a share of the national debt of $18,000 that that one individual will have to pay off during his lifetime. That individual did not do anything to cause this. Also, I noticed if we do not change this trend that has been continued by the current administration, that that small child, James Edward Rapert, will have to pay 82 percent of his lifetime income just to support the debt. That is how we have gotten to the point where we are now, where we have to do something about it. There was a man who came to this country by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville many years ago. He actually came here to study our prison system, and when he got here he was so impressed by the freedom in this country and by the wealth of this Nation that he wrote a book. The final paragraph of that book said: Once the people of this country find they can vote themselves money out of the public trust, the system will fail. And that is exactly where we are today, right on the brink of having a system that will fail. The economy is not good today. One more thing I want to say before yielding the floor, back to this tax thing, is the President has opposed a budget balancing amendment to the Constitution. He actually campaigned on a budget balancing amendment to the Constitution. Also, he vetoed the Balanced Budget Act. When he vetoed that Balanced Budget Act he was saying that we do not want to live in the confines where we will be able to eliminate the deficit in 7 years. That particular act also included some tax relief. There was a lot of criticism I heard from conservative Republicans all across the country: We do not care about tax relief until we balance the budget. What they do not realize is all we were trying to do is correct a mistake that was made in this country back in 1993 when we passed the largest single tax increase in the history of public finance in America or anyplace else in the world. If anyone was not for that tax increase, then they should be for tax relief. I think it is incumbent upon us, and certainly those in the freshman class, who are new here to the U.S. Senate, to have an absolute commitment to giving tax relief, to giving families more of the expendable income that they work so hard for. That is our commitment. It is not just for those of us who are around today but the new generations that are coming up, the James Edward Raperts. Incidentally, that happened to be my grandson. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. But that bill, of course, was vetoed by the President. And the President, in his veto message, said we do not need a national missile defense system on the timeline we are talking about. He is talking about 15 years out in the future. I would ask the Senator, does he remember what Saddam Hussein said during the Persian Gulf war, when he stated that if he could have waited another 5 years, he would have had the missile technology to reach the United States, and that he would not have hesitated to use it? I think there should be no hesitation to conclude that some of the madmen around the world like Saddam Hussein would act the same way. Then, only 3 weeks ago, in an article in the New York Times, references were made to statements from top Chinese officials concerning direct missile threats on Taiwan. They indicated that they could make such threats with little concern about how the Americans would react because, they said, the Americans are more concerned about protecting Los Angeles than they are about protecting Taipei. When you get top officials talking like that, you get a sense of what we will be facing in the future. Let us just assume for a minute that maybe you are wrong. Maybe the Senator, who is very knowledgeable, the Senator from North Dakota, might be wrong. What are the consequences? I come from Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, just last April, we had the most devastating terrorist attack in the history of terrorism in this country, in the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City. The bomb that went off was a 1-ton bomb, the equivalent to 1 ton of TNT. The smallest nuclear warhead known right now is 1,000 times the devastation of that bomb.

Mr. INHOFE. We are talking right now about going into that position. We have something in space we are concerned about, and that is our satellite technology that warns us in advance 30 minutes before it reaches the United States. If one should come from North Korea, that gives us adequate time. That technology is here now. Brilliant Eyes would tie into our ground-based radar and give us warning so we would be able to project and hit it. But we are not talking about that at this point. We are talking about a bad missile that would reach the stratosphere. We have 22 Aegis ships that we have a tremendous investment in, and I am sure the Senator maybe disagreed with the amount of money that we invested in that to begin with. But it is here. We were in this body at the time that decision was made. They have now those out there floating. We want to get in the position that we can use that investment by having maybe three ships on the east coast and three ships on the west coast to reach into the atmosphere and hit missiles coming toward the United States. That is hardly an umbrella over the United States. But it is common sense--I still contend--that your figures are not accurate. And for approximately 10 percent more in investment than we have already made we could have a system that would defend Americans against missile attack.

Mr. INHOFE. I agree.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am speaking today, once again, about the urgent priority we have to develop and deploy adequate defenses against a ballistic missile attack. As a member of the Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee, I feel it is my duty to call relevant aspects of this issue to the attention of my colleagues and the American people. This month, we are marking the 5-year anniversary of the gulf war. While the war was, in many respects, a great triumph, there are certainly many lessons that we should learn from that war. One of these lessons is that future conflicts will, very likely, include attacks on American forces by ballistic missiles. It is our obligation to our troops--not to mention the American people, generally--to do all we can to prepare for this reality. Five years ago this past Sunday, a primitive Iraqi Scud missile carrying a conventional explosive warhead slammed into a barracks housing American troops in Saudi Arabia, and 28 Americans were killed, 98 Americans were injured. It was the single largest loss of lives during that war. In recalling this event the other day, the Washington Post Style section recounted the horror of how these brave young Americans, well behind the front lines, were coldbloodedly attacked and murdered without warning. As the Post described it: It was simply a freak of war. No ground was gained, none was defended, no tactical purpose was served, people were assassinated in their beds as they dozed or lounged or clowned with buddies. They were in a converted warehouse in the suburbs of Saudi Arabia, 200 miles behind the front line, in a neighborhood that included a supermarket, a hotel, and other buildings. The war was winding down. Two days after the attack, it would be over. I was particularly struck by the Post's description of the victims of this incident as the ``forgotten fatalities of the Persian Gulf war.'' Now, it is understandable that a lot of the American people did not see this happening because, understandably, the television crews were up there in the front lines, and they were filming the last 2 days of this war. Nonetheless, it happened. I think there are a lot of people who think that perhaps it would go unnoticed. But I am here to remind my colleagues that, as policymakers and overseers of our national defense preparedness, we cannot and will not ever forget what happened in this incident. This was an unprovoked, cowardly, and feeble ballistic missile attack that gives us a glimpse of the future. My concern is that, with a lot of people not having known and remembered that this happened, these 28 Americans will have died in vain. On the other hand, if this can be very visibly laid out in front of the American people--and I do applaud the Washington Post for bringing this to public attention this week--then perhaps this can be used to get a very meaningful, sophisticated, theater missile defense in place as everyone in Congress has asked the President to do. Ballistic missiles are fast becoming the weapons of first choice of those who seek to harm to American interests abroad. We know, and our intelligence confirms now, that 25 nations have ballistic missiles of different degrees of technology, but the capability is there. Keep in mind, the one that murdered 28 Americans was a very primitive Scud missile. These 25 nations all have missiles that are more sophisticated than that. Now, to illustrate this directly, I call the attention of my colleagues to recent news reports concerning communications between the United States commander in Korea, General Luck, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili. In this astonishing exchange, General Luck's urgent request for advanced missile defenses to protect his troops was rejected. General Luck and his forces are on the front lines facing an increasingly hostile and menacing adversary in North Korea. According to the Washington Times, General Luck warned in December that the threat to United States forces from North Korean missiles is growing and advance theater missile defenses were needed as soon as possible. Specifically, General Luck requested that the development of our most capable ground-based theater missile defense system, the THAAD system, the theater high altitude area defense, be accelerated to facilitate rapid deployment to Korea of at least 2 THAAD batteries including up to 18 launchers. Such a system would have the potential to provide some adequate protection for our forces in the entire Korean theater. In other words, this is the very minimum that General Luck says we have to have to protect the lives of our Americans in South Korea. We have 37,000 Americans in South Korea. The report states that General Luck's urgent request for THAAD batteries was rejected. Instead, General Shalikashvili reportedly informed him that THAAD development would actually be further delayed by a period of 3 to 5 years so that limited funds could be diverted to smaller and less capable missile defense systems such as the Patriot PAC 3 system and to what was called critically underfunded areas of recapitalization. Mr. President, I find this story to be absolutely incredible. The Congress has been wringing its hands all year to accelerate the vital missile defense programs, especially advanced theater missile defense programs, to help commanders like General Luck. We have just passed, and the President has signed, a Defense authorization bill which expressly calls for more funding and more priority to such theater missile defense systems such as THAAD and the Navy Upper Tier. We are not talking about a national defense system. That is very controversial. I have stood on this floor over the past year and talked, collectively, many, many hours about a national missile defense system. We are not talking about that, Mr. President. We are talking about a theater missile defense system to protect our troops who are currently over in places like South Korea from missile attack. At the very least, the threat we face is from missiles that are using what we consider right now to be very primitive technology, such as the Scud missile. While I have been trying to carry on the debate on the national missile defense system--I am very much concerned about it--we have been losing the battle with the administration. They are convinced that we will have to adhere to the ABM Treaty. The ABM Treaty was put together in 1972, not by a Democratic administration but by a Republican administration. That was President Nixon. Henry Kissinger felt at that time it was in the best interests of the United States of America to have a program of what was referred to as ``mutual assured destruction.'' That is a program that would say there are two superpowers in the world. We have U.S.S.R. and we have America. If we agree not to defend ourselves, then, in theory, if one would fire a missile at the other superpower, that superpower would fire one back at us, everyone would die and everything would be fine. That was our strategy at that time. I did not agree with President Nixon and Mr. Kissinger at that time. At least it made sense because at that time we had two superpowers. We are not talking about that now. We are not talking about a national missile defense system. What we are talking about is a theater missile defense system, and I think that America needs to know that General Luck in South Korea made the request to continue the technology advancements so that we would have somewhat of a sophisticated system just to protect those people. These field commanders know what they are talking about, Mr. President. They are not like we are here, talking in theory and debating on these things in the abstract. They are on the ground facing the threat that exists. I remind my colleagues that the last time the Clinton administration turned down a field commander's similar request for needed equipment was in Somalia in 1993, and it cost 18 American lives. All they asked for was armored vehicles. For some reason, we felt that was not what they needed. But, in retrospect, we now we know the field commander was right, and Americans died. I urge General Shalikashvili, the Pentagon, and the policymakers in the Clinton administration to reconsider what is going on here. Our troops in the field are facing a threat. That threat is real. That threat is now. It has been 5 years since the devastating Scud missile attack in Saudi Arabia. We should have no illusions about what we are up against. We know hat we have to do. We should do it and do it now. We have the technical know how. The only other thing we have that would stand in the way, deterring us from responding to the urgent needs of General Luck and other field commanders, is the money. I have to say, Mr. President, I have said this many times before, I am very much disturbed over what is happening right now. We have an administration that is sending troops all throughout the world--Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Bosnia--on humanitarian missions. Then they come back to us for emergency supplementals that we give to them. That is all we need here, to come for an emergency supplemental and give General Luck that which he needs to protect 37,000 American soldiers. My fear is that people will think that we will forget those 28 Americans who lost their lives. The President may think we will forget, but he is wrong again. Now is the time to reverse that policy of delay in the Pentagon and continue the development of a sophisticated theater missile defense system, and do what is right. I notice my colleague from North Dakota is on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. I think this might be an appropriate time to have that discussion because the Senator understands that I am talking here about theater missile defense, which we all agreed we needed when we voted in favor of the second go around on the DOD authorization bill. In addition, as I said, I believe we need to proceed with a national missile defense. Let me correct the Senator from North Dakota. It is not a $48 billion proposition. We already have a $40 billion investment in the essential elements a limited, but effective, national missile defense system. It would take about 10 percent of that to make the upgrades necessary to make such a system work. For example, we have 22 Aegis ships with launching capability floating today. That technology is here. It is paid for. All we need to do is upgrade it, giving it the capability to penetrate the upper tier so that if a missile does go forth from North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia, China, or any place throughout the world, we could protect American lives. I think any time is an appropriate time to discuss that.

Mr. INHOFE. Is the Senator aware that the Taepo Dong missile in North Korea, it is believed, will be able to reach the United States by the year 2002, and actually can reach Alaska and Hawaii by the year 2000? I think that is something which the Senator would agree that our intelligence has indicated would be a threat to the United States in those time limits. We can talk about all these other things, these social areas in which to invest our money. But if we do not stay on line and finish what we have started, what we have paid for, to develop a national missile defense system, I believe we will regret it. I agree with Jim Woolsey-- and certainly Jim Woolsey is not a Republican; he was the CIA Director appointed by President Clinton--when he said our intelligence confirms there are between 20 and 25 nations that currently have, or are in various stages of developing, weapons of mass destruction, either chemical, biological, or nuclear, and are working on the missile means to deliver them. The Senator from North Dakota is fully aware that such technology is out there, and that many of those countries who want to sell that technology may do so and we might not have any way of knowing what is going on.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, we have talked about this on the floor many, many times. A number of us who are on both the Intelligence Committee and on the Senate Armed Services Committee believe that this threat is imminent and real. If our intelligence confirms that we could be reached by a missile from North Korea within 6 years of right now, this is something to be called to the attention of the American people. You might say, the big spenders, what are they spending this on? Yes, we were asking for more money to stay on course so we would have a defense system in place by the year 2000 or 2003.

Mr. INHOFE. Up until that statement, I suggest to the Senator from North Dakota that we are almost in agreement on a couple of things. We need to do what we can to defend against terrorist attacks, whether it is fertilizers bombs in suitcases and any other way. But just because that is also a threat does not mean we should abandon our national missile system because that threat is there. The Senator talks about what our capabilities are today. The Senator talks about a dome. I am not talking about a dome. I think it is demeaning to the American people to keep using over and over again the statement ``star wars.'' I know the President does that quite often.

Mr. INHOFE. I agree. I cannot think of anything more valuable when you are talking about tradeoffs than defending the lives of Americans. The reason I brought up the thing in Oklahoma City was I was there for the 168 people who were killed, and many were dear friends of mine. The point there is that the smallest warhead known could kill 1,000 times that many. That is a real threat to Americans.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.