Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. He went on to say, ``If we waited, if the war was 2 years from now, we would have the capability.''

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE. I think that is interesting because it was a week ago today in the New York Times that a story came out about China, making reference to the fact that they were talking about possible missile attacks against Taiwan. But do not worry, they said, because the Americans are not going to go to Taiwan's defense because they are more concerned about Los Angeles than they are about Taipei. What does that tell you? Certainly there is an interpretation on that that could be very close to a warning to us. It just bothers me that we in this country have adopted a policy, just during this administration and specifically this year, that we are going to be downgrading our nuclear capability, our missile technology, our capability when, as the Senator from Arizona states, the rest of the countries are raising theirs up. If there is one lesson from the Persian Gulf war that the American people learned, it is that the leader of that country is capable of doing anything. If he had a missile, I do not doubt that most people in America believe he would use it.

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

Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator would yield further, it is also very important, any time a discussion or debate takes place like this, to remind the American people and ourselves in this body that we have a system that is about 80 to 85 percent paid for right now. We have approximately $40 billion already invested in the Navy's Aegis system that we are merely trying to upgrade to reach into the upper tier. I would have to say that what offends me more than anything else, because I watch it at work, are the liberals who do not want to invest any money at all in a national defense system, referring to it as star wars because what you get in your head when you hear ``star wars'' is that it is some kind of an image of something from Buck Rogers--some of you may not remember that--or science fiction, when in fact anyone who was watching CNN during the Persian Gulf war knows the technology is there. This is something for which the technology is here. We are almost there. It is a matter of spending a little more, about 10 percent more than what we have already spent to be able to defend ourselves against missile attack. I did not really become wrapped up in this issue, Mr. President, until the bombing took place in my State of Oklahoma. I saw all the disaster surrounding that. I watched and heard the stories, and I knew people who were in there, people later found to be dead. I looked at that and I thought, that bomb was equal to 1 ton of TNT. The smallest nuclear warhead that we know of today is 1,000 times that size. If you multiply the disaster that the whole world grieved over in Oklahoma City, multiply that by 1,000, it gives you some idea. Maybe it is the fact that this magnitude is more than we can comprehend. I do not know.

Mr. INHOFE. I was hoping it would come out that the Defense authorization bill would have put us in the position to deploy a system, a very crude system, a very basic system, by the year 2003. The estimates are that this would actually be 2 years beyond the time when the threat would exist, so we would still have 2 years of vulnerability. I believe I am correct when I say that.

Mr. INHOFE. I will respond to the Senator from Arizona. It is even more complicated than that, assuming we continue our present course of blindly adhering this to the provisions of the ABM Treaty. Taking the same scenario, if we have an Aegis ship in Sea of Japan, and two missiles are launched from, say, China or North Korea--one bound for Taiwan and one bound for Los Angeles, we could very well be in the adsurd position of being fully able to intercept the one bound for Taiwan, but not the one bound for Los Angeles, because that would be a violation of the ABM Treaty. We have debated this before as to the fact that the ABM Treaty does not have valid application today. In fact, it was Henry Kissinger, the architect of the treaty, who said to me--and you can quote me, he said, ``It's nuts to make a virtue out of our vulnerability.'' So this is the environment that we are dealing with. I am very thankful to the leadership of the Senator from Arizona and a few others who share our concern over the vulnerability of the United States.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me stand up and be the first one to officially accept the challenge made by the distinguished Senator from Arizona. He is absolutely correct in his analysis as to what is happening in the country right now. It is refreshing to listen to someone who can look at historical data and come to a decision that is really incontrovertible. The Senator from Arizona quoted the Kemp report as to what can happen in order to stimulate the economy and actually result in increasing revenues by reducing marginal tax rates. If we think back and look at what happened in 1980, the total revenues derived from our marginal tax rates was $244 billion. In 1990, it was $466 billion. And during that 10-year period, we had a greater reduction in marginal rates, including capital gains. Obviously, what happened is exactly what the Senator is suggesting would happen in the future if we would we do this now. I have heard so many times on this floor people say look what happened in the 1980's when we had a President who was reducing tax rates and the deficit went up. The deficit went up not because revenues were not coming in. Clearly they were coming in at a much more rapid rate as a result of giving the free enterprise system a chance to breathe by reducing marginal rates.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I wanted to take just a moment, Mr. President, to mention something else that will be very dear to the heart of our previous speaker, Senator John Kyl, from Arizona. I am sure, since he was quoted in the article that I am about to quote, that he shares my concern over an article that appeared in the Washington Times yesterday entitled ``Missile Threat Report Politicized, GOP Says.'' I will just read the first paragraph of this article. It says: A new intelligence estimate by the Clinton administration which foresees no ballistic missile threat to the United States for at least 15 years enraged GOP lawmakers who want to deploy a defense against a limited missile attack. This is factual. I am one of those who was enraged because there is a lot of redundancy here. We have stood on this floor. We have tried through talk radio, through every other means possible, to convince the American people that we really do have a very serious threat out there. This estimate was made by the national intelligence estimate which only a year ago stated, as was pointed out by Senator Kyl, that there is a risk out there. And it specifically talked about North Korea and the Taepo Dong II missile that would have the capability--this was a year ago--of reaching Hawaii and Alaska by the year 2000 and the Continental United States by the year 2002. We just had a defense authorization bill that was vetoed by President Clinton. In his veto message he said we did not want to spend that money on a missile defense system to defend Americans against a missile attack. This is something that came not too long after the statement made by James Woolsey, who was the CIA Director appointed by President Clinton, that between 20 and 25 nations either have, or are developing, weapons of mass destruction, either chemical, biological or nuclear, and the missile means to deliver them. We also know that there are countries, as he pointed out, that now have this technology, and what they have they will sell. This article goes on to report that the new national intelligence estimate indicates that it is very unlikely that any of the countries with this missile technology would sell it. I find that very difficult to believe when you look at such countries as China and North Korea. Then you look at countries in the Middle East that have an abundance of wealth due to their oil holdings--Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, any number of countries--and you begin to realize that they could be willing buyers, not to mention in potential nations which could be inclined to fire a missile at the United States. I have to say this. I hesitate to stand on the floor of the Senate and make this statement, but I tend to think that this national intelligence estimate was dramatically influenced by the White House. It was just a week ago that we heard the State of the Union Message when the President of the United States made a statement that seemingly went unnoticed when he said that we are changing the role of our military from defense to peacemaking. Earlier, in vetoing the defense authorization bill, he talked about the fact that there is a linkage between the START II arms limitation agreement that was supported and ratified by this body a couple of days ago and the 1972 ABM Treaty. Well, I have questioned that linkage, but since the President believes it is there, I have to go back and talk about it and see how that relates to this article that came out just yesterday. The ABM Treaty was put together, it was a philosophy that was articulated for national defense to defend our strategic interests by the Nixon administration, by Dr. Henry Kissinger. Back at that time, they formulated a plan that was called MAD, mutually assured destruction, and what we were talking about at that time was we only had two superpowers in the world. We had the U.S.S.R. and the United States of America. They said, ``Well, I tell you what. You don't defend yourselves; we won't defend ourselves. If somebody shoots at us, we'll shoot back and we all die.'' That was fine. That was the policy. I did not agree with it at that time, but at least it was predicated on the assumption there were two superpowers in the world, and at that time it was true, the U.S.S.R. and the United States of America. Now, in light of the statement of James Woolsey and of what our intelligence has reported to us, there are probably 25 countries now that have this power. So we are not talking about just two. In a way, I think things were more secure back during the cold war; at least then we could identify a singular enemy. Now we do not know where it is coming from. So if the President has his way and we are to accept his idea of continuing a policy that was articulated and established back in 1972 of mutually assured destruction--assuming, of course, that Russia, which is the other party of this policy, this being the START II Treaty, if they do what they say they will do--and their performance is not very good in the past in their arms reduction commitment--but assuming that they do, then you have Russia and the United States reducing our nuclear capability at the same time there are 24 other nations out there that are not reducing theirs; they are raising theirs. That is the situation, the environment that we find ourselves in today. I felt we could win this argument on the debate because the American people are intelligent people. There are a lot of ways of getting to the American people and getting the truth that is not filtered through the Washington, DC, media, and that is going straight on talk radio and other means. Now, all of a sudden, as reported in yesterday's paper, we are confronted with this dramatic conversion in the national intelligence estimate from one that only a year ago said we were under a threat of nuclear attack within 5 years to one that now says there is no problem for the next 15 years. This is very disturbing because to most people, it is surely an implausible conclusion. If you look at the hits that have been taken on the budget that Senator Kyl was talking about, the only real reduction that we have had during this administration is in our military capability. We have consistently, time and time again each year for 10 consecutive years, reduced our military spending while all other spending has gone up. The Senator from Arizona quoted President Kennedy. The more I hear quotes of President Kennedy, the more he sounds like a present-day Republican. He did make the statements that Senator Kyl mentioned. But he also recognized back in 1961, when he developed his first budget, that we had to have a strong national defense. And the first budget under President Kennedy had 50 percent for military and 30 percent for human resources. Today, in the budget we have, only 17 percent is for military and defense and 60 percent is for human resources. So it is just reversed, and yet we are saying this at a time when some would like to lull the American people into believing that there is no threat out there when, in fact, we know that there is. So it may be only a handful of us in the Senate who are going to do our very best to keep America strong. And, again, I would reiterate my concern about what was reported in the article that just came out in yesterday's paper. I am personally outraged that this critically important estimate of the threat to our national security has been totally reversed from previous estimates seemingly just to support a position that the President is holding. I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will quote one sentence, which says: As for START II, somehow we don't find it very comforting to contemplate a world in which the Russians have 4,500 fewer scary things tucked away in their arsenal but a Saddam Hussein has one that he intends to use on us. So, in conclusion, I say, Mr. President, that passing of this treaty right now may be important to the President's agenda. But if this treaty is really important, why are we rushing through it with so little debate? This morning we had a meeting in my office at 9 o'clock. It was with the 11 freshmen that were elected to this body in 1994. At that time we did not even know this was going to be on the agenda today. This was put on 10 hours ago before we had a chance to come out, debate it, get people together to really be concerned and to understand the full ramifications of this treaty and how it provides a chance of making us vulnerable--10 hours. That is all the time we had. What kind of a message will the rogue countries in the world get if we pass, on the same day, a defense bill recently stripped of missile defense and a START II Treaty on Russia's terms? Just to satisfy Russia, President Clinton was willing to veto the defense bill that attempted to protect Americans from missile attack. Yes, we are getting the Russians down to 3,500 missiles, if they comply. But we are giving Russia a practical veto on our ability to defend ourselves. We have countries out there--China we just talked about, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya--any number of countries that are a direct threat to this country, and they are not constrained by any of the provisions in the START II agreement or in the ABM Treaty. My simple proposition is this: Missile defense should be our highest national security priority. If the President believes that our highest priority must be sacrificed to gain Russia's approval of START II, I say it is too high a price to pay. Mr. President, every time I come out here and we talk about this treaty or we talk about the ABM Treaty or we talk about the missile defense of this country, I remember the days following the April 19 bombing in Oklahoma City in my beautiful State of Oklahoma. I had very close friends with daughters and sons and mothers and fathers who were in that building, the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City, hoping day after day and hour after hour that they would find them still to be alive until finally all hope was given up. We lost 169 lives in the most brutal terrorist attack in the history of America. I saw those things. My son, an orthopedic surgeon, was practicing with a doctor who went in and amputated the leg of a woman in order to extract her from the bomb site. When I think about that, I remember that the bomb which blew up the Federal building was rated at 1 ton of TNT, and the smallest nuclear warhead known today is rated at 1 kiloton of TNT, or 1,000 times the size of the bomb that exploded in Oklahoma City. That is why I stated on this floor last week that if the vote is 98 to 1, I will be the one to oppose the ratification of the START II agreement because, Mr. President, it is the right thing to do for America. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me start off by saying that there is nothing wrong with arms control in principle, but there are a lot of reasons to oppose the START II treaty. The treaty does not destroy a single Russian warhead. It talks about downgrading, reducing, downloading, retiring, converting--all actions that can be reversed. The Russians do not have to destroy the warheads. I wondered also what would happen to those warheads if Russia should decide to comply with the START II treaty--this is a big ``if,'' since they have not complied with other treaties--but if they did, what would happen to those warheads if they were, for example, to download them? We all know the financial needs of the former Soviet Union, Russia in particular. And we also know that there is a market for those warheads in hostile areas of the world--in the Middle East, North Korea, China, all throughout the world. You have to ask: what would happen to those warheads? We are looking at an agreement that allows Russia to continue modernization, build heavy missiles for 7 more years, and new submarine-launched missiles, and new land missiles, including a hard- to-find mobile missile that even the United States does not have. It allows them to conduct aggressive military exercises and to increase anti-U.S. intelligence. I feel that no effective verification or enforcement could be put in place with this treaty, even if the Russians should comply with it. But let us look at the history. People assume they are going to comply with the START II treaty but they did not comply with the START I treaty, they did not comply with the biological weapons convention, with the chemical weapons convention, the INF treaty, the ABM Treaty. Just around Christmastime Pavel Grachev, who is the Minister of Defense for Russia, made a statement that they did not intend to comply with our Conventional Forces Europe treaty, the CFE treaty. Their reason for not complying, he said, was that the CFE Treaty was not a treaty made between the United States and Russia, but between the United States and the USSR. I would ask why, if that is true, are we so compelled to comply with the ABM Treaty, which also was not between the United States and Russia, but was ratified in 1972 when Russia was still the Soviet Union? So I have to ask the question, why is it so important, at this particular time, to have the START II treaty? Let us look at what has happened just recently. I know we all rejoiced just a few years ago when Boris Yeltsin and the reformers took control. But look what happened just in the last election, last December, of the Duma. The Communists, now, have 157 seats; Boris Yeltsin and the Reform Party, only 55 seats; the person I think most people here dread more than anyone else, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, his party, the Ultranationalists, took 51 seats. So he is almost even with Yeltsin's party, and it is just one-third of what the Communists now have. So, it is a totally different environment right now in Russia from 1993, when the START II treaty was signed by President Bush and President Yeltsin. I think, when you realize that we are ratifying a flawed agreement with a country that has never lived up to previous agreements, and that we are accepting Russia's demands that we remain naked to missile attacks from all over the world, that this is wrong. On December 28 President Clinton vetoed the defense authorization bill. His prime objection to this bill was that we were spending money on a national missile defense system. In his message he declared that this might violate the 1972 ABM Treaty, which prevents the deployment of a multiple-site missile defense system in the United States. Clinton stated that the missile defense plan ``* * * puts the United States policy on a collision course with the ABM Treaty and puts at risk continued Russian implementation of the START I treaty and Russian ratification of the START II treaty.'' Our President rejects a national missile defense system. He says that U.S. national security in the post-cold-war world rests on two treaties, the ABM Treaty and the START treaty, both negotiated at the height of the cold war. That is the linkage the President is making. We can argue whether or not there is a linkage between the ABM Treaty and the START II treaty, but in fact the President thinks there is. He has stated that there is, and he accepts the Russians' linkage between these treaties, which says that we must abide by one, the ABM Treaty, to get the other, the START treaty. You might ask yourself the question: why is it that Russia is so interested in those two treaties? First of all, I have serious doubts that they would comply with the START II treaty. Maybe they have doubts that they would, too. But it seems to me they are bent on our agreeing to reduce our nuclear capability, which they would do to, and at the same time they are even more interested in the ABM Treaty. I think this is something we really have not talked about enough. The ABM Treaty was one that was put together in a Republican administration. It was Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger's project. Dr. Kissinger was the architect of the ABM Treaty of 1972. In 1972 we had two superpowers in this world. Mr. President, we could identify who the enemy was. At that time it seemed to be a good idea. I did not agree with it at the time, but I certainly did not question the wisdom of President Nixon and of Dr. Kissinger, because it seemed that a policy of mutual assured destruction was in the best interests of the United States. Simply put, that is a policy that says: we agree not to defend ourselves and not to implement a national missile defense system if you agree to do the same thing. That way, the risk of complete destruction keeps us from attacking each other. You may believe that this was not a good idea at the time. I did not think it was a good idea. But there is certainly some justification for it. That is not the environment that we are in today. In fact, Henry Kissinger himself has said that it is insane to continue with this type of policy in today's environment when you have the proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction all throughout the world. It was Kissinger who said, and this is a direct quote: ``It is nuts to make a virtue out of our vulnerability.'' People have made several references to the fact that President Reagan actually started some of the START negotiations. But I would recall the 1986 Reagan-Gorbachev summit in Iceland. It was really the defining moment in the cold war. Gorbachev proposed to eliminate all nuclear weapons and everyone was all excited. But then he established the condition that President Reagan would have to kill the Strategic Defense Initiative, a plan for a national missile defense system. In other words, he said we will agree to doing away with and destroying all nuclear weapons if you agree to make yourself vulnerable to an attack. Reagan walked away from the bad agreement in order to save the United States missile defense program. We are faced with the same choice. Our President currently is embracing that very notion that Reagan rejected, even though, since 1986, the missile threat has greatly increased and Russia has violated treaty after treaty. We have to ask, what is so good about the tradeoff now? Mr. President, I will make this brief because I have made this statement on the floor so many times before. I have deep concern about what is happening right now with our attitude toward a national missile defense system. It is kind of interesting--all these people who come in and want to talk about how bad a national missile defense system is always use such words as ``Star Wars,'' trying to make it look like something that is mythical, something that is science fiction. In fact, anyone who was watching TV during the Persian Gulf war knows that the technology of knocking missiles down with missiles is something that is alive and well. President Clinton appointed Jim Woolsey to be CIA Director, and he was certainly privileged to more information, or as much as anyone else in the world, concerning this Nation's defense. And he said that there are between 20 and 25 nations around the world who currently have, or are developing, weapons of mass destruction, either nuclear, chemical, or biological, and are developing the missile means to deliver those weapons of mass destruction. So there is a greater threat. Most people who are watching the security scene today believe there is a greater threat facing America today than there was during the cold war, because now we are not talking about one enemy, we are talking about 25 or so countries that are developing this technology. If anyone is comfortable in what is happening right now, I suggest that you read last Wednesday's New York Times. I will not submit this for the Record because I did so yesterday when I first read it. I was still in some degree of shock. The New York Times provides fresh evidence of the folly of leaving America vulnerable to ballistic missile attack. In an article entitled--listen to this--``As China threatens Taiwan, it makes sure United States listens--'' the Times reports on ominous information recently passed to National Security Adviser Anthony Lake concerning measures being taken by Beijing to facilitate military action against Taiwan, and points to statements intended to detour the United States from coming to Taipei's assistance. Referring to Charles Freeman--he is a former U.S. Ambassador to China, now Assistant Secretary of Defense--the article reports that ``A Chinese official told him of the advanced state of military planning and that preparations for a missile attack on Taiwan and the target selection to carry it out have been completed and await final decision by the politburo in Beijing.'' Freeman reportedly told Lake that ``A Chinese official asserted that China could act militarily against Taiwan without fear of intervention by the United States because American leaders `care more about' ''--listen to this-- ``Los Angeles than they do Taiwan.'' That statement Mr. Freeman characterized as an indirect threat by China to use nuclear weapons against the United States. Mr. President, this is the environment we are in today. Today the Senate is considering a treaty, START II, that will further endanger our country because the President and the Russians link it to the ABM Treaty, which precludes our country from defending itself against missile attack. I would like to submit something for the Record. It was in the Wall Street Journal, in an editorial called, ``The ABM Treaty's Threat,'' on January 2. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in this article, entitled ``As China Threatens Taiwan, It Makes Sure U.S. Listens,'' the Times reporter reports on some ominous information recently passed to the National Security Adviser, Anthony Lake, concerning measures being taken by Beijing to facilitate military action against Taiwan and statements intended to deter the United States from coming to Taipei's assistance. According to Charles Freeman, former United States Ambassador to China and now an Assistant Secretary of Defense, a Chinese official told him of the advanced state of military planning and that preparations for missile attack on Taiwan and the target selection to carry it out have been completed and await a final decision by the Politburo in Beijing. Freeman reported to Mr. Lake that a Chinese official had asserted that the Chinese could act militarily against Taiwan without fear of intervention by the United States because American leaders ``care more about Los Angeles than they do about Taiwan,'' a statement Mr. Freeman characterized as an indirect threat by China to use nuclear weapons against the United States. I do not think anyone who is watching what is going on in the world today can miss the threats that come both subliminally and directly from various countries. If those people watched Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf war, they know that he would not have hesitated to use this capability on the United States if he had had it. But today we have more than two dozen countries that are developing such a capability. If I could single out this one thing that I heard from the President's State of the Union Message 2 days ago, this is the most disturbing thing that came out of his message. We can concentrate on the inconsistencies or the statements he made about wanting to have welfare reform, when in fact he vetoed the very bill he says he now wants; and when Americans stood up and applauded when he said he was going to downsize Government, when he, in fact, is increasing the size of Government every day in assigning new tasks and putting more jobs into job programs and into retirement programs and into environmental programs--he mentioned 14 different areas of Government he wanted to increase--in every area except for defense, he wants to increase government. ``Wait a minute,'' he said, ``Now I am very proud to tell you we have 200,000 fewer Government employees than when I took office.'' Let me tell you where the employees came from. They came from the Defense Department. They came from our defense system. If you exclude the defense system, our Government has grown dramatically, whether you talk about the budget or whether you talk about the number of employees. It is very deceptive for the President to say that. Again, all of that aside, as offensive as that may be to thinking Americans, the thing that has to be looked at is this new role that our military has of peacemaking as opposed to the role of defending America. I wish that more people in this Senate Chamber had been able to be with me on the days following April 19 in Oklahoma City, in my beautiful State of Oklahoma, where the most devastating terrorist attack, domestic attack, in the history of the world took place. When you saw, as we saw in the Chamber the other day, Richard Dean, who went in there after he himself had gotten out of the building and dragged out three or four other people. The stories of the heroes of that disaster were just incredible. Jennifer Rodgers, the police officer acknowledged during the State of the Union Message--and I appreciate the President doing that--sure, ask Jennifer Rodgers or Richard Dean about the devastation of that bomb in Oklahoma City. That bomb was measured as equal to 1 ton of TNT. The smallest warhead we know of today, nuclear warhead, is equal to 1,000 tons of TNT. Now, that has to tell you, if you are concerned as we were about what happened in one building and all the tragedy surrounding that, that if you multiply that by 1,000--and I do not care if it is a city in Oklahoma or New York or Washington or anywhere else in the world--that is a pretty huge threat that is out there. It is a very real threat. As yesterday's paper indicates, it is even a greater threat and a more documented threat than it was before. Yet the President has shown no regard for the defense of this country against this threat. Mr. President, we will have a chance to address this. Yes, we do want to pass the Defense authorization bill even though missile defense has been taken out of it. But we will return to the battle over missile defense, and to this new humanitarian role that our military has, in future debates. I guess I will conclude with another concern that is not as life- threatening. Of course, we are concerned about the lives that would be lost if we failed to defend ourselves, but in these various humanitarian peacemaking missions that is the new rule of our military, somebody has to ask the question: Who is going to pay for this? We have a President who has taken virtually all of the money out of the military budget that would go into equipment to defend America, and yet we are going to have to come around and pay for all this stuff that is going on in Bosnia and elsewhere. I picked up something the other day in last week's Defense News that I guess has the solution. Pentagon officials said on January 3 that the budget cuts could come from areas where Congress has increased funding, such as missile defense, to pay the bill for these missions. This is from Pentagon officials. ``Congress increased Clinton's overall budget request by $7 billion in 1996. It is intuitive that any money above the President's request would be reprogrammed to pay for Bosnia,'' one senior Pentagon official said on January 2. That tells us two things. First of all, the $1.5 billion that the President says it will cost for the humanitarian exercise in Bosnia is grossly understated. It could be up to $7 billion. The studies I have seen show it around $5 billion. I guess we not only are redirecting our military to a new role and that new role is peacemaking, but we are also going to pay for it with the dollars we would otherwise use to defend America. This is wrong.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I listened with interest when the Senator from Utah was talking about some of the drug problems that are facing this Nation and that concern all of us deeply. He made a comment that we are all pleased that Barry McCaffrey, if he is confirmed, will be taking over as drug czar to actually do something about it. It is long overdue. I sat in the other Chamber and listened to the President during his State of the Union Message 2 days ago. He expressed this great concern about the drug problem in America. Yet he has done nothing for the first 3 years about the drug problem. We did, I guess, have a drug czar, but the number of personnel who were supposed to be participating in the program to address the drug problem in America was cut by 75 percent, from 100 down to 25 people. The amount of money that was spent on the drug problem was actually cut in half. I hope that Gen. Barry McCaffrey will be confirmed and will come out with a very aggressive drug program. I only regret that we lost 3 years in the battle against drugs in America. Everything that the Senator from Utah said made a lot of sense to me. Peacemaking I am also concerned about two other things that no one is talking about, Mr. President. One is a statement that was made by the President of the United States, not one time but twice during his State of the Union Message. He said that ``Americans should no longer have to fend for themselves.'' Americans should no longer have to fend for themselves. I got to thinking--and maybe I am making the wrong interpretation on this--but is that not what made America great, what distinguishes us from other countries? If you say that Americans should no longer have to fend for themselves, then that leads you to the incontrovertible conclusion that the Government should take care of us instead. I think, in a subliminal way, that is perhaps what the President was saying. If I were to single out the thing that bothered me the most about the message--not just the inconsistencies and the talk about the role of Government and the one-liners about large Government coming to an end and all of that--it was the statement that he made that almost went unnoticed regarding a new national policy that our military is no longer to be used to defend America, but for peacemaking. I have watched this progress, first when we made the commitment into Somalia--and that was not President Clinton, that was actually President Bush that made that decision after he had lost the election and before President Clinton was sworn into office--when our troops were supposed to be there for 45 days. It was not until 18 of our Rangers were killed almost a year later that President Clinton agreed to bring the troops home. Well, that was a concern to me. Haiti was a concern, and Rwanda was, and now, of course, Bosnia is. We had our debate on Bosnia, and now we are going to support our troops all we can. I kept thinking that all these humanitarian gestures were kind of incidental things, or accidents that, well, if there is something that the President seems to think is very significant in a part of the world, we need to get involved because there are human rights violations and murders going on and things that we all find deplorable. But in his State of the Union Message, he made it national policy for the first time, that our role is now peacemaking throughout the world. This is not some idle remark--it is the President of the United States who is making this statement, in a State of the Union Message which all of the world was watching. If I were sitting out there listening in any number of countries that are having problems right now, I would say, ``Good, we do not have to worry because the good old United States is going to come in and solve our problems.'' Now, with a starved military budget--which in purchasing dollars is less than it was in 1980 when we could not even afford spare parts--we are diluting our force by sending troops around the world on peacekeeping missions. We now have a vetoed Department of Defense authorization bill. In the veto message the President says he is vetoing it because we have money in there to complete our national missile defense system, which I contend is about 85 percent complete today--as if there is something wrong with defending America. We keep going back and talking about the 1972 ABM Treaty. Mr. President, as you will remember, that treaty was constructed back at a time when our policy was one of mutual assured destruction. The justification was that we had two superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, and if we both agreed not to defend ourselves, not to have the capability to knock down missiles as they were coming over to our countries, neither country would attack the other. Well, that was the policy. Frankly, I did not agree with it at the time, but it at least made some sense in that there were two superpowers. Now we have a totally different environment. The interesting thing about this is that Henry Kissinger, the architect of the ABM Treaty, told me not long ago that it no longer has application today. Today we have a proliferation of threats from places all over the world and it is not isolated in one place. To quote Dr. Kissinger, ``it is nuts to make a virtue out of our vulnerability.'' That is the situation we are in today, which disturbs me so much as a member of the Intelligence Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee. But you do not have to go to those of us who may be accused of being overly concerned about missile attacks on the United States of America. You can go to James Woolsey, former CIA Director, who was appointed not by a Republican President, but by President Clinton. Jim Woolsey said there are between 20 and 25 nations that either are developing or have developed weapons of mass destruction, either chemical, biological, or nuclear, and are working on the means to deliver those warheads. This is what concerns me because we know right now that the threat is greater than it was during the cold war. During the State of the Union Message, the President said--and he got a rousing ovation--``For the first time, Russian missiles are not pointing at America's children.'' But I can say this: At least when the Russian missiles were pointing at America's children, we knew where they were. Now it could be Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, or China, any number of places. We do not know where they are. But we know there are two dozen countries that are developing the technology and capability of delivering missiles to the United States. Mr. President, the ABM Treaty stated that it is all right to have a theater missile defense system in place. It is all right if you are in the Sea of Japan and you see two missiles coming out of North Korea, one going toward Japan, which you can shoot down; but if one is going to the United States, you cannot shoot it down because that would violate the ABM Treaty of 1972. I also have contended that the ABM Treaty was between two parties, one party of which no longer exists today. So I will support the DOD authorization bill, even though I think it was a bad decision to take the national missile defense language out of the bill. Before somebody comes running in the Chamber and starts talking about star wars and all of these mythical things and making people believe there is not a threat out there, let me just suggest, Mr. President, that I am not talking, even right now, about space-launched missiles to intercept missiles. We are talking now about surface-launched missiles, the technology of which we already have. Anybody who watched CNN during the Persian Gulf war watched missiles knock down missiles. That is not supernatural; that is not something out of Buck Rogers or Star Wars; that is a technology that works today. We have an investment of $40 billion in the Aegis system, which is about 22 ships that have launching capability. We are trying to spend a little bit more over a 5-year period, approximately $5 billion more, for that capability to reach to the upper tier. That would mean that if a missile were launched from North Korea, taking about 30 minutes to get over here, we would be able to do something about it and knock it down before it came into the United States. Between that and the THAAD missile technology, which is already here, we could upgrade what we already have billions of dollars invested in, and defend America. I do not understand why this aversion toward defending America keeps coming out of the White House. We know the technology that is here, and we know what the North Koreans are doing. We know the type of missile North Korea is developing is going to be capable of reaching Alaska and Hawaii by the year 2000 and the continental United States by 2002. I saw something only yesterday that I would like to share. I ask unanimous consent that the entire article in yesterday's New York Times entitled ``As China Threatens Taiwan, It Makes Sure U.S. Listens'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern over the President's veto of the defense authorization bill and to state very clearly why I am not convinced that ratification of the START II Treaty is in the best interests of the United States national security. At the heart of both of these matters is the issue of national missile defense and whether we are really serious about defending our Nation and the American people against ballistic missile attack. As I have stated many times on this floor, I am serious about this issue. I think there is no higher priority for our Nation's overall defense posture than the issue of national missile defense. The threat is a very real threat. I have stated several times on this floor and quoted many people who are the experts who understand and evaluate what the threats are around the world. Certainly, the former CIA Director, James Woolsey, is in a position to know and to evaluate what a threat is to our Nation. That is what he did for a living. He was appointed by this President. He stated that he knows of between 20 and 25 nations that have or are developing weapons of mass destruction--either chemical, biological, or nuclear--and are developing the missile means of delivering these weapons. In addition to that, we know that North Korea--with its development of the Taepo Dong II missile--is going to be capable of reaching Hawaii and Alaska by the year 2000 and the continental United States by the year 2002. Yet all we are talking about in the defense authorization bill is to develop a national missile defense system by the year 2003, not even meeting the time that missiles would be able to reach the continental United States. Many people like to speak of social programs and priorities almost as if national defense no longer matters now that the cold war is over. Yet I am convinced more every day that the threat facing the United States is in many ways greater now than it was when we had only two superpowers that we could identify. Right now we have Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and many other nations that are developing the kind of destructive weapons and missile technology that pose a direct threat to our country. I suggest also that when the President and others try to use such terms as ``star wars,'' are grossly misleading the American people, trying to make it appear not only that the prospect of a real and affordable missile defense is somehow a fantasy but also that the threat itself is a mythical thing that is not real, not something that we need to be even remotely concerned about. But they are wrong, Mr. President. They are living in the past. They do not realize that today's advancing weapons and missile technology are not the same as what they were 10 years ago when they might not have been so imminent a threat affecting our Nation's security. Today it is there and it is not to be taken lightly by those charged with responsibility for defending America. We have an investment in this country of over $38 billion in just the Aegis system. The Aegis is an existing system of naval ships that have advanced capabilities for both air and missile defense. For an additional investment of just $4 to $5 billion over several years, we could have a very basic and limited national missile defense capability ready to deploy in that short period of time that was called for in our defense authorization bill. That has now been vetoed. It was vetoed for one major reason, and that is the President stated that it would be in violation of the ABM Treaty. But as others have pointed out previously, the bill was specifically crafted so as not to violate the treaty. Instead, it merely suggested that the President be urged to negotiate cooperative arrangements with Russia to allow us to proceed with necessary missile defense programs. Now, Mr. President, I think it is important to realize the President is saying that we do not have a high priority on our Nation's missile defense system. The ABM Treaty was put in place back in 1972 during the Nixon administration. The architect of that treaty was Henry Kissinger. Dr. Kissinger at that time felt that this policy of mutual assured destruction was something that was worthwhile in that we had two superpowers and it put us each in a vulnerable position. Since we would not be able to defend ourselves, and the other side would be in the same position, it was thought that this would be some kind of an advantage in providing strategic stability. I did not agree with it at the time but nonetheless that is what was adopted. I think it is interesting to remember what was stated not too long ago by Dr. Kissinger when we asked him the question, publicly, on public record: You were the architect of the ABM Treaty back when the ABM Treaty was put in place, and you felt this was something that was in the best interests of this country; what about today, now that we have the proliferation of missiles and of weapons of mass destruction? He said it does not make any sense anymore. He said in a direct quote, ``It is nuts to make a virtue out of our vulnerability.'' Mr. President, that is exactly what we have done when we hold up the ABM Treaty as the cornerstone of U.S. strategic defense policy as this administration has done. The President has stated in his veto message that there is a linkage between the ABM Treaty and the START II Treaty. He says the Congress' determination to proceed with national missile defense ``puts U.S. policy on a collision course with the ABM Treaty,'' and ``puts at risk Russian ratification of the START II Treaty.'' I reject the notion that we should adopt some type of a treaty--in this case the START II Treaty--just in order to protect the provisions of the ABM Treaty. I am aware that there is broad support in this body for ratification of the START II Treaty. I understand it. I expect the final vote to be overwhelmingly in favor. That vote may be a 98 to 1 vote and I may be the 1, but I would be compelled to speak out and at least let the American people realize how significant an issue this is. There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about the merits of the START II Treaty. You could talk about compliance, the fact that the Russians' past record does not inspire a lot of confidence. We could talk about verification. Many provisions would be difficult to verify in the very best of circumstances. We could talk about the SS-18 MIRV'd missiles, and the fact that this would not actually do away with the launch facilities for these destructive multiwarhead missiles. We could talk about the downloading provisions and the fact that, in many cases, it does not require that you do away with the missile. It merely requires that you download it. And if you download it, then you can turn around and upload it. Yet for all of these concerns, I don't seek to go into great detail. But what I will be addressing is what it does as far as the ABM Treaty is concerned and how it impacts our ability to proceed with the kind of national missile defense we need. This is what is most important. I agree with Dr. Kissinger that the ABM Treaty is something that outlived its usefulness and no longer should be effective today. And, while I respect the views of some of my colleagues who are saying we now have managers' amendments that address all of these problems, I do not think these managers' amendments really do address them. For one thing, they do not change the treaty itself. All they are is advice by the Senate. I agree that those nine provisions of the managers' amendments are good and they make the Senate's understanding of the treaty much clearer. Unfortunately, they are not a part of the treaty. I think we should recognize, finally, Mr. President, that they underwent some parliamentary elections in Russia on December 17. The Communists got 22 percent of the vote gaining seats and renewed influence. We now have the Communists at 157 seats in the Duma. Then you have Boris Yeltsin's party. Then there is a very interesting individual by the name of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, from the ultranationalist party that is now No. 3, close behind the party that we were hoping would stay in power. So it is a changed situation that we have today. And, of course, none of us can predict the future with certainty. But I come back to a simple proposition. Missile defense is among our highest national security priorities. If the President believes this priority must be sacrificed to gain Russia's approval of START II, then I would suggest it is too high a price to pay. This is why I believe it is imperative to resolve the impasse over the Defense authorization bill before we move to final approval of the START II Treaty. Therefore, today, I am joined by Senator Bob Smith in sending a letter to the majority leader stating we will object to proceeding to final action on the START II Treaty until an arrangement has been made with the Clinton administration enabling the people of America to be defended against missile attack. I believe this a prudent and justified course of action and I would urge my colleagues to concur. Finally, if there were other individuals who had been with me in Oklahoma City on April 19, where we observed the results of the most devastating domestic bombing in the history of this country, they might begin to understand what is at stake. There at the Murrah Federal Office Building, we saw the destruction and had heard the cries of the individuals who were in there trapped and injured. And, of course, so many died--169 brave Oklahomans and wonderful people; citizens, who were not guilty of anything. They were killed without warning and without provocation for no apparent reason. This is modern terrorism at its worst. But if you just multiply that tragedy by 100 or 200 or 300, you can only begin to imagine what type of impact a future missile attack might have on a major American city. The threat is there. The threat is more imminent than many realize. It is a very real threat. And I do not think there is anything this body will be engaged in, in discussing and putting into effect, that has a greater significance for our future security, than developing a national missile defense system. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the period for morning business be extended and the time allowed to each Member be extended to 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to ask for an additional 2 minutes. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes without it being charged against our time.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from South Carolina, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, for yielding. I am proud to be serving with such a great American hero as Senator Strom Thurmond. It is such an honor to be in a position to be able to do that. The speaker just before me from North Dakota commented about our priorities and what has happened to our priorities in this country. I am very happy to stand here and announce that today--at least it is scheduled for today--should be the birth of a great American by the name of James Edward Rapert, who will be my third grandchild. When you stop and think about what we are looking for in this country, what we are planning for, and what this administration is trying to do with all of the social programs that were mentioned by the previous speaker from North Dakota, at the expense of building a strong national defense, I wonder what is in line for someone like James Edward Rapert, who is coming into this country with a defense budget that is much lower than it was last year, with a defense budget that has fallen more than 40 percent over the past 11 years. While I am rising in support of this conference report, I still say that it is inadequate to take care of this country's strategic interests. This bill does add $7 billion to the President's request. Congress is trying to fix what the President has been doing to our defense system. But it is still 2.3 percent less than we spent on defense last year. I think it is very significant to realize and to understand and to say on the floor of this Senate that the President of the United States does have a defense plan. It is called the Bottom-Up Review. It started in early 1993, when President Clinton became President. He started reviewing what we need to defend this Nation. Mr. President, his defense budgets are still ranging from $50 billion to $150 billion less than his own program requires. We have had more than 10 years, more than a decade of cuts in our Nation's security. In 1988, the Defense Department bought 438 combat aircraft. This year it will be 34--and the administration only wanted 12. The citizens of Oklahoma sent me to Washington to try to restore America's defense and not to watch the budget continue to fall, over and over and over again. I intend to support this bill, but I am hoping next year we can do a better job. Let me cover a couple of things that were mentioned by the previous speaker. First of all, I am very proud that this bill has a little bit of money in there to sustain a program that was put together some time ago so that we would have a national missile defense system in place by the year 2000. The previous speaker used the term ``star wars.'' That is kind of a fun term to use because that makes people believe that this is kind of a Buck Rogers program --some kind of a science fiction program where you build this dome over the country against some type of attack. But we know that this is not science fiction, but a reality--we are $4 billion away from establishing a credible defense for the American people against ballistic missiles. I remind my friend from North Dakota: former CIA director Jim Woolsey has said: ``We know of between 20 and 25 nations that either have, or are building, weapons of mass destruction, either chemical, biological, or nuclear, and are working on the missile means of delivering these weapons.'' Maybe I am a minority, but I am willing to believe that we can document a case where the threat to this country is greater today than it was during the cold war. During the cold war, we knew who the enemy was. It was the Soviet Union. So we could watch them. Now we know that while there is no longer a Soviet Union, there is a Russia, there is a China, and they have this missile technology. There is every reason to believe that they are selling missile technology to places like Iraq, Libya, Iran, and other places--North Korea is working on the Taepo Dong II missile right now. That missile--our intelligence sources tell us, it is not even classified--should be able to reach both Hawaii and Alaska by the year 2000 and the rest of the continental United States by the year 2002, and we do not have a national missile defense system in place. The previous Speaker keeps using the figure $48 billion. I have refuted that over and over and over again on the floor of the U.S. Senate because it is not $48 billion. We have a $38 billion investment already in the Aegis system that is already deployed. It is already out there; 22 Aegis ships with missile launch defense capability. With only approximately $4 billion more, we could take that Aegis system and give that the capability of knocking down missiles coming into the United States. It is not $48 billion. We are talking about $4 billion more, and we can do that just by protecting an investment that is already there of $38 billion. That was money well spent, but this bill puts us in the position where we are going to actually do something about protecting ourselves against missile attack. I wish there were more time to talk about that, but there is not, because this missile has too many other things that we need to talk about. The B-2 has taken a lot of hits. The very distinguished Senator from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, characterized the B-2 as the ``most fantastic aircraft built.'' I agree with him. I think it is an incredible aircraft--and it is the only one that can carry out a mission that this country needs to be able to accomplish. This bill adds $493 million for continued B-2 production. The restrictions on the number of aircraft, and the restrictions on purchasing long lead items, have been lifted. That means that, while we are in a position prior to this particular bill, or this conference report, of cutting off production and being terminated at 20 aircraft, we can now go beyond 20, if we determine that is in the best interest of the Nation's security. Right now we are working on the 16th B-2 bomber. When this rolls off, we still have four more that will be produced. But we have $125 million left in the previous program to take care of that. That money will, of course, be most likely used by March 31 when the moneys that we are talking about now would go into production. It will be a lot cheaper to keep a program going than to go through the very expensive restart program for the B-2. I agree in this case with the Secretary of Defense when he said, ``Because potential regional adversaries may be able to mount military threats against their neighbors with little or no warning, American forces must be postured to project power rapidly to support the U.S. interests and allies.'' The B-2 provides rapid, long-range precision strikes anywhere in the world on short notice and without refueling. I have often thought to ask those individuals who argue against the B-2--what happens if we cut it off? What happens if we just discontinue the program, as many would like to do, at 20 aircraft? The Pentagon's long-range bomber study suggested earlier this year that we can rely on the existing B-52 until the year 2030. Mr. President, the B-52 would be 70 years old by that time. I think when you talk about cost effectiveness, two B-2 and four crewmen can do the job of 67 aircraft and 132 crewmen, and we can no longer rely on the B-52 for our future bomber needs. I am pleased that Congress has had the wisdom to continue to support the B-2 bomber program. And I look forward to providing it further support in the future.

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, we have heard a lot about supporting the troops. There are those of us who spent hours on this Senate floor trying to get resolutions passed to stop the President from sending American troops into Bosnia. We will not give those arguments again. We lost that battle. The President won by a very narrow margin and, although it was without the full support of Congress, was able to deploy the troops. Now that the troops are there, we are going to support our troops. Those of us who argued and argued and attempted to pass a resolution of disapproval to stop the President from sending troops into Bosnia are now saying, now that the troops are there, we have to support our troops. For those Senators who really want to do it, this is the first opportunity you have to really support the troops. If we do not pass the bill, then the troops that we have sent over there would not receive the 2.4 percent pay increase, they would not be able to have the 5.2 percent increase in housing allowance, and all the huge quality-of-life increases that are in this particular conference report. There is $1 billion more for operation and maintenance so that the troops are better trained. There is new technology that is going to allow better equipment to protect their lives while they are over there. I suggest, Mr. President, that, if you oppose this bill, if you vote against this bill, it is a vote against our troops that are currently on the ground in Bosnia. If the President vetoes this, the President will have sent our troops into Bosnia and will have then turned around and said we are not going to send you the benefits, the technological advantages, and the equipment necessary to survive over there, or in any other conflict in the future. I would like to make a brief comment about the defense authorization conference action concerning the B-2 bomber program. I am a proponent of the B-2. I believe its capabilities represent a true revolution in military affairs that the DOD is only on the verge of fully integrating into defense planning. I believe long-range quick strike aircraft are an essential element of the U.S. Air Force and the B-2 is the only tool we have to ensure this capability. A force of more than 20 B-2's will be required to achieve this situation. The defense authorization conference provides the funds to continue this necessary B-2 production. The conference report language, however, states that the Senate conferees believe that the new funds provided may only be spent on items related to the first 20 B-2 aircraft. I was a Senate conferee and I want to go on record that I do not believe this, I did not agree to this language, and I expect these funds to be used for long-lead items to continue the B-2 production. I know other conferees share this view. This is a vote to support our troops who are already in Bosnia. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate very much the Senator from Nevada yielding to me. I would like to inquire of the Chair, what is the regular order?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. All right. Mr. President, I was interested in the statement that was made by the very distinguished Senator from Washington State a few minutes ago when he was talking about those who are not represented here and the moral issue of the conduct in which we have been conducting our country over the past 30 years. I was reminded of an experience the other day of back when we had our prayer breakfast. This was the international prayer breakfast where we had people here from all over the world, and I was in charge of international visitors, when one of the visitors who was here from Moldavia, which was a former Soviet republic that had gained its freedom, came in and he asked me a question during one of our visits that we had. He said, ``Senator Inhofe, I have a question to ask you. In the United States, how much can you keep?'' And I said, ``I am sorry, I do not understand what you mean.'' He said, ``How much money do you have to give the government?'' Then I got a little better idea of what he was asking. So I asked the question--in fact, I would be a little embarrassed to tell you the answer that I gave the gentleman that was here from Moldavia. He was so proud. And he said, ``In Moldavia, we have a new democracy. We have new freedoms. And when we''--they have some type of a tax collection system where every 3 months or so they collect the taxes. And he said, ``Every time we make a dollar, we get to keep 20 cents.'' In other words, they have to pay 80 cents out of every dollar to support the government there. And he was rejoicing because this was the new freedom that he had discovered. I got to thinking and looking at the facts, that I do not think anyone will refute, and that is that if we do not do something now about changing this pattern that we established back in the Great Society days of the middle 1960's, that someone who is born today will have to pay not 80 cents out of every dollar but 82 cents out of every dollar just to support government. I bring that up today because today is a day that a very important person is to be born, and that person has the name or will have the name--and maybe as we speak has the name--of James Edward Rapert. This will be my third grandchild. So it becomes a much more personal thing when you think of someone coming into this world--such as the Presiding Officer who recently had a young child named Daniel born in his family--all of a sudden it becomes personal. It comes out of the realm of the normal discussion as to the various social programs that the various Senators have stood on the floor of this Senate today talking about--the education programs, the social programs, the poverty programs, the nutrition programs, and all of these--and it becomes an issue of, what are we willing to do to those who cannot be heard, those for whom there is no lobby, such as James Edward Rapert? I understand that yesterday the House, by a very decisive margin, with many, many of the Democrats, voted to reaffirm the commitment we have to a balanced budget by the year 2002 using real figures, not smoke and mirrors, but using real figures and using the CBO figures. In fact, I cannot imagine when I go back to Oklahoma, such as I was this weekend, everybody saying, well, what is there to debate? I mean, we have the Democrats who ran for office on a balanced budget. We have a President of the United States who ran for office on a balanced budget to the Constitution. And everyone is for it. Who is against it? And I tried to explain the reality up here is not always what it seems to be at home because this, in fact, is Washington. So we are in a situation--I know there are several who want to be heard tonight. I just want to make a comment about a statement that was made by a very distinguished Member of the other body, John Kasich. The other day he said, ``We're in a frustrating situation where we have a balanced budget amendment or Balanced Budget Act that we passed in both the House and Senate, and it was vetoed by the President, and yet we don't have anything from him.'' And he said, ``It is like going Christmas shopping and going up and saying, `I want to buy this tie. How much is it?' And they will not tell you. So he said, `I will give you $100.' They said, `No, that's not enough.' `How much more?' Well, they will not tell you.'' That is the situation we find ourselves in right now. So we have probably the second most significant issue facing us that we will face for maybe the last 10 years, and that is doing something about a balanced budget. We have an opportunity that is coming up any hour now, any day, certainly I hope it is going to happen prior to Christmas. When that time comes, I hope we will all remember not ourselves, not all the nutritional programs, not all the things we talk about and how we can wisely spend the people's money that we are borrowing from future generations, but I hope we think of James Edward Rapert who will be paying for all this fun that we are having. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 10:30 with Senators permitted to speak up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Wellstone, 30 minutes; Senator Murkowski, 15 minutes; Senator Jeffords, 15 minutes. At 10:30 this morning, the Senate will begin consideration of the Interior appropriations conference report, H.R. 1977. That conference report is limited to 6 hours of debate. However, some of that debate time may be yielded back. Following a vote on the Interior appropriations conference report, the Senate may turn to the consideration of the State Department reorganization bill under a previously agreed to 4-hour time limit. Rollcalls can therefore be expected throughout the day today. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, several of us last night were opposed to the President's program to mass deploy troops into Bosnia. I remember several talks that many of us who had been over there had that contradicted what the administration says was total peace and a calm environment, with no hostilities since the cease-fire went off. I can remember being before the Senate Armed Services Committee reminding General Shalikashvili and Secretary Perry that, in fact, the firing had not stopped, and the bombs were still going off and then only to find out they had never been up there. Those of us who are opposed to sending the troops over now will give full support to the troops, full support to the effort, hopefully, something in the way that would cause this to be over there and the troops would come home. I read this morning--regretfully some news accounts, one of them from the Associated Press--after the treaty was signed and while world leaders are still making speeches in Paris, evening explosions and several heavy machine gun bursts echoed around the front lines of a Sarajevo neighborhood. Bosnian police officials say one shell impacted the roof of a building close by while two rifle grenades were fired toward Bosnian Government positions in the area. Machine gun burst pocketed a southern wall of the Holiday Inn hotel. I know the Presiding Officer was over there, as I was. This is the hotel that used to be the Embassy for the United States. It now just has a few windows left and they are still using it as a hotel. They probably will not be now. It sounds as if things are still happening over there, and hopefully with all of our help and support to the troops that we can accomplish the mission that our troops are over there for. I personally plan to spend some time over there. I have gotten to know several of the troops that have come from my State of Oklahoma who will be stationed over there. I am hoping I will be able to have a better answer for them than I had before when they asked the question: What is the mission? So we will give our full support to the troops over there and to the mission as the President has described and hopefully it will be over very soon and our troops will come home. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, for a point of clarification, the Senator from Connecticut was accurate when he talked about the three resolutions, or votes that we will be having today. But he did not mention the order that they will be in. At 12:30 today we will be voting on H.R. 2606, which is the Hefley bill that was passed in the House of Representatives. I want to suggest that I have quite a lengthy statement that I wanted to make. But I will withhold that statement, and only make a comment on 2606 which will be coming up in 40 minutes from now. I will read this very briefly. It merely says ``prohibits the use of Department of Defense funds for deployment on the grounds of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a part of the peacekeeping operation.'' So that is clearly what the Constitution gave the power to Congress to do. When the Senator from Connecticut characterized the resolution, I think it must be a little inaccurate to say how enthusiastic they are. I, finally, 2 minutes ago, received a copy of this. I did not have it before. It states ``notwithstanding reservations expressed about President Clinton's decision to deploy United States Armed Forces to Bosnia and Herzegovina.'' That is kind of the preamble. So it is does not sound like to me what I would interpret as enthusiastic. Last, Senator Feingold so accurately described what our constitutional rights were in this body, and what the President's were. He quoted Louis Fisher, who I think we all consider to be a foremost authority on the Constitution, wherein he said: The framers knew that the British King could use military force against other countries without legislative involvement. They gave to Congress the responsibility for deciding matters of war and peace. The President, as Commander in Chief, was left with the power to ``repeal sudden attack.'' In fact, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record, this article by Louis Fisher.