Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Alaska for yielding this time. At the risk of sounding redundant, I do not feel badly about that because the Senator from North Dakota has been redundant in his discussion of this effort to take the money out of our national defense system. I think what we need to do is be sure we understand that we have voted on this amendment before. This amendment has failed before. This is the same amendment. It is not changed at all. It is taking $300 million out of what we feel is necessary to put ourselves in a position to have a national missile defense system of some sort by the time the threat is here by the year 2000. The assumption from the Senator from North Dakota is that there is no threat out there, that the cold war is over and the threat is no longer there. Yet at the same time, the former security adviser to the President of the United States, Jim Woolsey, has said we know between 20 and 25 countries that have developed or are developing weapons of mass destruction either nuclear or chemical or biological, and they are developing the missile means of delivering those weapons. Five of those countries are North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria. We learned in the Persian Gulf war that the technology of the short- range missiles is there. It is a reality. It works. The Scud missiles were aimed at Israel and Saudi Arabia and our United States troops. In fact, 28 of our troops, the largest single casualty in one incident, was the result of a Scud attack. The CIA has now said the Taepo-Dong I intercontinental missile should be ready by the year 2000, and it is ironic that the two managers this afternoon are from Hawaii and Alaska. The Taepo-Dong I intercontinental missile would have the capability of reaching both of those States by the year 2000. It is something that is here. It is upon us now. Even though the CIA came out and said a long-range missile is not likely, not likely by the year 2005, not likely is not enough security for me to ignore the fact that we have a $38 billion investment in a system that could be ready for deployment in the year 2000. We have talked about this before, but the threat is very real. The intelligence community agrees that the threat is real. As I asked the Senator from North Dakota when we debated this earlier, what if you are wrong? What if it is the year 2000 instead of the year 2005? We have an opportunity right now. This is not Star Wars. This is not a fantasy. This is a technology that is here today, with a combination of land-based missiles, Aegis missiles, the 22 ships we have that are ready for the upgrades. This is a system that can be improved upon now. We can come up with at least a modest method of defending ourselves by the year 2000. For those who may have seen on television from my home State of Oklahoma the devastation that took place with the Murrah Federal Building, standing outside as I was, on April 19, 20, and 21, not knowing how many people were alive and dead in that building, and you multiply that disaster by 1,000, that is what we are potentially faced with. All we are trying to do is keep the $671 million to keep the development going so we can be ready by the year 2000 in the event the threat is there at that time. It is very reasonable. I urge my colleagues to vote against it as they did before on the Dorgan amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. This will just take a minute. Let me compliment both the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from Alaska for being understanding and looking at an amendment with which I have a problem. I believe the section, which is 8078, clearly violates the current statutory 60-40 relationship between contract and private maintenance, inhouse depot maintenance. I also believe that this section would violate the intent of the whole BRAC process. I appreciate very much the willingness of the Senator from Hawaii to pull out section 8078, and I inquire of the chairman of the committee, is it necessary to propose it as an amendment?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in further demonstration of our resolve to downsize Government and eliminate needless departments, agencies, commissions, boards, and councils, I offer this amendment along with Senator Abraham to terminate the National Driver Registration Advisory Committee and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Regulatory Review Panel. The National Highway Safety Advisory Committee was established under the Highway Safety Act of 1986 to advise the Secretary on matters relating to highway safety. Moneys have not been appropriated for this committee since 1986. The commercial motor vehicle safety regulatory review panel. The purpose of this panel is to conduct a study to evaluate the need for the Federal assistance to the States to enforce specific regulations issued by the Secretary of Transportation. The panel was created by the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 and is not currently funded. Although these cuts are merely symbolic, they are illustrative of the type of needless activity that have outlived their usefulness. These types of programs drain the Government of its efficiency and clutter its structure with organizational deadwood. This amendment promotes the type of reform which is supported by the GAO, the CBO, and in some cases, the President. It terminates two committees whose jobs are finished. While it may not achieve savings in the millions of dollars, it is an important step in complying with the demands of the American people who told us on November 8, 1994, to balance the budget, and cut the size of Government. It is important that we demonstrate that resolve by reviewing even the most insignificant or inexpensive programs as well as the more prominent ones. Let us show the public we are serious and eliminate these useless panels.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the senior Senator from Oklahoma for yielding the time. I thank him for all of his efforts in behalf of the unborn. I think the senior Senator from Oklahoma is correct when he says that there are not any votes that are going to be changed by this discussion we are having today. We know when we walk in here how we were going to vote on this. We have debated this. There is not a person in this Chamber who has not debated and has not voted on this issue more than once. And so the benefit of this discussion we are having today is not for each other, not to change votes. It is for whoever might be watching, for maybe those rainy regions of America where people are stuck inside and a couple million people may be watching this. So I think that it is worth at least responding to a couple of things that have been said. The Senator from Pennsylvania is a very eloquent attorney. He made some comments about Henry Foster. He said that his only wrongdoing and the thing that caused him not to be confirmed was his position on abortion. That is not the case at all. It was his positions--plural--on abortion where he started out saying he had not performed abortions. Then it was 12, then 30, then 300. That has nothing to do with the subject today, but I thought I would just mention it. The Senator from Illinois talked several times about the fact that this is a private matter; that Government should not be involved in the issue of abortion. I suggest to the Senator from Illinois that Government was not involved in this until abortion became a reality with Roe versus Wade. We seem to forget in this body that there are three branches of Government. It is not just the legislative branch. And the judicial branch of Government did all of a sudden make this an issue, so Government is the reason that we have an issue. While I was serving in the other body, I kept track one time. Over an 8-year period, five out of six votes having to do with abortion had to do with the Federal funding of abortion. That is the Federal Government being involved in our lives. Then the Senator from California, the junior Senator from California, made the comment that any decision having to do with abortion should be in consultation and concern with--those were her words, I believe--her husband, consultation and concern with her own body, consultation and concern with the doctor, consultation and concern with the rabbi. I suggest she is overlooking one very important part, and that is the most helpless of all, that little human being. That little human being cannot take care of himself or herself. I suggest the husband can; I suggest that the doctor can; certainly the junior Senator from California can; and certainly the rabbi can. But the one person not represented on that list is the little human being, the tiny baby. If somebody wants to explore that a little bit further and determine in his mind or her mind whether or not that is a little baby, I suggest you walk up to the President there and he will hand you a Bible and you might look for and read the 139th Psalm. I yield back the time.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I will make this real quick. After my remarks, the Senator from North Dakota made a couple of comments. Let me respond to him. First of all, he said we do not have any cruise missile defense in this bill. That is a greater threat. Let me suggest to you if you read page 119, we have $140 million in here for cruise missile defense. And I hope that no one believes that we think that the missile threat is the only threat to America. There are many other threats that are being addressed. Now, the other thing is that the two Senators from Wisconsin and North Dakota know very well that the defense budget is not causing the deficit. We always hear about from the big spenders over there, ``Well, we've got to do something about defense.'' The last 11 years our defense budget has declined. And for that period of time for every $1 of defense cuts, we have had $2 [[Page S 11238]] of increase in domestic spending. To be specific, in using 1995 dollars, in fiscal year 1985 the defense budget was $402 billion. Today we are considering one that is $265 billion. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. INHOFE. Finally, Mr. President, I must express my amazement with the priorities of the Senator from North Dakota. He wants to cut $300 million from the missile defense. He says we have higher domestic priorities. We heard about the nutrition programs, we heard about all these social programs that seem to, in his mind, have a higher priority. I suggest to you that this $300 million is a relatively small amount of money. The one bomb in Oklahoma City that wiped out the Murrah Federal Building cost the taxpayers $500 million--one bomb. I suggest if the Senator from North Dakota could have stood with me in Oklahoma City on April 19, April 20, April 21, when they are sending troops and volunteers into this building to pull out people who might be alive in there, the hope was there that more would be alive, then the fourth day came and the smell of death had enveloped the city, if you could have been there, and what was going through my mind was, this is just one building in one city, one missile could come in there and wipe out every building in the city of Oklahoma City, in the city of Sioux Falls, SD, in Bismarck, ND, in New York City, could wipe out the entire thing. Multiply that one thing, the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City by 100, by 1,000. That is the threat that is out there. That is the threat that can reach, according to many in the intelligence community, this country within 5 years. We have to be ready for that. This should be the highest priority. We are elected to defend America. That is exactly what this is about today. So, Mr. President, in the strongest of terms, I say this is the minimum that we can do to keep on force, to have a national missile defense system in place in 5 years when the threat is very real. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the time. I was listening intently to the Senator from Mississippi. I was glad he brought that up because the Senator from North Dakota has said over and over and over again that this is a $40 billion program for the future. I think it has to be clarified, and yet after we clarify it, I suggest the Senator from North Dakota will continue to use $40 billion. This is just not true. The Senator from Mississippi talked about, according to the figures of the administration, it was $24.2 billion. But I suggest that includes the SMTS program, Brilliant Eyes, which is funded separately, which can be taken off. It is closer to $18 billion. We do have an investment today in the program of $38 billion. Some people estimate it is more than that. Let us be conservative and say $38 billion in what we call the SDI program, which some people like to continue to use star wars to try to make the public of this country believe that this is some fantasy, that it is not real. It is not something we are handling today. The SDI program, we feel, helped end the cold war by 5 years. What kind of a value can we put on that? In fact, the Russian Ambassador to the United States, Vladimir Lukin, stated that if it had not been for SDI, the cold war would have gone on for 5 additional years. The SDI program and its research led to systems, not fantasies, but systems in place today, such as the Aegis system, cruisers and destroyers, kinetic energy programs, the hit-to-kill technologies which are used in the THAAD, the PAC-3, the Navy upper-tier defense systems. These are not star wars; these are technologies. They are on line today. All we are trying to do is say that in 5 years from now, where many in the intelligence community say we are going to be threatened by perhaps North Korea or other technology that will reach the United States--and this is something that most of the intelligence community agrees with--we want to do something today that will be within the confines of the ABM Treaty. We talked about that before. This is as much as we can do to reach the point so that 5 years from today, we are going to be able to defend the United States against missile attacks. The Senator from North Dakota refers over and over again to the suitcase bombs, to the ships and vans that deliver weapons. And on that case, I agree with the Senator from North Dakota, I think he is right. But we are already taking care of that. We are already working on that program. The Senator from North Dakota talks about intelligence estimates. I asked yesterday on this floor, what if we are wrong, what if those intelligence estimates he is saying where the threat is not there for 10 more years, what if we are right and it is 5 more years? What if he is wrong? Look back to 1940 and Pearl Harbor. At that time our estimates were wrong; North Korea in 1950, or more recently, Iraq in 1990. Our intelligence was wrong at that time. The Senator relies on the cold war mutually assured destruction program embodied in the triad of missile submarines, land-based missiles and bombers, but we had all these things 5 years ago, and that did not deter Saddam Hussein from using Scud missiles. When the Senator points out that the administration says that $300 million to defend Americans from attack is not in our interest, he ignores the fact that just 3 months ago, the director of the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, with the administration's blessing, said that they could spend $500 million more. That is $200 million more than the additional amount we are trying to put on that we did put on in the Senate Armed Services Committee and our counterparts in the other body to reach a system that would defend America. The Senator from North Dakota is also citing the administration supposedly defended our interests last year by spending $2 billion. We are doing a lot of talking now about $300 [[Page S 11231]] million. What about the $2 billion that we spent for humanitarian missions that, by their own admission, in the Senate Armed Services Committee, by the Secretary of Defense were really not to our vital national security interests. I am talking about Somalia and Haiti and Bosnia and Rwanda. We are spending all this money. We are sending our troops all the way around the world to defend violations of human rights. Certainly, I am not insensitive to the ethnic cleansing that is going on and all these human rights violations. But we are spending huge amounts for that. I disagree with the foreign policy of the administration, and I do not think we should be doing it. But if we are doing it, that is $2 billion, and we are talking $300 million right now to keep this on line to be able to defend this country 5 years from now.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. I would like to respond to the Senator.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to express my thanks to Senator Thurmond and the staff of the Armed Services Committee for their diligence in working with Senator Nickles and me and our staffs on this amendment. This amendment requires the General Accounting Office to review the DOD report on depot maintenance required in the National Defense Authorization Act of 1995 (S. 1026.), and report their findings to Congress within 45 days of the date of the report. This is a common sense, noncontroversial amendment. It simply provides a second opinion for members of Congress when the time comes to review the Department of Defense's recommended changes. This additional review will help Members sort through this complicated subject. Again, I thank the members and staff of the Armed Services Committee for their assistance in having this amendment included in the bill.

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President. We have talked about this now for 3\1/2\ hours, and we have got a little bit longer to go. I think it has been said every argument has been made on both sides by this time. When the Senator from Texas stood up and talked about this being a different world, I have to emphasize that this is a different world than it was back in 1972. In 1972, we had two superpowers. We had the USSR and the United States, and we had a treaty that took place back then that was controversial at that time, the ABM Treaty between two parties. One of those parties does not even exist anymore. The world is totally different. The threat is not there from the Soviet Union because the Soviet Union is not there anymore. If we stop and look at the comparison that we have today, we are living under [[Page S 11280]] a treaty that says that we can defend ourselves overseas, we can defend ourselves in a theater missile environment, but we cannot defend our own country. Now, I think we have to look at it and say, is the environment we are in today a more dangerous environment than it was in 1972? I think there is some argument, very persuasive argument, that there is. We have heard quoted several times on this floor a statement by Jim Woolsey, who is the Security Adviser to President Clinton, said that we know of between 20 and 25 nations that have developed or are developing weapons of mass destruction--either nuclear, chemical, or biological-- and they are working on the missile method to deliver those weapons of mass destruction. I think that a case can be made that the environment we are in today is far more serious, far more dangerous, to our Nation's security than it was when we could identify who the enemy was. At that time, of course, the enemy was the U.S.S.R. I will share with you a conversation I had with Dr. Henry Kissinger. We all know he was the architect, back in 1972, of this controversial antiballistic missile treaty. He said at that time he felt it was the right thing to do. At that time the mutual destruction mentality that we had seemed to make sense. ``We only have two countries in the world who are capable of developing and delivering any form of destruction of that nature, so let us just both make ourselves so we are vulnerable to the other one.'' Maybe it made sense then. I am not sure that it did. But the other day, in a private conversation with me--and he said it is fine to quote him--he said: For us to be living under that treaty today is insane. And he said, and this is a direct quote, ``It's nuts to make a virtue out of our vulnerability.'' I do not know whether that is in the letter that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina submitted for the Record. I suggest words to that effect are there, but it is a lengthy, two-page letter. In that letter he describes it. This is the person who was the architect of the ABM Treaty. So all I am saying, Mr. President, is today it is a different world. Today it is a world not with two superpowers but with a superpower, the United States--if we want to call ourselves that--and many other semi- superpowers or quasi-superpowers, any of which, if they have the technology, can deliver weapons of mass destruction to the United States. I agree with Henry Kissinger; it is nuts to make a virtue out of our vulnerability, which is exactly what we have been doing.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I do not yield.

Mr. INHOFE. Is the Senator aware or do you deny that the Taepo Dong 2 is being developed today?

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will allow me to read a statement--two statements. One is by James Woolsey concerning what is out there today. ``We can confirm that the North Koreans are developing two additional missiles with ranges greater than 1,000 kilometers that it flew last year. These new missiles could put at risk all of Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific area. And if we export, the Middle East could threaten Europe as well.'' Then further John Deutch says, ``If the North Koreans field the Taepo Dong 2 missile, Guam, Alaska, and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.'' So it is a two-part question. First of all, do you believe this? And, second, and most significantly, Mr. President, what if the Senator is wrong?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not think I can add a lot to what the very eloquent Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, said about this sense- of-the-Senate amendment. I do support the amendment and offer this with Senator Kyl. One of the reasons I came to the Senate in the first place, and one of the reasons I sought to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is a very deep concern over what has been happening to our Nation's ability to defend itself. I have watched the cold war leave us and many people, when I was serving in the other body, would stand up and say, ``There is no longer a necessity to have a very strong defense system. The cold war is over and the threat is not out there.'' I honestly believe, in looking at this, through my service on the Intelligence Committee as well as on the Senate Armed Services Committee and formerly on the House Armed Services Committee, that there is a threat to our country out there that is even more severe, more serious today than there was during the cold war, because in the cold war we could identify who the enemy was. As Jim Woolsey said, there are 20 to 25 countries, not two or three, 20 to 25, that are working on or have weapons of mass destruction. That is not something that might happen in the future. That is something that is imminent and that is taking place today. It is interesting that the administration downplays another conclusion by the intelligence analysts; namely, that there are numerous ways for hostile countries to acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles far more quickly. We have watched this. We have watched the discussions take place. I think we can come to some conclusions, and those conclusions are that there is a multiple threat out there. The Senator from Georgia mentioned briefly the ABM Treaty. I think it is worth at least discussing in context with our need for a national missile defense system. I think at the time that the ABM Treaty went into effect, perhaps there was justification for that. There were two superpowers in the world--this was 1972--and the feeling was at that time, if neither of the superpowers were in a position to defend themselves from a missile attack, then there would not be any threat out there for the rest of the world. Maybe there was justification for that. I had a conversation with the architect of the ABM Treaty just the other day, Dr. Kissinger. He said, and I will quote him now, he said: There is something nuts about making a virtue out of our vulnerability. That is exactly what we are saying when we say, by policy and by treaty, that we can defend our troops who might be stationed overseas, that we can pursue a theater missile defense system, but we cannot defend our Nation against a missile attack. There is something nuts about that. So we are going to have to address this. In the meantime, what can we do to put a national missile defense into effect in the next 5 years? We can do exactly what we are doing with this bill. I would like to move even quicker than we can move right now, but we feel what we are doing in this bill that we are looking at today is all we can do to prepare ourselves for what can happen in the next 5 years. So, when we are able to change this national policy, we will be in a position to not lose any time and do it in the next 5 years. I think the issue here is: Is it 10 years when the threat could be facing us or is it 5 years? I think it is incontrovertible it is closer to 5 years. Even if we were certain there is no new threat that would materialize for 10 years, there are two compelling reasons to develop and deploy a national missile defense system. First, it will take more than 5 years to develop and deploy the limited system, even when the Missile Defense Act of 1995 is passed. By then, we will most certainly be facing new ballistic missile threats to the United States. Second, deploying the national missile defense system would deter countries from seeking their own ICBM capabilities. A vulnerable United States invites proliferation, blackmail, and aggression. We are going to hear, during the course of this debate, people who really are not concerned about the threats that face the United States of America talking about the missile defense system as star wars. They have always downgraded it by using that term. Star wars should not even be used. We are talking about an investment that we have in this country, through the THAAD system, through the Aegis system that we have--22 ships that are currently equipped--we have a $38 billion investment. That investment can be protected merely by putting approximately $5 billion over 5 years in, and being able to deploy a national missile defense system. I implore my Senate colleagues in the strongest possible terms to wake up and see the world as it is and not the way arms control advocates in the Clinton administration would like it to be. The threat is clear. It is present. It is dangerous. That is why I strongly support this amendment. Mr. President, I urge swift adoption of the Kyl-Inhofe amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. I do have an opening statement. Madam President, before presenting my opening statement, I would like to yield momentarily to Senator Kyl for the purpose of proposing an amendment. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. I am sure you heard several times---- Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?