Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Arizona. Madam President, I am pleased today to speak on behalf of the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Department Authorization Act. I urge my colleagues to preserve it in its somewhat inadequate but present form. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. Since the 1991----

Mr. INHOFE. I would be glad to yield after the statement.

Mr. INHOFE. I would like to ask the Senator to repeat his unanimous- consent request, please.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair. I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank you.

Mr. INHOFE. I do not yield until the conclusion of my opening statement.

Mr. INHOFE. Not at this time, Madam President. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me continue my opening statement from the top again. I am pleased to speak on behalf of this fiscal 1996 defense authorization bill. Although I believe it is still inadequate, I think it is as good as we could pass at this time. Since the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the military has been cut, misused, neglected, and otherwise distracted from its ultimate purposes-- protecting and preserving America's vital interests. This bill, with its House counterpart, represents a first step towards strengthening America's Armed Forces. One of the most important messages which voters delivered in 1994 was the need to restore the strength of America's defenses. With this bill, the Senate has clearly had enough of the Clinton administration's weak hand in the national security arena. We have added $7 billion to the administration's request. It has become fashionable in some circles to assert that now that the cold war is over, there is no longer a threat out there. But history has told us that most wars come with little or no warning. From the attack on Pearl Harbor to the invasion of Korea to the invasion of Kuwait, few could have predicted the size and scope of American military involvement which became necessary in the wake of these unexpected events. The lesson learned the hard way in Pearl Harbor remains true today: We must always be prepared. President Reagan reminded us many times that we, as Americans, never have the luxury of taking our security for granted. It is up to each generation to take the steps necessary to preserve and pass on the legacy of freedom to the next. With this bill, we are beginning to take up that challenge. As we look to the future, all we can predict with certainty is that there will be more surprises. What there will be we cannot be sure, but we can make some educated guesses. For instance, the gulf war taught us the growing importance of stealth, of space, and of ballistic missiles. As we look to the future, it is clear that technology will be playing a key role, both in shaping the threats we will be facing and the defenses that we will need. Madam President, it was not long ago that the former CIA Director Woolsey estimated that there are somewhere between 20 and 25 nations that currently have or are developing weapons of mass destruction, either nuclear, chemical, or biological, and they are also developing the means with which to deliver those. Today, we are going to have an amendment, the Kyl-Inhofe amendment, which will be addressing that, so I will not elaborate on that at this time but will seek time during the consideration of that amendment. This is a good bill, but I must express my deep concern with the Senate's failure to support further funding of the B-2 bomber. The House, in its bill, had $553 million. America is reducing her military presence around the world. Budget constraints and the end of the cold war are naturally causing us to pull back our forward deployed forces overseas. But as a world leader, our continuing ability to project power around the world will be critical. Unfortunately, our ability to immediately respond in a crisis is going to be diminished unless we are able to use our technological advantages wisely. This is why the revolutionary B-2 Stealth bomber is so important for our future arsenal. From bases within our own country, these aircraft can quickly deliver devastating payloads to virtually any target on Earth without refueling. They can penetrate the toughest air defenses with minimal risk to our pilots. The B-2 multiplies mission cost-effectiveness. Today, the standard bombing run package using escorts, air defense suppression aircraft, refueling tankers, and bombers requires up to 67 aircraft and 132 crew members. The same mission can be completed with only two B-2's and four crew members. Many Americans have been persuaded that sophisticated weaponry, such as the B-2, are relics of the cold war. They have been told that we can easily discard such systems without diminishing our security in the current world environment. They have been told that there are more important and immediate priorities. It is an easy argument to sell, but I do not buy it, and I plan to make my support for more B-2's clear as the deliberations go on. For 8 years, Ronald Reagan gave us a policy of ``peace through strength,'' a policy which invested wisely in defense needs with a special emphasis on America's inherent leadership in advanced technology. I believe proven success of that policy should continue to guide our defense posture. This is why, despite my reservations regarding the B-2, I support this bill. It will help save lives and protect our vital interests in the future. I congratulate Chairman Thurmond and Senator Nunn for the solid effort, united effort they put forth. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. We have quotes by Jim Woolsey and John Deutch and other experts in this field. And in terms of the quote that was attributed to Jim Woolsey, there are between 20 and 25 countries that have developed or are developing weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deploy those. Do you not believe that statement by Jim Woolsey?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Five minutes is fine.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas for yielding the time. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bumpers amendment to terminate the gas-turbine modular-helium-reactor program. For the past 30 years, the Department of Energy's program has only served as another Federal monetary waste. To date, the taxpayers have already spent $900 million to advance gas-coolant reactor technology. One would imagine that after costing the American public nearly $1 billion, we would see some type of tangible technological benefits. But this is not the case. In 1992, the National Academy of Sciences study concluded that the gas-cooled reactor has low market potential. Last month the DOE stated in a report by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board that it did not see any further need to continue to develop the program. The report said--this is a quote we have not heard yet, I do not believe anyway, at least I have not: This technology requires a very expensive, long-term development program that cannot be supported in the near future. Given industry's low interest in this technology, DOE has requested termination of the Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor Program. But I have to say, Mr. President, that my concern is not a technical concern. Yes, I am concerned about the energy industry. I believe, had a lot of this money been spent to develop enhanced recovery programs and to do something to stop the demise of the domestic oil industry, I would be in strong support of it. That is where our money should have gone. The GAO report estimates that the total cost to design and construct a gas-cooled reactor should be approximately $5.3 billion, of which taxpayers are expected to absorb approximately 50 percent. Mathematics would tell us that we would save more than $2 billion of hard-earned taxpayer dollars simply by going with the President, Congress, DOE, and the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, and the list goes on and on. Congress has been trying to terminate funding for this program for the last several years. Finally, this year, the House adopted an amendment to eliminate the program altogether. Rightfully, the Senate Appropriations Committee authorized $7.5 million to cover the Department of Energy's termination of this program. The administration, the Bush administration, the Reagan administration, Congress, scientists and many of the fiscal unions, such as the National Taxpayers Union, the National Tax Limitations Committee, the Citizens Against Government Waste, are united in their campaign to terminate the project. The Department of Energy, like the rest of us, must make massive budget cuts if we are to ever keep our commitment to the budget resolution that we made that would eliminate the deficit by the year 2002. We can no longer afford such luxuries as the gas-cooled reactor that do not earn their Federal keep. With the possibility of the dismantling of DOE, the administration has made a wise decision to end the program that only serves as a liability. America is watching both the House and the Senate as we bring Federal spending back under control. By supporting this amendment, we are legislating exactly the way we said we would last November by appropriating wisely and cutting out programs that continue to waste Federal dollars intended for future generations. So, Mr. President, I am not as impressed as I should be, I guess, with the National Academy of Sciences, but I am impressed with the National Taxpayers Union and many of the groups that are looking at this from a fiscal perspective. I would only say this is a good example of what Ronald Reagan said in one of the greater speeches I have ever heard, entitled ``Rendezvous with Destiny,'' way back in 1965 when he said there is nothing closer to immortality on the face of this Earth than a Government program. I think this is such a program. I yield back the time. Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I see morning business is about to be concluded. I want to make a couple comments about our subject of the day, the welfare reform the country so desperately wants. The postelection survey showed that there are three major elements to the mandate of the election of 1994. They were: We want to do something to eliminate the deficits; we want to do something meaningful about regulatory reform; and we want real welfare reform. Mr. President, I am very proud that we in this House, the Senate, and over in the other body, submitted and adopted a budget resolution that is going to end up eliminating the deficit by the year 2002. So the President could not veto it, or I am sure he would have. Nonetheless, I think we are on our way to fulfilling that mandate. Regulatory reform--we are working on that right now, and I think we will end up with a product by the end of the week in getting it out. Welfare reform is more difficult, because it seems that everybody campaigns on it, until they get here, and then they do not want to do anything about it. The two most important points are the exploding welfare costs and the crisis of legitimacy. In 1935, when AFDC was enacted, 88 percent of the families who received State cash relief were needy because the fathers had died. Benefits were intended primarily to enable the widow to care for her children at home. Today, AFDC serves divorced, deserted, and never-married mothers and their offspring. Since the beginning of the program in 1965, in the last 30 years, State and Federal Governments have spent $5.4 trillion on welfare, providing cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services. For the $5.4 trillion spent since 1965, you could buy the entire industrial infrastructure of the United States--every factory, machine, store, every hotel, television station, office building, and still have money left over.

Mr. INHOFE. I will just conclude by saying that we have an opportunity to do something about this--one of the three major mandates of the election in 1994. It is incumbent upon to us do this. We have introduced legislation that will give true welfare reform and take the profit out of illegitimacy, and the people of America are demanding that we do it. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. INHOFE. I understand that. I ask for 30 more seconds.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I sat presiding in the chair listening intently as the Senator from Utah talked about the mandate, as he understood it, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992. As one who was elected 2 years later, in 1994, that mandate was not quite the same. It was interesting that those individuals who are talking about term limits did not really address the fact that we have a problem, in that we have the same leadership within each party in the U.S. Senate, as they were concerned about the term limits of individuals serving in the House and in the Senate. Maybe it is unique to my State of Oklahoma that we had such an intense interest in the fact that people should come here as citizens, serve for a period of time, and then go home and serve under the laws that they passed. It seems as if the term limits debate has become very silent now. I have decided that one reason is that they felt if we had such a turnover, as we had in both Houses of Congress this last time, maybe people do not think that there is a need for term limitation anymore. But I saw a poll that was taken yesterday. I saw the poll that was taken last week, and I was shocked to find out that 72 percent of the American people have very strong feelings about limiting the terms in which Members of the House and Members of the Senate can serve. I did not expect this because I have heard so many people around the beltway--which is not really real America--say we do not need it anymore because we know now that we can flesh things out and get new blood. I think that the poll, as it was interpreted, says that people like what happened on November 8, 1994, but they are not real sure that they want to wait 20 years for the same thing to happen again. We are, indeed, better off to have people here who have been in the real world. I got to thinking about the arguments, since I was the one who proposed term limits many, many years ago. When I was running for office, I stated I would do everything I could--the same as the Senator from Utah said he would do everything he could--to see to it that the terms of leadership would be limited. I made that same commitment to continue the effort to limit terms. I observed something when I was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. I have to say, Mr. President, that I am a truly blessed individual. I decided 35 years ago, when all my kids were grown and the runt of my litter was out of college and off doing her thing, that I would do what I always wanted to do and run for Congress. That happened in 1986. When I arrived in Congress, I found something that shocked me. That is, that the prevailing ideas and mentality of those who are in power in Congress was totally alien to what people outside the beltway thought. For example, I categorize the thinking of Congress, the majority of Congress who are making the decisions, who are setting the agenda, who are carrying on the debate, into four categories, what they really believe. First, in terms of crime, they really believed that punishment was not a deterrent to crime. In the second area, they believed that government, in concert with Congress, can run the lives of the people of America better than people could in the private sector. They believe that the cold war is coming to an end. Of course, subsequently it was ended, and therefore it is not necessary to put more money in our Nation's defense. That money should go into social programs. They felt that deficit spending is not bad public policy. When we stop to think about those four areas, almost everything, at least that this Member, former Member of the House experienced, found very offensive, fell into one of those four categories. People felt, as far as the deficit is concerned, they said, ``Well, we are all right on the deficit. We are not concerned about that. After all, we owe it to ourselves,'' without realizing everything we are spending today we are borrowing not from anyone who is here in this Chamber today or in the gallery, or even those who may be watching, but the future generations, such as my three grandchildren. They are the ones who will pay for all this fun we are having up here. Every time we try to cut some of the fat out of government, cut a social program, the people stand up with bleeding hearts and talk about how can we do this to those poor people who need these programs. Right now, we are in the middle of, and we are reminded that all we are trying to do is take the profit out of illegitimacy, and get people more responsible for their own acts. Insofar as the defense is concerned, I am embarrassed to stand here and say we are operating with a budget right now that is less than the budget that we are spending on social welfare programs, when we combine State and Federal programs. We are operating on a defense budget that is less than it was in 1980, when we had hollow forces, when we could not afford spare parts. We all remember. It is all in the history. Yet, some believe that the threat that is out there today is greater than the threat that we were facing during the cold war. At least during the cold war, Mr. President, we could identify who the enemy was. There were two superpowers. So we knew who it was. Right now, in accordance with comments made not by conservative Republicans, like I am, but by Democrats, Jim Woolsey, who is the Chief Security Adviser to the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, said that we know there are between 20 and 25 nations that have developed or are developing weapons of mass destruction. They are all developing the means to deliver those weapons of mass destruction. We have the Saddam Hussein's and the Qadhafi's, and those out there able and willing to buy technology that is on the market. Here we are, with a group of people who really believe that there was not any threat out there, when the vast majority of the people of America who voted in the elections in November of 1994 said, ``Yes, we need a strong national defense.'' Government and its relationship to our lives in 1987, when I first got to the U.S. Congress, the majority of people in leadership really believed that the only thing wrong with America was we did not have enough government regulation. We needed more government regulation. When, in fact, that is exactly what is the problem. Why did these individuals believe these things? They believed these things because many of them had come straight from the fraternity house to Congress--never been out in the real world, never exposed to real people. So they completely lost touch. That is what precipitated what I refer to as the revolution of November 8, 1994, when we had the greatest turnover in contemporary history. People finally decided, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, back in the real world, that they wanted to make major changes in government as we know it. Here we are with the reregulation bill that is right now kind of on high center. All we are trying to do is say to the people who voted in new people in Congress, ``Yes, we heard you, loud and clear. We are going to get rid of this overregulated society.'' Someone on a radio talk show not long ago, in fact, the No. 1 radio talk show in America, the host said if you want to compete with the Japanese, export our regulations to Japan and we will be competitive with the Japanese. We truly are an overregulated society. I have told this story many times, people that I know back in my State of Oklahoma. A guy name Keith Carter, in Skiatook, OK, invented a spray that you put on horses, and apparently it works. Whatever it does, it must work, because he had four employees, and a couple years ago they moved to a larger place down the street from his house, still in Skiatook, OK. He called me up, 4 days before Christmas--this was 2 years ago--and he said, ``Congressman Inhofe''--at that time I was in the House of Representatives--he said, ``The EPA came along and put me out of business.'' I said, ``What did you do wrong?'' ``When I moved down the street 2 years ago, I forgot to notify Washington and the EPA that I had moved.'' I said, ``You mean they did not know where you were?'' He said, ``I notified the regional office, but they did not tell Washington.'' So we got it taken care of. He called back a little later, and he said, ``I appreciate all you did for me, and you got me back in business, but now I have another problem. I have $25,000 worth of bottled spray produced during the 2 weeks I was revoked that they say I cannot use.'' This is the type of overregulation we have in society today. I think the re-regulation bill is going to come out. I think the people of America will have to speak up again and let them know, let Members know, that they are still interested in reducing the abusive role of government as we have come to know it today. Mr. President, term limits is a very real thing today, and just because we made some major turnovers does not mean that we should not continue the good thing that happened in 1994. A lot of people say, ``Well, you cannot do that; you are taking away my constitutional right to vote for someone as I see fit.'' It was not very long ago when we had to impose term limits on the President of the United States. And it has worked very well since then. We could use the same arguments. Well, you have taken away my right to vote for someone who has already served two complete terms. Almost every State in the Union right now has term limits on its Governors. The vast majority of the States that have the petition process, the initiative process, were able to either vote in or through an initiative and impose term limits on themselves. However, the U.S. Supreme Court came along and said, ``No, you cannot do that.'' So it can only be done, to be effective and endure the future generations, is to do it with the constitutional amendment. I intend to continue in that fight. I believe that the message is loud and clear. There are a lot of messages that came out of the elections. I mentioned that the majority of people who had been operating without term limits and have been here since they graduated from college and did not have experience in the real world, that they honestly did not believe that punishment was a deterrent to crime. Senator Richard Shelby, from Alabama, and I introduced a bill that would change our prison system and put the work requirements back in. People say, ``How cruel can you be, because these people are poor products of society, and it is not their fault they did something that is wrong. You should not be punishing them.'' There is an article, Mr. President, you ought to read. It was in last November's Readers Digest. It says, ``Why Must Our Prisons Be Resorts?'' And it talks about the new golf courses that they are putting in next to the polo field, or next to the boccie courts. Whatever that is. And how we are going to have to take care of--they do not even call them prisoners anymore in some prisons, they call them clients, because they do not want to offend them. I may be old fashioned in my thinking. I think punishment has deterred crime. I think history showed that. When we passed the soft- on-crime bill, the omnibus crime bill of 1994, that was the midnight basketball and dancing lessons and all that, the American people were offended by that and those individuals who voted for that bill, most of them, were voted out of office in November 1994. It was just another one of those areas where, if you had been inside the beltway listening to people around here, you forget what the real people at home are thinking. Because it is a different mentality here in Washington, DC. I do not think that Oklahoma is unique in that respect. I will share an experience that will offend, I think, some of the people here. But it is something that happened to me. The State of Oklahoma is, by registration, a very strong Democrat State. But the Democrats in the State of Oklahoma are very conservative. They are unlike the Democrats that we have here in Washington. I had an experience down in McCurtain County. McCurtain County in Oklahoma, Mr. President, is what we call severe little Dixie. There are not any Republicans. They are all Democrats. I remember being down there in the campaign and my opponent was an incumbent, the same as I was, an incumbent from the House, both running for the Senate, so we each had records. I remember someone standing up in a meeting of about 45 people in McCurtain County. I was the only Republican who was in that room that day, including a New York Times reporter who was following me around. Someone stood up in far southeastern Oklahoma, where there are not any Republicans, and said ``Inhofe, you are going to be the first Republican to carry McCurtain County since statehood, the State of Oklahoma statehood in 1907.'' I said, ``Why is that?'' He said, ``Because of the three G's.'' He said, ``God, gays, and guns.'' Let us look at what they were really saying. He said school prayer was an issue in southeastern Oklahoma--school prayer, gays in the military was an issue, and gun control was an issue. During deer season, they closed schools. These are real people. These are not the kind of people you find around the beltway. And this gets right back to the whole idea of term limits. I really, honestly, believe in my heart that we would not have a lot of the problems that we have had since the 1960's about the role of Government in our lives, we would not have the huge deficits we find ourselves with--if we do not change our spending behavior, a person who is born today is going to have to spend 82 percent of his or her lifetime income just to service Government. And this is what we are going to change. So I believe the term limit debate is going to be revived again, even if I am the one who has to revive it, because I think the vast majority of Americans honestly and sincerely in their hearts believe that those of us in Congress should someday have to go out and make a living under the laws we passed. The only way to ensure that is if we have limitation of terms. Early in this country's history it was not necessary. We had people who came in and they could only afford to be here for a short period of time. They did their patriotic duty and they went back and lived with the laws they passed. I think that is exactly what is coming back to America and it is going to serve my grandchildren and all of America very well. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for whatever time I shall consume during morning business between now and 10 o'clock. [[Page S 10081]]

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on Saturday President Clinton gave his Saturday speech wherein he justified defeating the regulatory reform bill. I really believe that so many people who are opposed to this regulatory reform bill did not get the message that came from the American people on the 8th of November because, loudly and clearly, they wanted to redefine the role of Government in our lives. The President talked about how you are going to be poisoned by your hamburgers. He talked about how people are dying in the streets because they are not adequately protected from exposure to the physical elements, and from food, as if Government has a role of taking care of everyone and people's responsibility for themselves is nonexistent. And the theme of all of this was that Government really does things better than people do. That is not what this country is all about. The other day we were talking about some reforms that were necessary insofar as the EPA is concerned. The EPA is a good example of a regulator that has gone far beyond the intent of what we have always felt a regulator should do. I remember in my city of Tulsa, OK, there is a lumber company called Mill Creek Lumber Co. owned by the Dunn family. It is a third generation lumber company owned by the family. It is a competitive business. It is a tough business. I got a call from Jimmy Dunn, the owner and CEO of Mill Creek Lumber Co., that family lumber company on 15th Street in Tulsa, OK. He said, ``The EPA just put me out of business after three generations of family running this business.'' I said, ``What did you do wrong?'' He said, ``I do not think I did anything wrong.'' He said, ``About 10 years ago I sold used crankcase oil to a licensed contractor, and the licensed contractor apparently disposed of it in the wrong place.'' It was called the Double Eagle site. So this guy 10 years later, after disposing of crankcase oil, long before the law was even in effect, ended up with a letter from the EPA Administrator saying that you are going to be fined $25,000 a day, and you are going to maybe even have criminal sanctions. Then a year ago Christmas, about 4 or 5 days before Christmas, I got a phone call from a guy named Keith Carter. Keith Carter was a man of very modest means. He had developed a business in Skiatook, OK, which was in my congressional district at that time. He called up one day 4 days before Christmas and he said, ``Congressman Inhofe, I have a serious problem. The EPA just put me out of business, and right before Christmas, I have to fire my six employees.'' I said, ``What happened?'' He said, ``Well, about 2 years ago I moved from the basement in my home three blocks down the street to another location because the business was kind of good and I needed a little bit more room. Apparently they say that I did not advise the EPA that I made my move.'' I said, ``My gosh. You have been operating for 2 years in an area where they did not know where you were?'' He said, ``Oh, no. I told the regional office in Texas. But apparently they did not tell the office in Washington.'' They called up and put him out of business. It took me about a week to get him back in business. He called up a week later, and he said, ``I have another problem, Congressman.'' He said, ``They let me back in business but I cannot use the number that I had before because they said during that 1 week I was out of business, they assigned it to somebody else. I had $25,000 worth of inventory.'' So we finally got it corrected. But for each one who calls a Congressman or someone to intervene in behalf of decency and honesty and good sense, there are hundreds of them who do not do that. If he had not called, then Keith Carter would have been out of business and his employees would be unemployed today, most likely. That is the kind of abuse that takes place by regulators in our society. I suggest, Mr. President, the theme of this thing is far greater than we have been talking about. We are talking about freedom. That is what this whole thing is about; freedom, individual freedom. That is what this country is supposed to be all about. I remember a few years ago when we had the problems down in Nicaragua. And I know, Mr. President, you were serving over in the House at that time and remember it also. At that time, it was, fortunately, driven home to me how we are perceived around the world, that we are the bastion of freedom, that we are the beacon of freedom. If you lose it here, you do not have it anywhere else. That is what this regulation is about, the theme that Government knows better how to take care of our lives than we do. This is what was happening in Nicaragua at that time, if you will remember the big controversy we had here in both Houses of the U.S. Congress with people saying, ``Well, the freedom fighters are really a bunch of rebels. We should not get involved in this thing.'' Yet, we knew that the Communists at that time were supplying them with the best of armaments, with the best of tanks, and with the best of helicopters. And so you had the freedom fighters risking their lives. I can remember going down to Honduras. I think we were only about 7 miles from the Nicaraguan border. And I went through a hospital tent down there where they were bringing the freedom fighters in and nursing them back to health. The tent was about the size of these Chambers. It was a very large tent. And all around the periphery they had hospital beds that were in a circle. And then they did their surgical procedures in the center. About all they did was amputations at that time because most of the young people who were in there, the freedom fighters from Nicaragua, were in there because they had stepped on land mines or something like that, so most of them were amputations. The average age of the freedom fighter was 18 at that time, because the older ones had either died or lost their arms or legs. I remember, I went all the way around--I speak Spanish--and I talked to each one of those individuals. I tried to get in my own mind: What is it that is driving these people? What is it that they risk their lives for that so many of them are dying? And so I asked the question to each of them. The last one was a young girl 19 years old. Her name was Maria Lynn Gonzalez. I will always remember her because she was an itty-bitty girl. It was her third visit to the hospital tent; she kept coming back. But she would not go back to fight again because that morning they amputated her left leg and blood was oozing through the bandages. As she lay there, with her large eyes looking up after having gone through all that terror, I asked her that question. She responded to me, and she said: Es porque han tomado nuestras casas, campos, todo lo que tenemos. Pero, de veras, ustedes en los Estados Unidos entienden. Porque ustedes tuvieron que luchar por su libertad lo mismo que estamos luchando ahora. What the little girl was saying was well, of course, we are fighting; we are fighting because they have taken our farms and our houses and everything we own. But surely you in the United States do not have to ask that question because you had to fight for your freedom from an abusive government the same as we are fighting for our freedom today. It occurred to me at that time this little girl, Maria Lynn Gonzalez, who could not read or write, she was not well educated; she had never gone to school; she was brilliant in her knowledge and appreciation of freedom, and she was willing to die for it. She looked at our revolution in this country, that revolution which we could not have won any other way than our reliance upon God and the principles that made this country so great, and she did not know whether we won that revolution 5 years ago or 200 years ago; she did not have any concept of when all this was happening, but to her it was a fight for freedom against all odds, and we were that beacon of freedom that led them to their success down there. It has been that way for 200 years. The whole world looks at us. And while the world looks at us as the example that people are bigger than government, and that totalitarian government, centralized government that is in charge of people's lives does not perform as people do when they are unleashed and can do as they wish and [[Page S 10082]] have the product of their labors, then that means so much more. So while we are the beacon of that freedom, the administration is trying to hold on to the old, abusive governmental waste of the past with white knuckles. And so I say to you, Mr. President--not this Mr. President but Mr. President Clinton--that you are not going to win this battle because there was an election. When that election took place in November 1994, there were a lot of loud messages. They wanted to rebuild a strong national defense at the same time they wanted to balance the budget. We are going to do both. They wanted to change the role of Government so it no longer has abusive control and power over the citizenry, and that is exactly what is going to happen. So this is a very important debate that we are in the middle of right now, Mr. President, the debate on the role of Government, how abusive is Government, and for all those people around the world who look to us as that beacon of freedom we are going to keep that beacon very bright and shiny for them. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, thank you.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for not to exceed 3 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to call to your attention an editorial which was in yesterday morning's Washington Post by Charles Krauthammer. I think he best characterizes where we are today in terms of our Nation's defense--in this editorial--more than anything I have read recently. He talks about the problems that we have in our defense system. I think several of us have been disturbed that this administration has stripped our defenses down to the bone. We are operating now on a budget that is about what it was in 1980 when we could not afford spare parts. There are several of us who believe that we could not fight two regional wars right now. We could not fight the Persian Gulf war as we did. This Nation has to rebuild its defense system. Charles Krauthammer states three incontrovertible facts. The first is, America is coming home. He points out that we are bringing from overseas our bases back to the mainland of the United States. In 1960, we had 90 bases around the world. Today we have 17. His second incontrovertible fact is that America cannot endure casualties. If you look at what is happening on CNN with the coverage on all of these humanitarian missions that are going on right now all over the world, we have more troops in more parts of the world right now on missions that have nothing to do with our Nation's security. We saw Captain O'Grady and how the entire Nation was watching him and hoping and praying for him. This is a concern that the entire Nation has; that we have a very low tolerance of casualties. Yet we look at Somalia. We had 18 Rangers that were killed there. And I have a great fear for what can happen in Bosnia. The third fact is that America's next war will be a surprise. I think we all understand this. Certainly, Pearl Harbor was a surprise. The invasion of South Korea was a surprise. The Falklands war was a surprise. The next war will be a surprise, too. To meet this criterion, what weapon, according to Charles Krauthammer, is the best one to do that? He says clearly it is to expand the B-2 bomber program--the B-2 bomber program--because, No. 1, it has the range; No. 2, it is invisible; and, No. 3, it is immediate. If you look at the Persian Gulf war, the F-117's, they had the invisible characteristics of a stealth fighter. Over 2 percent, I think, of the missions were flown by the F-117, and they got 40 percent of their targets. So, Mr. President, I will conclude by saying that seven of the currently living former Secretaries of Defense agree with Charles Krauthammer that we need to expand the B-2 program, and I believe it, too. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this editorial by Charles Krauthammer be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee at the conclusion of his remarks started talking about something that is very, very significant and has been left out of this debate. I have a few comments to make, and then I wish to follow up on that. And that is the budget ramifications of an overregulated society. I am an original cosponsor of the Dole bill. However, I will say that I do not believe the bill goes far enough. I would like to have it stronger. It does not include a supermandate which would make the new cost-benefit provisions apply to all regulations. It specifically exempts those statutes which set a lesser standard in the statutory language. These exempted laws include many of the environmental statutes such as the Clean Air Act, which really does need a strong cost-benefit provision. Half of all regulations issued are from the EPA, and half of all the EPA regulations are under the Clean Air Act. So that is why that act is so significant. We need to protect human health, but the EPA has gone way too far. At the time of the Clean Air Act, the head of the Department of Health and Human Services told the Office of Management and Budget that they had no issues with the air bill. The only health benefit, according to HHS, was removing benzene from gas. This is the head of the public health department saying the bill was not protecting health. When EPA determines risk in their risk assessments they use something called the maximum exposed individual, which is a person who spends every day of their life, 24 hours a day for 70 years, underneath the factory vent breathing the discharges. And I do not know anybody like that. That is totally unreasonable. They also use the maximum tolerated dose for rats, which is when they stuff so much of the substance that they are studying into a rat the rat is going to die from stress. For part of the Clean Air Act, they also observed the effects of emissions on asthma patients. But what they did was take away their medicine and force them to jog in 110 degrees heat, and nobody does this. This again is not realistic. The only realism you will find is in the minds of bureaucrats who do not live in the real world. We can get 90 percent of the benefits from 10 percent of the costs. What EPA is trying to do is reach that final 10 percent of the benefits which incurs the rest of the costs, which is 90 percent. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to understand that 10 percent of the benefits is not worth 90 percent of the costs. We should require that benefits outweigh or exceed the costs of regulation. When you reach that 90 percent benefit level, you reach a point of diminishing returns. We are paying for much more than we are getting. Businesses do not operate this way, at least they do not operate this way very long, and neither do consumers. The Government definitely should not either. For an incremental benefit of 1 percent, we should only have to pay an incremental cost of 1 percent or less. Nowhere else but in the Federal Government do people spend $1 million to get $100 worth of benefit, and we must end this practice. The Clean Air Act refinery MACT rule is a perfect example. As proposed, the rule would cost approximately $10 million and only save less than one-half of one life. The cost-benefit language in the Dole bill is good but not good enough. And it is a shame it does not apply to all existing statutes. As a Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I will strive to place good cost-benefit language in all future reauthorizations, yet I must point out my disappointment with the cost- benefit language in this bill. Perhaps we can work together and strengthen it later. And, [[Page S 9830]] of course, it is the only dog in this hunt at this time. Let me suggest something. Yesterday, I ran out of time when I was talking about the Regulatory Reform Act, and there are a couple of examples that I wanted to use. I had used some examples from around the country, but I did not use the local examples. Once before, when we were talking about Superfund abuse, which we are dealing with here also, I told the story of a very close personal friend of mine in Tulsa, OK. His name is Jimmy Dunn. His family has Mill Creek Lumber Co. It is the third generation to run this lumber company--highly competitive. It is in an environment in which many of them do not exist; they are not able to survive. He called me up. At that time, I was a Member of the House. He said, ``Congressman Inhofe, the EPA has just put me out of business.'' I said, ``What did you do wrong?'' And Jimmy Dunn said, ``I don't think I did anything wrong, but for the last 10 years we have been using the same contractor to sell our used crankcase oil.'' And that contractor was licensed by the Federal Government; he was licensed by the State Government; he was licensed by Tulsa County, and yet they traced some of the crankcase oil from this contractor to the Double Eagle Superfund site. He read the letter he received from the administrator of the EPA, the last paragraph of which said we are going to impose $25,000-a-day fines on you and possible criminal sanctions. Now, we were able to stop that, but for every one that we find out about and are able to help, there are thousands that we do not find out about. I had a visitor in my office yesterday who is the administrator of the endangered species here and a very nice lady, and we visited about it. She said, ``Well, I can count on both hands the number of prosecutions we have had. It is fictitious to say that we are being abusive in the Endangered Species Act.'' I said, ``You miss the point altogether.'' For each one that is ultimately a conviction or a prosecution, you have 100,000 of them out there that are threats, that are threatening those people who are working hard, making money to pay taxes for all this fun that we are having up here. I have a guy that I met 4 days before Christmas. His name is Keith Carter. Keith Carter lives in a little town in Oklahoma--Skiatook, OK-- just north of Tulsa, OK. It is a very small community. Keith Carter developed a spray that he puts on horses. I do not know what it does, but apparently there is a market for it. Keith Carter called me 4 days before Christmas and Keith Carter said, ``Congressman, EPA has just put me out of business and I have to fire my only four employees 4 days before Christmas.''