[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 179 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16973-S16974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            REPUBLICAN PLAN

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while I was presiding, I was desirous of 
responding to some of the things that had been said about the subject 
of this morning's business by a number of the Members of the Congress, 
specifically one from North Dakota.
  During the course of his remarks, he talked about a plan, about the 
fact that the Republicans have talked about the plan that we had that 
we are going to discuss, that we have sent to the President that will 
reach a balanced budget in a period of 7 years, as if somebody else had 
a plan. I suggest that there is no other plan. If there is a plan, I 
have not seen it.
  The Senator was talking about repeating some of the things that had 
been said over and over again having to do with reducing Medicare in 
order to give tax breaks to the rich. I want to say, every time I hear 
that, that the Republicans had no intention at any point of reducing 
Medicare. The Republicans gave a program that would have the effect of 
increasing Medicare by approximately 6.4 percent each year. That would 
be if a person were getting the maximum Medicare, as accorded today 
under the current law. That person would receive $4,800 a year. At the 
end of the 7-year period, that same individual would be getting $6,700 
a year.
  There is no way to say that that could be considered as a cut in 
Medicare. To say over and over and over again, with redundancy that is 
unbearable, that the Republicans are going to try to use cuts in 
Medicare--which I just talked about, that there are no cuts in 
Medicare--to give tax breaks to the rich is being unreasonable. Mr. 
President, 90 percent of the tax breaks that would come from a $500 tax 
credit per child would go to families under $100,000 of income.
  But I want to get down to the point where he was talking about our 
Nation's defense. He was talking about the Senate bill that was too 
high, talking about the appropriations bill that was actually some $7 
billion more than asked for by the military. I think we all know, being 
realistic, that when there is a Democrat in the White House, the 
military is going to be influenced by what that Democrat or a 
Republican in the White House might want.
  We saw what happened back in the 1970's when we had a Democratic 
President in Jimmy Carter, and we saw our defense budget going down, 
going down and, of course, the social programs going up. Until such 
time as 1980, we did not have enough money for spare parts, and we 
found it necessary after 1980, up to 1985, to increase spending on 
defense by about 40 percent.
  We do not want that to happen again, and yet we have seen during the 
course of this administration cuts in our defense budget to the extent 
that right now we are where we were in 1980.
  This concerns me, because right now there is a crisis that is taking 
place and a decision that has been made by this President to send up to 
25,000 troops on to the ground in Bosnia. You can talk about doing this 
and act like the budget is going to remain static during this time, and 
yet the foreign policy of this administration has put more and more 
money into humanitarian gestures, Mr. President, to the extent that he 
has had to come back to this Congress for emergency supplementals.
  This is the position we have found ourselves in: We have a 
Republican-elected House and Senate. We have control. The Republicans 
gained control in the 1994 elections. And yet we have a President who 
sends our troops off on humanitarian missions, having no relativity to 
our Nation's defense. We sent them off to Somalia. Of course, our 
troops went to Somalia in December under the last month of the Bush 
administration. And yet, once that humanitarian mission, as described 
by President Bush when we sent the troops over to Somalia, was over, we 
time and time again pleaded with President Clinton to bring our troops 
back from Somalia. There was no mission there that related to our 
Nation's security interests. Yet, he did not bring them back and they 
did not come back until 18 of our troops were murdered in cold blood 
and dragged through the mud through the streets of Mogadishu. 

[[Page S 16974]]

  What we do not want to happen in Bosnia--if you look at what the 
administration has done to our military--is for them to come back and 
say we need another billion dollars. They came back for a $1.4 billion 
emergency supplemental just to cover these humanitarian missions in 
places like Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, and other places. And we are in a 
position where we did not have a voice in making the decision to spend 
that money on humanitarian missions, money we have to borrow from 
future generations, because we are borrowing this money. Yet, we cannot 
deny the President his request for emergency supplementals, because if 
we do that, he will take it out of the operating account of our 
existing military, and, of course, we are down now to a bare bones 
military system.
  I think what is happening right now in Bosnia has a far greater 
significance than what we have been talking about in just the cost.
  I had occasion to spend 6 months in Bosnia. I did it all in 4 days. 
It was the most miserable 4 days I ever spent. But I learned something 
while I was there. I looked around and I saw a country that had been 
pounded and pounded. Yet, we are not real sure who is doing the 
pounding all that time. We have three warring factions in Bosnia. We 
have the Croats, the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Moslems. Yet, while the 
peace talks are going on, I suggest to you that some of the parties 
causing the problems over in Bosnia are not at the peace table.

  So here we are faced with a dilemma where we are going to have to 
make decisions as to what is taking place over there, and we are going 
to try to stop the President from sending 25,000 ground troops in there 
where, certainly, there will be many, many deaths.
  I will wind this up by only repeating the words of the commander of 
the U.N. forces in Bosnia, that British general, Gen. Michael Rose, who 
said, ``If the Americans send troops into Bosnia, they will sustain 
more losses than they did during the Persian Gulf war.'' That was 390 
losses. I remember when I asked Secretary Christopher and Secretary 
Perry, ``Is whatever we are doing over in Bosnia significant enough--
whatever mission that is--for the loss of several hundred--specifically 
over 400--American lives?'' They said, ``Yes.''
  So I think there is the basis of the difference of opinion. Is the 
mission of containing a civil war and of protecting the integrity of 
NATO worth several hundred American lives. I say, ``no.''
  That is another debate that is going on now. I would like to advise 
the President that it is my intention to introduce legislation that is 
going to make it more difficult for him to send troops into Bosnia on 
the ground.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grassley). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________