[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 10 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S365-S368]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MAJOR CONCERNS
War on Drugs in America
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.
[[Page S366]]
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.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S367]]
[From the New York Times, Jan. 25, 1996]
As China Threatens Taiwan, It Makes Sure U.S. Listens
(By Patrick E. Tyler)
Beijing, January 23.--The Chinese leadership has sent
unusually explicit warnings to the Clinton Administration
that China has completed plans for a limited attack on Taiwan
that could be mounted in the weeks after Taiwan's President,
Lee Tenghui, wins the first democratic balloting for the
presidency in March.
The purpose of this saber-rattling is apparently to prod
the United States to rein in Taiwan and President Lee, whose
push for greater international recognition for the island of
21 million people, has been condemned here as a drive for
independence.
While no one familiar with the threats thinks China is on
the verge of risking a catastrophic war against Taiwan, some
China experts fear that the Taiwan issue has become such a
test of national pride for Chinese leaders that the danger of
war should be taken seriously.
A senior American official said the Administration has ``no
independent confirmation or even credible evidence'' that the
Chinese are contemplating an attack, and spoke almost
dismissively of the prospect.
``They can fire missiles, but Taiwan has some teeth of its
own,'' the official said. ``And does China want to risk that
and the international effects?''
The most pointed of the Chinese warnings was conveyed
recently through a former Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Chas. W. Freeman Jr., who traveled to China this winter or
discussions with senior Chinese officials. On Jan. 4, after
returning to Washington, Mr. Freeman informed President
Clinton's national security adviser, Anthony Lake, that the
People's Liberation Army had prepared plans for a missile
attack against Taiwan consisting of one conventional missile
strike a day for 30 days.
This warning followed similar statements relayed to
Administration officials by John W. Lewis, a Stanford
University political scientist who meets frequently with
senior Chinese military figures here.
These warnings do not mean that an attack on Taiwan is
certain or imminent. Instead, a number of China specialists
say that China, through ``credible preparations'' for an
attack, hopes to intimidate the Taiwanese and to influence
American policy toward Taiwan. The goal, these experts say,
is to force Taiwan to abandon the campaign initiated by
President Lee, including his effort to have Taiwan seated at
the United Nations, and to end high-profile visits by
President Lee to the United States and to other countries.
If the threats fail to rein in Mr. Lee, however, a number
of experts now express the view that China could resort to
force, despite the enormous consequences for its economy and
for political stability in Asia.
Since last summer, when the White House allowed Mr. Lee to
visit the United States, the Chinese leadership has escalated
its attacks on the Taiwan leader, accusing him of seeking to
``split the motherland'' and undermine the ``one China''
policy that had been the bedrock of relations between Beijing
and its estranged province since 1949.
A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, asked to comment on
reports that the Chinese military has prepared plans for
military action against Taiwan, said he was awaiting a
response from his superiors. Last month, a senior ministry
official said privately that China's obvious preparations for
military action have been intended to head off an unwanted
conflict.
``We have been trying to do all we can to avoid a scenario
in which we are confronted in the end with no other option
but a military one,'' the official said. He said that if
China does not succeed in changing Taiwan's course, ``then I
am afraid there is going to be a war.''
Mr. Freeman described the most recent warning during a
meeting Mr. Lake had called with nongovernmental China
specialists.
Participants said that Mr. Freeman's presentation was
arresting as he described being told by a Chinese official of
the advanced state of military planning. Preparations for a
missile attack on Taiwan, he said, and the target selection
to carry it out, have been completed and await a final
decision by the Politburo in Beijing.
One of the most dramatic moments came when Mr. Freeman
quoted a Chinese official as asserting that China 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
that Mr. Freeman characterized as an indirect threat by
China to use nuclear weapons against the United States.
An account of the White House meeting was provided by some
of the participants. Mr. Freeman, reached by telephone,
confirmed the gist of his remarks, reiterating that he
believes that while ``Beijing clearly prefers negotiation to
combat,'' there is a new sense of urgency in Beijing to end
Taiwan's quest for ``independent international status.''
Mr. Freeman said that President Lee's behavior ``in the
weeks following his re-election will determine'' whether
Beijing's Communist Party leaders feel they must act ``by
direct military means'' to change his behavior.
In recent months, Mr. Freeman said he has relayed a number
of warnings to United States Government officials. ``I have
quoted senior Chinese who told me'' that China ``would
sacrifice `millions of men' and `entire cities' to assure the
unity of China and who opined that the United States would
not make comparable sacrifices.''
He also asserted that ``some in Beijing may be prepared to
engage in nuclear blackmail against the U.S. to ensure that
Americans do not obstruct'' efforts by the People's
Liberation Army ``to defend the principles of Chinese
sovereignty over Taiwan and Chinese national unity.''
Some specialists at the meeting wondered if Mr. Freeman's
presentation was too alarmist and suggested that
parliamentary elections on Taiwan in December had resulted in
losses for the ruling Nationalist Party and that President
Lee appeared to be moderating his behavior to avoid a crisis.
``I am not alarmist at this point,'' said one specialist,
who would not comment on the substance of the White House
meeting. ``I don't think the evidence is developing in that
direction.''
Other participants in the White House meeting, who said
they would not violate the confidentiality pledge of the
private session, separately expressed their concern that a
potential military crisis is building in the Taiwan Strait.
``I think there is evidence to suggest that the Chinese are
creating at least the option to apply military pressure to
Taiwan if they feel that Taiwan is effectively moving out of
China's orbit politically,'' said Kenneth Lieberthal, a China
scholar at the University of Michigan and an informal adviser
to the Administration.
Mr. Lieberthal, who also has traveled to China in recent
months, said Beijing has redeployed forces from other parts
of the country to the coastal areas facing Taiwan and set up
new command structures ``for various kinds of military action
against Taiwan.''
``They have done all this in a fashion they know Taiwan can
monitor,'' he said, ``so as to become credible on the use of
force.''
``I believe there has been no decision to use military
force,'' he continued, ``and they recognize that it would be
a policy failure for them to have to resort to force; but
they have set up the option, they have communicated that in
the most credible fashion and, I believe, the danger is that
they would exercise it in certain circumstances.''
Several experts cited their concern that actions by
Congress in the aftermath of President Lee's expected
election could be a critical factor contributing to a
military confrontation. If President Lee perceives that he
has a strong base of support in the United States Congress
and presses forward with his campaign to raise Taiwan's
status, the risk of a military crisis is greater, they said.
A chief concern is that Congress would seek to invite the
Taiwan leader back to the United States as a gesture of
American support. A Chinese military leader warned in
November that such a step could have ``explosive'' results.
In recent months, American statements on whether United
States forces would come to the defense of Taiwan if it came
under attack have been deliberately vague so as to deter
Beijing through a posture of what the Pentagon calls
``strategic ambiguity.''
Some members of Congress assert that the Taiwan Relations
Act of 1979 includes an implicit pledge to defend Taiwan if
attacked, but Administration officials say that, in the end,
the decision would depend on the timing, pretext and nature
of Chinese aggression.
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.
[[Page S368]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Arkansas.
____________________