Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President. I regret that we are on such a tight constraint, because I think this is the most significant issue this Senate will be addressing certainly this year. We are talking about the lives of American citizens. As one who is from Oklahoma and can see what type of terrorist devastation can take place, and realizing that the devastation in Oklahoma was one-thousandth of the power of the smallest nuclear warhead known, it is a very scary thing. I believe right now--I don't think there is a Senator here who doesn't believe this--that there could very well be a missile headed our direction as we speak. It is not a matter of a rogue nation learning how to make missiles to deliver the weapons of mass destruction that we know they have. It is a matter of just getting that technology and those systems from a country that already does. China is such a country. China fully has missiles that can reach Washington, DC, from any place in the world. We have no way in the world of knocking them down. We know that China is trading technology systems with countries like Iran--countries that would not hesitate to use missiles against us. I wish I were speaking last, because there are going to be some things said about the exorbitant costs of such a system. We can complete a system to protect us against a limited missile attack for about $4 billion. In the case of our AEGIS ship system, we have 22 AEGIS ships that have the capability of knocking down a missile, but not an ICBM. We have a $50 billion investment in that system, and for only $4 billion more we could have that system to protect Americans. I hope that people will give consideration to this resolution. I think it is the most significant resolution we will be considering this year. I ask unanimous consent that three items pertaining to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, my concern here is that those individuals who are concerned--genuinely concerned--about the problems that exist over there are concerned about damage that is inflicted by these landmines, and certainly I am one of these individuals, are also concerned about the saving of American lives. We certainly should not contemplate doing so unless the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the unified combatant commanders formally change their minds and agree such a step can be taken without jeopardizing the U.S. forces. I also have written a letter to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton. This is just in the last few days. I have a letter back from General Shelton in which he talks about his opinion. In his response he said: In your third question, you noted General Norman Schwarzkopf, who has been widely portrayed as a supporter of a complete ban on antipersonnel landmines, has been quoted in an interview with the Baltimore Sun as saying, ``I favor a ban on the dumb ones. Those are the ones that are causing humanitarian problems. I think the smart ones are a military capability we can use.'' Further quoting General Shelton, he said: My view again is that our smart mixed ATAV munitions are critical to our efforts to protect our men and women in the field. I ask unanimous consent that this letter also be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, more recently, 16 of those generals have written a powerful open letter to the Senate opposing Senator Leahy's effort to legislate U.S. compliance with the Ottawa Treaty. They said in part: In our experience as former senior military commanders of American ground forces, such a decision would likely translate into the needless and unjustifiable death of many of this country's combat personnel and possibly jeopardize our forces' ability to prevail on the battlefield. I again ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter from the generals dated June 16, 1997, be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Arizona. I would like to comment on a couple of other things. In addition to the letter that was sent by the Joint Chiefs, here is a letter that was sent to the President last July by 24 of the Nation's most distinguished retired four-star ground combatant commanders, including a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former supreme allied commander, Secretary of State, six former combatants of the Marine Corps, two former Chiefs of Staff of the Army, two recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor and four service Vice Chiefs of Staff. This is what they said. A month ago this letter was received by the President: Studies suggest that U.S. allied casualties may be increased by as much as 35 percent if self-destructing mines are unavailable, particularly in the halting phase-- The halting phase, we are talking about should the North Koreans come down south of the DMZ, we would have a phase where we would not be as prepared. They said: --particularly in the halting phase of operations against aggressors. Such a cost is especially unsupportable since the type of mines utilized by U.S. forces and the manner in which they are employed by those forces do not contribute to the humanitarian problem that impels diplomatic and legislative initiatives to ban APLs. I find it difficult right now in light of what happened this last week, in terms of the missiles that were launched from North Korea and the accuracy of those missiles with two phases, that we can question whether or not there is a threat out there. These are the words that came from 24 of the Nation's most distinguished retired four-star ground combatant officers. They went on to say: Unfortunately, a ban on future deployment of APLs will in no way diminish the danger imposed by tens of millions of dumb landmines that have been irresponsibly sown where they inflict terror and devastation on civilian populations. Only the United States military and those of other law-abiding nations will be denied a means through the use of marked or monitored mine fields of reducing the costs and increasing the probability of victory in future conflicts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the full text of the letter from the retired generals dated July 21, 1997, printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. As I said, I don't want to change the language. I don't think I want to change the intent of the language of the Senator from Vermont, but nonetheless this does put language in there that would take our troops out from harm's way. I know that the Senator from Vermont has some comments to make perhaps in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. I respond to the Senator from Arizona, at the very beginning when we opened our remarks, I said the language the Senator from Vermont put in this appropriations bill is left intact, but this one proviso is there. When we try to use the argument you are not going to be able to get the Joint Chiefs and the CINCs to agree, if they don't agree, I don't want to invoke this. I will say, yes, that is the intent and the letter of this amendment. It is very simple, and I can't imagine anyone will want to go on record saying that we want to stop the use of any kind of landmines if it is not in the best interest of our fighting troops over there as certified by the Joint Chiefs and the CINCs.

Mr. INHOFE. I have no objection. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator for that clarification. A statement that was made by the Senator from Vermont was that, if you go to parts of the world where you can see the damage inflicted by these, you perhaps will feel differently. I suggest to the Senator, I have been there, and I remember the problems we had in Nicaragua and Honduras. There is nothing that is more repugnant, nothing that is sadder than seeing the effect of landmines on individuals. However, what we are talking about now is many of those landmines were not U.S. landmines. Those were landmines that were made in other parts of the world. We are talking about self-destructing landmines, self-disarming landmines, and landmines that, in the opinion of our military leaders, are necessary to save the lives of Americans. As far as the alternatives, I hope that we are going to be able to come up with alternatives to landmines, even smart landmines. I will be the first one, when that time comes, to stand here on the floor of the Senate and change our policy so that we can more accurately use and effectively use these landmines. However, we can always change the law when that time comes. In addition, the statement that I read was endorsed by every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and every one of the unified combatant commanders, which was: Self-destructing landmines are particularly important to the protection of early entry and light forces which must be prepared to fight outnumbered during the initial stages of deployment. The lives of our sons and daughters should be given the highest priority when deciding whether or not to ban unilaterally the use of destructive APLs. I think some of the same language was used by our Commander in Chief when the President said, it was a year ago this month I believe, Mr. President, he said: As Commander in Chief, I will not send our soldiers to defend the freedom of our people and the freedom of others without doing everything we can to make them as secure as possible. There is a line that I simply cannot cross and that line is the safety and security of our men and women in uniform.

Mr. INHOFE. Of course.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Vermont. Most of the things he stated so eloquently I do agree with. I would like to discuss a couple of them, however. The 125 nations or so that we are talking about that he referred to who signed this Ottawa Treaty--obviously, we have not. I don't think it is good policy for us to say that we didn't sign it ourselves but we encourage others to do it. I have not seen any documentation of that. If I did, it wouldn't really be too meaningful to me.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. INHOFE. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding. Amendment No. 3366 (Purpose: To require a certification that the signing of the Landmine Convention is consistent with the combat requirements and safety of the armed forces of the United States)

Mr. INHOFE. That is the language.

Mr. INHOFE. There is some language that was put on this bill by the very distinguished Senator from Vermont. I will read that language to you. The language states: Statement of Policy. It is the policy of the United States Government to sign the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction as soon as practicable. My amendment merely agrees to that language but adds, provided ``the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the unified combatant commanders certify in writing to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives that'' such a step ``is consistent with the combat requirements and safety of the armed forces of the United States.'' So essentially what we are doing is saying that we agree that the language is--even though I would prefer the language not be in there, the language remain in there, but it be qualified. I am always a little bit confused and disturbed when I see the qualifier ``as practicable.'' I don't know what ``as practicable'' means, and so I think this actually would improve the language that was put in by the Senator from Vermont giving some qualifications. I think also that the Senator from Vermont has a lot of passion on this issue. I certainly understand that. When I was a freshman, I was seated up there where the President is seated right now and listened to his comments for about an hour. I know his concern comes from the heart. I think he is also equally concerned about the safety of troops deployed overseas, thousands of troops in South Korea and troops all around the world. A statement that was made by the Senator from Vermont, referring to the Ottawa Treaty, was: I think we can get to it sooner, and I and others will be pushing to do so. So I think there is going to be an ongoing effort to get to this treaty sooner than some of us would want to do that. The fact is that our senior military commanders, both those currently in uniform and many of those now in retirement, have already put us on notice: The U.S. military requires the ability to make responsible use of self-destructing APLs. This is particularly true in those situations where American forces are forced to operate in hostile territory, often severely outnumbered. The alternative to the responsible use of antipersonnel landmines is to have their positions overrun, to beachhead loss and heavy casualty loss unnecessarily sustained. So, Mr. President, here is what every Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and every one of the unified combatant commanders wrote last year, and I am quoting right now. Self-destructing landmines are particularly important to the protection of early entry and light forces which must be prepared to fight outnumbered during the initial stages of deployment. The lives of our sons and daughters should be given the highest priority when deciding whether or not to ban unilaterally the use of self-destructing APLs. I ask unanimous consent to have the full text of this extraordinary letter dated July 10 of 1997 printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield, I would like to request the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is very simple. It is not a complicated thing to deal with. It simply says that we take the language that is supported and has been put in by the distinguished Senator from Vermont and add--I will read it one more time, these words-- This subsection shall not apply unless the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the unified combatant commanders certify in writing to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives that the signing of the Convention is consistent with the combat requirements and safety of the armed forces of the United States. So it is a very straightforward and simple amendment. Quite frankly, I want to have the input of the military when these decisions are made. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be extended to Dan Groeschen, a fellow from the Air Force, during the consideration of this bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I will wrap up real quickly. I think the point is here in today's report. We talk about the fact that only 27 eligible carrier pilots had applied for the ACP agreements. The minimum expectation of the Navy was 82. That means that approximately one-third are re-upping for this particular duty. It costs $6 million to put a new pilot in the seat of an F-16. We are at the lowest retention rate in the history of America. And if you look at the exits surveys, they will say it is not because of pay, it is because of the type of operation they are having to do to support Bosnia. And they are unable to carry out the red flag training and all the serious training that would be necessary should we have to send them into combat. So I do support this. I would like a much stronger amendment than this, but I would certainly support--this is the best thing out there.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Texas for yielding the time. It is very precious time. There isn't nearly time to get into the seriousness of this issue. The Senator from Alabama is exactly right, there is no issue before this body that is more significant than this particular issue. We have stood here and debated this at least once a month since November of 1995. If I could criticize the Senator from Texas, I would say this isn't strong enough. But I know she knows it is not strong enough either. We should have a date. We should be out of there. And it isn't being hardhearted, it isn't being uncompassionate. This is something where the times are different now than they were back in 1995. If you just look at a very recent development, the Rumsfeld report came out. And if you will remember, the national intelligence estimate that came out in 1995, that said we would have a good 3 years' warning, in 3 years, to participate in preparing for a national missile defense system. Now the Rumsfeld report has come out and said that isn't true at all, that we are out of time, we are naked--if we started today to deploy a system and put it into effect, we would not be able to do it. What has that got to do with Bosnia? It is very simple, because in Bosnia right now they are using up our military assets to the extent that we are not able to carry out the minimum expectations of the American people, which would be to defend America on two regional fronts. If you do not believe this, go to the 21st TACOM in Germany. They are responsible for the ground support, anything that will happen in that theater. That theater includes Iraq. That means that if something should happen, we should have to surgically strike Iraq--I do not think there is a person in America who does not believe that is a possibility--we would eventually have to go in on the ground and clean it up. How do you do that? If you go to the 21st TACOM in Germany, they will say we are right now over 100 percent capacity in just supporting Bosnia. We have M-915 trucks that have a million miles on them right now trying to carry the support over there and support Bosnia on the ground. Until we are able to get that out, we are not going to be able to adequately meet the defense needs. I hope that you read, Mr. President, just in this morning's Inside the Pentagon: ``The Navy's ability to retain its carrier aviators has hit its lowest historical annual rate. . . .''

Mr. INHOFE. I thought I had 3 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the efforts that have been brought to the floor by the Senator from Kansas. I would like to make a few comments and observations about tax cuts and some misconceptions. I was somewhat distressed at the beginning of this administration when a statement was made by Laura Tyson, who was the chief financial advisor at that time. She said--and this is almost a direct quote--that there is no relationship between the level of taxation that a country pays and its economic activity. If you would carry that to its logical conclusion, you would say you could tax somebody by 100 percent and they are going to be just as motivated to work hard and to contribute to the economy and take risks and to hire people as if they had no tax at all. As we know, history has shown us that this is not true. One of the interesting things that is so overlooked by many of the liberals nowadays is that for every 1 percent increase in economic activity, it produces new income of approximately $24 billion. Three times in this century we have had administrations that have had massive tax cuts, and each time this has happened we have actually increased the revenue. What I am hoping we will get to is a discussion and a debate along the lines that you can actually increase revenue by reducing taxes. History has shown us that, in fact, this is true. The first time this happened was in the 1920s, during the Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge administrations. They had consecutive tax cuts, reducing the top tax rate from 73 percent to 25 percent. The lower rates of taxation helped expand the economy dramatically. In fact, between 1921 and 1929, in spite of--or maybe because of--dramatic reductions in personal income tax rates, revenues increased from $719 million in 1921 to $1.16 billion in 1928, an increase of more than 60 percent. Now, over a 10-year period, that would have been about a doubling of the tax revenues that came as a result of reducing tax rates. Then in the 1960s, along came the Kennedy administration. Of course, when you hear some of the things that President Kennedy said at the time that didn't sound that prophetic, they turned out to be true. At that time, he said we needed to have more revenues and the best way is to reduce our tax rates and expand the economy. Again, going back to the assumption that has been proven over and over again that your tax revenues increase with certain types of marginal tax rate reductions, in the 1960s, President Kennedy initiated a series of tax cuts where he took the top income tax rate and reduced it from 91 percent to 70 percent. These cuts, in part, helped increase the growth by some 42 percent between 1961 and 1968. So again, you have a very similar type of growth that we experienced back in the 1920s. Then in 1980, we remember so well Ronald Reagan coming along and the criticisms that he has had. At that time, he was working with a Congress that was not that friendly--at least a House that wasn't that friendly. He was able to probably make the most dramatic reductions in the tax rates than at any period during any administration in this country's history, knocking the top tax rates from 70 percent in 1980 down to 28 percent by 1988. The results of this were very interesting in that if you look at total revenues raised to run this country in 1980, it was $517 billion. By 1990, that figure was increased to $1.3 trillion. So revenues doubled during that period of time that he reduced the tax rates. As far as the revenues that were generated from the marginal rates, or from income tax, that went from $244 billion in 1980 to $466 billion in 1990. So you have almost a doubling in that case, also. So I think those people who are saying that we don't want to reduce taxes are saying we don't want to reduce the revenues. We have need for more revenues when, in fact, some of the tax reductions that we will be talking about could have the opposite effect. I can remember in Ronald Reagan's speech--one of the speeches he made called ``A Rendezvous With Destiny'' in the sixties, it was prophetic. He said, ``There is nothing closer to immortality on the face of this Earth than a Government agency once formed.'' I think this is one of the problems we are dealing with now, in that it is so difficult to cut down the size of Government. Sometimes it is necessary to reduce taxes in order to overcome that temptation to spend the money that is out there. We know the political reality of that. By the way, when many of the Democrats--liberals--were saying, ``Look at how the deficits increased during the Reagan administration,'' yes, that is true, they did, but that was not as a result of reducing taxes; that was a result of increased spending. I think that, in retrospect, the President should have adopted a policy of issuing more vetoes, and I don't think we would have had the deficits that we had. The bottom line is that we are not an undertaxed Nation. We are a Nation that needs to reduce taxes. This is an opportunity to do it. I can't imagine that in this day and age when we have the projected, huge surpluses that are out there, we would consider anything less than making major tax reductions. The tax reduction that has been promoted on the floor by the various speakers regarding the marriage penalty is certainly one that is justified. I would like to see, in addition, some marginal rate reductions. I hope we will be able to do that before this debate is all over. Lastly, we have come so dangerously close to what has been stated in history. People have observed this country. When Alexis de Tocqueville came here, he came to study the penal system and to write about that. After he saw the great wealth in this Nation and the freedoms, he wrote a book about the wealth. In the last paragraph, he said that once the people of this country find that they can vote themselves money out of the public trust, the system will fail. I think we have come dangerously close to that. This is the time to reduce taxes and allow individuals to have more control of the money they earn. I yield the floor. Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to reauthorize the National Environment Education Act. I am joined by my colleagues Senators Faircloth, Lugar, Kerry, Baucus, Lautenberg, Wyden, Graham, Jeffords, and Domenici. Over the last few years environmental education has been criticized for being one-sided and heavy-handed. People have accused environmental advocates of trying to brainwash children and of pushing an environmental agenda that is not supported by the facts or by science. They also accuse the Federal government of setting one curriculum standard and forcing all schools to subscribe to their views. This is not how these two environmental education programs have worked, and I have taken specific steps to ensure that they never work this way. This legislation accomplishes two important functions. First, it cleans up the current law to make the programs run more efficiently. And second, it places two very important safeguards in the program to ensure its integrity in the future. I have placed in this bill language to ensure that the EPA programs are ``balanced and scientifically sound.'' It is important that environmental education is presented in an unbiased and balanced manner. The personal values and prejudices of the educators should not be instilled in our children. Instead we must teach them to think for themselves after they have been presented with all of the facts and information. Environmental ideas must be grounded in sound science and not emotional bias. While these programs have not been guilty of this in the past, this is an important safeguard to protect the future of environmental education. Second, I have included language which prohibits any of the funds to be used for lobbying efforts. While these programs have not used the grant process to lobby the government, there are other programs which have been accused of this and this language will ensure that this program never becomes a vehicle for the executive branch to lobby Congress. This is an important piece of legislation, and I hope both the Senate and the House can act quickly to reauthorize these programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.