Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. If you will yield further, you are talking about the child tax credit, you are talking about the education incentives, the estate and gift tax reductions, the IRA exemptions, the corporate AMT reductions--all of these would be offset in terms of a tax increase?

Mr. INHOFE. I was presiding the other day, and I want to make sure I understood you correctly. You drew a relationship between our tax reductions that we were able to pass last year that we all went home and were so proud of--and we are talking about the child credit, and we are talking about the estate tax changes, relating that to the tax increase under certain assumptions. I would like to have you repeat that for my benefit.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. If you will yield further, I think so often we talk about the fact that 54 percent of the taxes would be paid by people with incomes under $30,000 a year. We forget sometimes to mention that only 3.7 percent of the tax will be borne by those with incomes over $115,000, which I think is very significant. I ask you this question since you represent the fine State of Missouri and I represent your neighboring State of Oklahoma. I had an experience and I just want to see if Missouri is anything like Oklahoma. Over the last 10 days, I have had 3 days of townhall meetings throughout the State. As you know, I am active in aviation. I have all these townhall meetings at airports. With 20 meetings in 3 days--that was kind of a record for me, because normally I do five a day--not one time in one townhall meeting, in Watonga, OK, in Oklahoma City, in Miami, OK, right up on your border, or anyplace in Oklahoma, did anyone bring up the subject of the tobacco bill. I brought it up in about half those meetings just because nobody had asked the question about this tobacco bill. Then when I talked to them about it, they said they had read about it and they said, ``We're opposed to it.'' In Oklahoma, in those meetings, there was not one hand that went up when I asked, ``Is there anyone here who is in support of this tobacco tax increase in this tobacco bill?'' Not one. Is there something unusual about Oklahoma, or could it be that this is really a beltway issue? Have you tested your people in Missouri on this?

Mr. INHOFE. That is interesting. Let me ask just one more question, if I might, because I haven't heard it in this debate actually coming up. I had an experience. Over the Easter recess, I went on a missionary trip over to west Africa to Togo, Nigeria, Benin, and that area. I thought it was the appropriate thing to do, to go over and talk about Jesus on the Easter break. The international publications I saw when I changed planes in Paris going down over the Sahara Desert and then again coming out of the Middle East, had articles--this is, what, 2 weeks ago, 3 weeks ago-- articles on what a great boom our tobacco bill in this country is going to do for their tobacco industries. They were referring to both legal and illegal, I suspect. But has anybody looked at the effect that this would have on the economies of those areas where they would be direct beneficiaries of what we do here if this thing should pass?

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator for yielding. Lastly, I just ask if your office has received the same thing our office has. We count letters when they come in and we read these letters from people who have picked up notions on this thing. And they are running right now in Oklahoma to my office--this is the district offices in Oklahoma as well as the office here--about 10 to 1 against this massive takeover by the Federal Government. And one of the major concerns they say is, ``What's next?'' You know, it is tobacco today. Then alcohol? Then fatty foods? Or what is going to be next?

Mr. INHOFE. The last thing I mention is, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal, I think last week, that talked about the nations that have actually had this happen, causing great increases in taxes to try to stop that particular habit--Denmark, Sweden, so forth--and that the result has been they have had to repeal those tax increases in almost every case. Are you aware of that?

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE. I applaud the Senator for taking the leadership to stop this from happening. And I appreciate your yielding for questions.

Mr. INHOFE. I would only respond by saying that I think I have told Senator Glenn, I may have more hours than he has, but he has a lot more miles.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to share with you and with my colleagues something I think is quite significant that is taking place, and also to correct some of the things that I have said that I found to be untrue. I was on the floor yesterday introducing an amendment to the 1999 Senate defense authorization bill. In this authorization bill, I have an amendment that would stop the transfer of land in California at Long Beach to the COSCO, which is the Chinese Ocean Shipping Company. I would like to share why this is an important amendment. I don't criticize any of my fellow Senators. But when I started talking about this yesterday, and I moved to set aside the Feinstein amendment in order to consider my amendment to stop the transfer of land to COSCO out in California, there was objection to that unanimous consent request. In a way, I think that is good because it gives me an opportunity to go into a lot more detail and to talk on some talk radio shows to alert America as to the seriousness of something that is happening out there. I would like to start off by saying, however, that when I talked on the floor about the fact that President Clinton signed a waiver back in 1996, and then another waiver in 1998 that allowed the transfer of technology to the Chinese, this was something that I thought was done in secret. I found out just this morning that it was not done in secret. He signed a waiver. He apparently did not disobey any law or violate any law in so doing. However, since I am a member of both the Intelligence Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I was not aware that he signed the waiver in 1996 or 1998, and not one of my colleagues who I have talked to was aware of it, I reasonably assumed that it was done in secret. To kind of give you the sequence in which this happened, I will tell you, Mr. President, that in June of 1989 we all saw what happened on the Tiananmen Square. At that time, as a result of the Tiananmen Square massacre, our country imposed some sanctions banning U.S. trade in dual-use technology. The President retains the power to grant waivers on a case-by-case basis. It seems to me that this President has an obsession in granting waivers and preferential treatment to China. In a minute I am going to read an article from this morning's New York Times that might shed a little light as to why the President was doing this. Let me finish with this sequence of events. From 1990 to 1995, there were some waivers given for certain technologies. In 1995, President Clinton offered a waiver for commercial satellites, allowing U.S. satellites to be launched on Chinese rockets. The Loral Corporation--maybe it was a coincidence-- which was the single largest contributor to the Democratic National Committee in two Presidential elections, in 1992 and 1996, took advantage of this waiver. So we had our commercial satellites placed on rockets that were designed and manufactured by the Chinese government. Anyway, one of these rockets went off, and there was an explosion in 1996, and they went in to investigate as to why the explosion took place. In 1998, just 2 months ago, in February of this year, the President granted another waiver allowing the transfer of information to China which gave them more reliability and accuracy in their missiles. Now, I would like to put this in a context that is easier to understand for a lot of people who are not involved in these issues. I am from the State of Oklahoma. It is a known fact--there is nothing classified about it--that both China and Russia have missiles that can reach the United States from anyplace in China or Russia. Specifically, in the case of China, they have their CS-4 missile that has a range of 8,000 kilometers, and by going the polar route, it will reach anyplace in the continental United States or any part of the United States. So this missile will do it. However, with the technology the Chinese had before the President allowed our technology to go over there and give them more accuracy, their missile could hit my State of Oklahoma but it could not pinpoint any particular city like Oklahoma City or Tulsa or Fort Sill or any of our military establishments. With this technology, it gives them the accuracy to do that. So that is what the President did. I am very concerned about this obsession that the President has to share everything that we have with the Chinese. Let's keep in mind we are talking about the China Ocean Shipping Company. It is not just owned by the Chinese. It is owned and run by the Communist Chinese military. It was only a week ago Monday that the Washington Times came out and disclosed the content of a CIA report. This report stated that there were some 18 CS-4 missiles that China had that were targeted at various places around the world, and 13 of those missiles are targeted at cities, major cities in the United States of America. Now, when you get a little bit concerned about the President giving preferential treatment to China with all these waivers, allowing them to have our technology so they can pinpoint their targets, and then we find out, as I think most of us knew anyway, that there are rockets in China, ICBMs aimed at major cities in the United States of America, it is very, very distressing. This morning in the New York Times this article on the front page right here says, ``Democrat Fund-Raiser Said to Name China Tie.'' This is a major breakthrough, and it may shed some light as to why the President has been granting these waivers and giving this Presidential treatment, and in my opinion changing his policy to the Far East from what it was when he ran for President in 1992. I recall that he made statements in opposition to MFN status for China. Now he is the leading advocate for MFN status for China. He was one who was opposed at one time to the normalization of our relations with Vietnam, and, of course, now, as we all know, he has headed up an effort that has successfully normalized those relations. He is right now spending much of his time trying to convince Congress to let the IMF bail out some Far Eastern banking concerns to the extent of $18 billion. Let me just read, Mr. President, the first four paragraphs from this article in the New York Times, ``Democrat Fund-Raiser Said to Name China Tie.'' A Democratic fund-raiser has told Federal investigators he funneled tens of thousands of dollars from a Chinese military officer to the Democrats during President Clinton's 1996 re- election campaign, according to lawyers and officials with knowledge of the Justice Department's campaign finance inquiry. The fund-raiser, Johnny Chung-- We all remember Johnny Chung, this friend of President Clinton's of longstanding-- told investigators that a large part of the nearly $100,000 he gave to Democratic causes in the summer of 1996--including $80,000 to the Democratic National Committee--came from China's People's Liberation Army through a Chinese lieutenant colonel and aerospace executive whose father was Gen. Liu Huaqing, the officials and lawyers said. General Liu was then not only China's top military commander but also a member of the [top] leadership of the Communist Party. It goes on to talk about this. It says. . . . investigators regard the identification of Ms. Liu-- This is his daughter-- as a breakthrough in their long search for conformation of a ``China Plan.'' The hunt was prompted after American intelligence intercepted telephone conversations suggesting that Beijing considered covertly influencing the American elections. I am quoting all this out of an article that is in today's New York Times. Now, Mr. President, I do want to go back and address my amendment because my amendment is going to be before this body this coming Tuesday, and when it is, I want to make sure that all of my colleagues who are watching right now, or listening, hopefully, have full knowledge of exactly what this amendment is all about. First of all, I think it is important to look at what is COSCO. COSCO--that stands for the China Ocean Shipping Company--is owned by not just the Chinese Government, but it is run by China's military. COSCO reports to the Chinese Ministry of Communication which falls under the State Council which in turn is led by Communist Party politburo member and Premier Li Peng. Now, I noticed the other day--I am quite sure it was in the Washington Times--that Sven Kramer, who has long served the National Security Council under both Democratic and Republican administrations-- I think everyone in this body is familiar with Sven Kramer--said he is disgusted with the cavalier actions of an administration that critics say put a dial-for-dollars campaign ahead of national security. Kramer asserts he finds it difficult to believe that the United States would surrender key ports in Long Beach and at either end of the Panama Canal to the PLA--that is the People's Liberation Army--led shipping company called COSCO. He cites the ``foolishness of the intelligence community'' for not blowing the whistle on these operations. So we have COSCO as a government-owned shipping company that is planning to take over the land in the Long Beach area which requires the President of the United States to sign a waiver. Now, does anyone doubt that the President will sign this waiver? I have no doubt at all. I can stand on this Senate floor, and say that the President is planning to do that, because any President who signs a waiver allowing, in 1996 and in 1998, the Chinese to have technology that will give their missiles more accuracy to hit targets in the United States when we already know there are some 13 missiles that are targeted to the United States, would certainly not hesitate to sign this waiver. And so we have areas of concern about this company COSCO. One of these areas of concern is that in March of 1996, in Oakland, CA, the COSCO ship Express Phoenix--that is the name of the ship-- transported 2,000 illegal Chinese weapons, AK-47s--these are the machine guns, not the AK-47s that will fire one round at a time; those are replicas; these are the real things--transported 2,000 illegal Chinese machine guns to be used on and sold to California street gangs, to be used by street gangs. Fortunately, we found out about it and the guns were confiscated by the FBI. This is also the same shipping company that has been stopped by the U.S. Coast Guard some six times because of various violations. This is the one that, in December of 1996, created a lot of damage to a boardwalk in New Orleans in their harbor. It also is the same shipping company that is in the process of gaining control of both the entrance and exit--it depends on which way you are going--of the Panama Canal, on the Atlantic and on the Pacific sides. So we do have great concern over what COSCO has been doing. Last year, in the 1998 Senate authorization bill, the Senate defense authorization bill, I had an amendment that I wanted to put on. We were unsuccessful in getting it on. Congressman Duncan Hunter over in the House of Representatives was unable to get his amendment on also. So he and I have been trying to do it this year. It is an amendment that would stop COSCO from being able to benefit from the transfer of this property. On April 29, 1998, an appeals court decided that the Port of Long Beach followed State law in its environmental review process to plan to lease the land of the former Long Beach Naval Station to COSCO. So you can see, we are much closer than we were last year at this time when we tried to put these amendments on. Anyway, I applaud Congressman Duncan Hunter, who was able to offer and successfully pass an amendment in the House National Security Committee by a margin of 45 to 4. I am introducing an amendment that does exactly the same thing. For people who are not aware of the process that is used around here, when you pass the defense authorization bills, they are passed by both the House and the Senate. Those items that are different from the House and Senate bills go into a conference committee. That conference committee is manned by both Members of the House and Members of the Senate. I will be a conferee on that conference committee. By passing this amendment this coming Tuesday, we will be able to use the same language as Congressman Duncan Hunter used successfully in putting it on the House version of the authorization bill and it will not be what we call a conferenceable item; in other words, it will be in there and it will be a done deal. So that is how significant this is, that we are able to get this passed. I am hoping, if there is anyone out there who is really concerned about what is going on in our relationship with China, about the China missiles that are targeting sites in the United States, and are concerned about the preferential treatment we have been giving China when China--and you stop and think about this. Now the administration admits that there are some 25 nations that have weapons of mass destruction, either biological, chemical, or nuclear. And some of these nations are run by people who murder their own grandchildren, so they would not have any reluctance about sending a missile in our direction. You might remember Saddam Hussein, who made the statement during the Persian Gulf war that if he had just waited a little bit longer to take his action in Kuwait, he might have had a missile that he could have used to stop us from interfering with what he was doing in Kuwait. That is pretty much a direct threat. You might remember also, it wasn't very long ago, a little over a year ago, when Taiwan was wanting to hold its elections and China was trying to intimidate Taiwan, that they were firing missiles in the Taiwan Straits. The second highest Chinese military official said: No, we are not concerned about the United States getting in here and getting involved, because they would rather defend Los Angeles than defend Taipei. So, I say there is a threat out there. Those individuals, most of them liberals, most of them who want to continue the demise of our military defense system in this country where right now we are approximately one-half the force strength we were back in 1991--those individuals like to perpetuate this notion that somehow the cold was is over and there is no longer a threat out there, let's take that money and put it in social policy. And that is what we have been doing since this President was elected in 1992. With that, while this doesn't resolve all the problems that we have, we still do not have any way of defending ourselves. I hope that everyone who is concerned with this issue, who is concerned with the transfer of our technology to China to allow them to pinpoint areas in the United States of America, will be aware of the fact that we do not have a national missile defense in America. How many people in America are aware that, if they fire a missile from Beijing and it comes over toward the United States of America, and it is headed for Washington, DC, it takes 35 minutes to get over here? If you ask the average person, what would Government do if that should happen--because certainly we have the satellite technology to know when they are launching these missiles--they say, well, I assume that Government would do something and knock down this missile during that 35 minutes it is coming over. Here is the problem. We don't have the capability to do that. Somebody very smart, back in 1983, decided they were going to put together a program to deploy a national missile defense system by fiscal year 1998. That is now, fiscal year 1998. They were pretty smart back then, because now is when we need it. Now is when the threat is out there. Now is when we pick up the newspaper and we see things that are happening and that there are countries out there with weapons of mass destruction and now with the missile capability of hitting the United States. We need to do something. The reason we cannot knock down a missile is not that we don't have missiles that will knock down missiles, it is just that in trying to adhere to these silly treaties like the ABM Treaty and some of the START treaties, disarmament treaties, we have agreed with parties in the former Soviet Union not to defend ourselves, or have a system that will adequately defend ourselves against a missile that is coming over from a foreign country. This is insane that we are doing this, but we are. So, while we do have missiles, we can't knock down a missile that is coming over to the United States until it reenters the atmosphere. By that time, you have only 1 or 2 minutes to hit it, and it is going at such a velocity, our technology doesn't have anything that goes fast enough to knock it down. So we are naked right now to any kind of an attack that comes by way of missile from any of these countries that are out there that have access to missiles. Don't think that just because China and Russia are the only countries that have these missiles, and they love us so dearly, supposedly, that no other countries can have missiles to deliver these weapons of mass destruction, because we know that both China and Russia are dealing, selling their technology to countries like Iran and other countries. So they are going to be able to have these missiles. About a week ago, I was reminded again about how we are being lulled into, I suppose, a euphoric feeling of complacency, that there is not any threat out there. In a recent letter to a member of the Senate, Gen. Henry Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said we are going to have 3 years' notice before there is any real threat of any missile coming over. He said he thought we would have 3 years' notice because our intelligence tells us we are going to have 3 years' notice. It was only days later after he made that statement that we found out about the nuclear tests in India. And India--we find out in only this morning's paper it is understandable why they are doing this, because with the preferential treatment that we have given China, they are trying to build some type of system that will give them the capability of deterring aggression from the adjoining countries, both China and Pakistan. So the threat is out there. I suggest, if our intelligence is good enough to rely on that we are going to have 3 years' notice before any ICBM comes over, that is the same intelligence that told us there wasn't anything going on in India. On Tuesday, we will be offering this amendment. I am hoping all of my colleagues will be very sensitive to the fact that the No. 1 purpose for Government is to defend Americans against attack. We will have an opportunity to go a long way in accomplishing that this coming Tuesday, by passing my amendment to the defense authorization bill that will stop the transfer of this land from the United States to the China Ocean Shipping Company. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to be recognized for a unanimous consent request. Before I do that, let me commend the junior Senator from Missouri. He is right on target. I would like to share with him that in the last 2 weeks I had over 20 town hall meetings in the State of Oklahoma. In not one meeting did anyone bring up this thing and initiate the discussion. I think this is really a beltway issue. When I brought it up and told them about the massive tax increase--the largest single tax increase, with the stroke of one pen that this results in--they were all very, very much against it. I think some people will try to use this as somehow a way to stop children from smoking when, in fact, it would not stop children from smoking.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Oregon that I be recognized for as much time as I may consume as if in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I would like to say to the Senator from Oregon that I applaud him for this, and I would ask that my name be included as one of his original cosponsors.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President. As chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, I want to make a couple of comments concerning the defense authorization bill of 1999 and how it affects readiness. Over the past several years, a number of military officers have expressed deep concerns regarding the trends in the operational readiness of the Armed Forces. Last year, these trends led one military officer to state, ``The storm clouds are on the horizon.'' This was a year in which most of the Armed Forces were ready to meet their wartime mission, but in order to do so in a resource-constrained environment, they were forced to resort to cost-saving practices which could impact negatively on our wartime readiness. For example, the Marine Corps began using retreaded tires. This had not been done before. We have no way of knowing how these will perform in the case of some type of a Persian Gulf or Middle East desert-type of operation. While the overall readiness of forward deployed units remains adequate, this is increasingly accomplished at the expense of nondeployed units. According to Vice Admiral Browne, Commander of the Navy's Third Fleet: ``More today than in the past, forward deployed readiness is being maintained with the slimmest of margins and at the expense of CONUS based training and increased individual PERS- TEMPO.'' He went on to say: ``To get the U.S.S. Denver underway early as part of the Tarawa ARG amphibious readiness group, two other ships were cannibalized for parts.'' Furthermore, Colonel Bozarth of the Air Force's 388th Operations Group stated: ``The people that pay the price, though, are the folks that are back home. Because if you take a wing like ours, 5 years ago, in 1993, we were looking at full mission capable rates in the nineties. In the 1995-1997 timeframe, we are looking at mission capable rates in the eighties. Now we are down into the lower seventies.'' Unfortunately, there are reports that even the readiness of the forward deployed units is beginning to suffer. According to naval officers in the Pacific, 20 percent of the deployed planes on the carriers are grounded awaiting spare parts and other maintenance, all the time cannibalization of the aircraft is taking place. It has gone up 15 percent over the past year. In fact, Admiral Browne recently acknowledged that, ``Full mission capable rates from fiscal year 1996 to 1997 for our deployed aircraft have declined from 62 to 55 percent.'' I am very much concerned about this. Mr. President, I think this is due to two problems that we have. One is the deprived budget, insofar as our modernization program, which is leading us to have to use older equipment, and the other is the high deployment rate. It is interesting that since 1992, we have had twice the number of deployments that we had in the entire 10 years before that. This is not for missions that are affecting our Nation's security. I have had occasion to go to many, many, many installations throughout America and around the world. I can tell you right now, we have very serious problems. In Camp Lejeune, in talking to these guys down there--they are tough marines, but their OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO rate, to the extent the divorce rate is up, the retention rates are down. It is a very serious problem. I think most people realize it costs $6 million to put a guy into the cockpit of an F-16, and yet our retention rate right now has gone down 28 percent. In the Mojave Desert, the National Training Center in Twentynine Palms tells us the troops they get in for advance training are far below the level of proficiency that they were 10 years ago. Nellis Air Force Base where they have a red-flag operation, which is a very good operation for training combat pilots, they now have dropped these operations from every 12 months to 18 months. This means they go down from six to four operations each year. What this means is, these pilots who would otherwise be going through the red-flag exercises getting this simulated training that is actually for combat are off providing missions, supporting areas like Bosnia. I draw attention to the 21st TACON, because in this area, we have both of these problems occurring. The 21st TACON is using old equipment. Some of the 915 trucks that they use have over a million miles on them. I personally saw that they are using for loading docks old flatbeds that are wired together. As far as the deployment is concerned, we know there are serious problems around the world. We know that Iraq is about to boil. We know we may have to send in ground troops, and yet they would have to be logistically supported by the 21st TACON. Right now they are at 100 percent capacity just supporting the Bosnia operation. What we are dealing with in the defense authorization bill for 1999 is a budget that is not adequate and it does not put us in the state of readiness we should be in, but it is the very best we can do under the constraints that we are operating. While it is inadequate, I do ask that our colleagues support the defense authorization bill for 1999.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that be set aside and that I be allowed to send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, what is the current order?

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I applaud the senior Senator from Mississippi for bringing this up. Yesterday I spent some time in the Chamber and evaluated the arguments against this so that I could respond to those arguments. And I will just take a couple moments because I am supposed to be presiding, and I would like to respond to those objections to this legislation that came from the floor. First of all--and I think this has been discussed already by the senior Senator from Mississippi--the possible effect this would have on the ABM Treaty. I know he presents a very persuasive case that it would not have any threat. Quite frankly, even if it did have a threat to the ABM Treaty of 1972, I would still be supporting this, because I think when you talk to most people who were around in 1972, back when we had two superpowers--we had the U.S.S.R. and the United States--it was not the threat in the world, quite frankly, that it is now, because it was more predictable; we knew what the U.S.S.R. had, and they knew what we had. We had an agreement that I didn't agree with back then. It was called mutually assured destruction; that is, we agree we won't defend ourself and you agree you won't defend yourself. And then, of course, you shoot us, we shoot you, everybody dies, and nobody is happy. That was a philosophy we lived by which I didn't agree with at the time. And I have to hasten to say, this came in a Republican administration. This was Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon. But regardless of how flawed that might have been as a policy at that time, certainly now it should not have any application. In fact, I have quoted many times Henry Kissinger on this floor. When I asked him the question: Do you feel with the changing threat that's out there and the environment we are in right now, with some 25 nations with weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical and nuclear, that it still makes sense to abide by the ABM Treaty? And he said--this is a quote--``It's nuts to make a virtue out of your vulnerability.'' That is Henry Kissinger. He was the architect of this ABM Treaty. Of course, I was one who voted against the START II Treaty and even said in the Chamber we had no indication that Russia was going to be signing this anyway. And, of course, we know what is happened since that time. So I think that argument on the ABM Treaty, even if it did offend that treaty, I would still support this legislation from the Senator from Mississippi. The second objection yesterday was the cost. They said--and this is a quote--``We don't know how much it will cost since the bill does not specify any particular system.'' Well, it doesn't. And I am glad this bill does not specify a specific system. I have a preference. Mine would be the upper-tier system. The upper-tier system is very close to where we would be able to deploy this thing. We have a $50 billion investment in 22 Aegis ships that are floating around out there today. They have a capability of knocking down missiles, but they can't go beyond the upper tier. So it doesn't do us any good except with short- range missiles that stay in the atmosphere. If you have from North Korea a missile coming over here that takes 30 minutes to get here, it is only in the last minute and a half that we would be able to use any current technology to knock it down, and then we couldn't do it because we don't have anything that would be that fast, so we are naked. And the cost is not that great. The opponents of defending America by having a national missile defense system keep saying over and over again that it is going to cost billions and billions. I have heard $100 billion, a whole range. And I suggest to you that we have some specific costs. With that $50 billion investment, it would be about $4 billion more to reach the upper tier with the Navy upper-tier system. There might be another billion and a half on Brilliant Eyes so we would be able to accurately detect where in the world one would be deployed. And anyone who is among the 81 who supported last week the expansion of NATO--I was one who did not support it--you might keep in mind that if you are concerned about not having an accurate cost figure for this program to defend America from a missile attack, look what we voted on last week in ratifying NATO expansion. We agreed that we are going to expand that to the three countries, and the cost figures had a range from $400 million to $125 billion. Now, I can assure you we are a lot closer to being able to determine what this cost would be. The last thing, I think, is that when this is all over and the dust settles, maybe what happened yesterday in India and this morning in India might really be a blessing, because at least now we can diffuse the argument that was quoted of General Shelton when he said there is no serious threat emerging, and he said our intelligence said that we will have at least 3 years' warning of such a threat. Well, that is the same intelligence that did not know what India was doing. If you try everything else and that does not work, let's just look at what is common sense. We know that we have these countries that have weapons of mass destruction. We know that both China and Russia and perhaps other countries have missiles that will reach all the way to any place in the United States of America today. Using the polar route, they can reach any place in the United States of America. And with that out there, why would we assume that China would not do it, or that it would not be an accidental launch, or with some of this technology they are selling to countries like Iran, that other countries wouldn't use it? I am not willing to put the lives of my seven grandchildren at stake by assuming that somehow we are going to have 3 years' warning. I think that is totally absurd. Lastly, I would only share with you that I went through a personal experience with our explosion in Oklahoma City, which I think everyone is aware of, that took 168 lives. And as tragic as that was, and what a disaster that was--and as I walked through there and I saw the firemen and all of them risking their lives to try to save one or two people after some time had gone by--and you have to have been there, not just seeing it on TV, to really get the full impact on this--the explosive power that blew up the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City is one-tenth the power, the explosive power, of the smallest nuclear warhead known today. So I just think my only regret is that we didn't do this 3 years ago or 4 years ago, because somebody back in 1983 was pretty smart when they said we need to have a system that could be deployed for a limited attack by fiscal year 1998. Here we are, and we are overdue. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Groeschen be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the 1999 defense authorization bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me briefly explain what my amendment does. It simply requires the President to submit the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to the Senate for its consideration under the Treaty Powers of the Constitution. Mr. President, the White House has made a full-scale effort for ratification of expansion of NATO. We are considering that now and we have had a lot of debate. Some of us are against it and some of us are for it. We have had a chance to get our positions out and we know where we stand. But according to article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, we are the only body--and it has to be by a two-thirds vote--that can ratify treaties of the United States. The President can't do it, the Secretary of State can't do it, the Vice President can't do it, the Secretary of Defense can't do it, the Director of the EPA can't do it--just the U.S. Senate. Some might argue that the NATO expansion debate is not an appropriate place to raise the question about the Kyoto Protocol. But the issue here is whether the President is going to have serious regard for the Senate's advise-and-consent authority under the Constitution, which the senior Senator from West Virginia has reminded us many times is our prerogative. The President cannot be expected to send treaties up for advice and consent when he thinks the Senate agrees with him and refuse to send them up unilaterally when he feels that we do not. Truly, that is the case. We made our case very specific when we voted 95-0, prior to going to Japan, that if they came back with something that did not treat the developing countries the same as the developed nations, we would oppose it, and the President came back with exactly that, putting us under obligations that the developing nations were not under. So that China doesn't have to worry about it, or Pakistan, and other countries, like Mexico. But we do. This is the issue we are dealing with here. I am going to deviate from that for a moment in this very short time to repeat something that I said earlier in this debate because I understand I am the last speaker now and this is the last amendment. I would like to just say there are four reasons why we should not, in the final analysis, expand NATO. The first one is the cost. I don't know why nobody seems to be upset that the range goes all the way from $400 million to $120 billion, and those at the low end are the administration--the same administration that said that Bosnia was going to cost us $1.2 billion, and now our direct costs have skyrocketed way way above $9 billion, and there is no end to it. It is a permanent commitment. Yet, we were told that it was going to be $1.2 billion. So here we have an amount of money--at a time when we have cut our defense down to the bone, at a time when we have to be able to do something to put ourselves in a position to defend America. Yet, we are talking about an open-ended commitment by extending NATO to these countries. The second reason is it is the open door. I hope nobody thinks we are talking about three countries--Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. We are talking about an open door now that is extended to everyone. I want to read what our Secretary of State said in a statement she made: We must pledge that the first new members will not be the last and that no European democracy will be excluded because of where it sits on the map. She talks about Romania, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Slovakia, and the list goes on and on. So it is the clear intent that this is not the last. If you think this is going to be expensive, just think what it is going to be when we start extending it to other countries. Where would we draw the line? The third concern I have is a genuine concern that we talked about on the floor, and that is, what does this do to our relationship with Russia? Everybody says, ``That's all right, I have been to Russia and they don't mind.'' I have gotten commitments from people saying that is all right, go ahead, this is not going to be a problem. But that's not what the Duma said, which is their parliamentary body. The Duma passed a resolution calling NATO expansion the ``biggest threat to Russia since the end of World War II.'' There is one person I had a great deal of respect for in this body, and I regretted when he left this body; it was Sam Nunn, who I served with on the Armed Services Committee. There is not a person who would stand up on the floor and question his integrity or his knowledge of foreign affairs or question his concern for defending America. Sam Nunn said that Russian cooperation in avoiding proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is our most important national security objective, and ``This NATO expansion makes them more suspicious and less cooperative.'' He further said, ``The administration's answer to this and other serious questions are what I consider to be platitudes.'' So everyone is on record. Last, I will address the concern that the Senator from New Hampshire had. He has a very good resolution, and I think everybody understands it. If anybody wants to get on record as to where they stand insofar as Bosnia is concerned, his amendment is your opportunity to do so. Because right now we don't have anything to show who is on record. We do have a resolution of disapproval that was barely defeated by only three votes in November of 1995. I suspect that some people now have changed their minds now that they realize this open-ended commitment is there. So I would like to wind this up by saying that if this cost to support the Bosnian operation is any indication, I remind you that in November of 1995, we were on the brink of being able to defeat this and not send our troops to Bosnia, except they said that this is going to be a short commitment, it is not going to be something that would last a long period of time. It was going to be over within less than a year, and it was going to cost $1.2 billion. The only reason that they were able to get those votes to pass this was, they said, ``We must protect our integrity with our partners in NATO.'' Now that same argument can be used--I wonder who is going to be the next Bosnia. Mr. President, while I have this amendment, I know the votes are not there for this amendment, and there is one very good reason, because of a dear person in this body, that we want to not extend any longer than it should be extended. So nothing would be gained by considering my amendment. For that reason, I withdraw my amendment and urge my fellow colleagues to vote against the extension of NATO.

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

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

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I yield the floor. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.