Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period of morning business until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes each.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m. At 11 a.m. the Senate will proceed to the cloture vote on H.R. 2646, the A-plus education savings account bill. If cloture is not invoked, the majority leader hopes consent will be granted to set the cloture vote on a motion to proceed to S. 1269, the fast-track legislation, at 2:30 p.m. If that is not possible, the Senate will recess following the 11 a.m. vote until 2:30 p.m. Otherwise, under the consent the Senate will recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. for the weekly policy luncheons to meet. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:30 p.m., the Senate will proceed to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1269, the fast-track legislation. If cloture is invoked, the Senate will begin debate on the motion to proceed to S. 1269. In addition, the Senate may also consider and complete action on the D.C. appropriations bill, the FDA Reform conference report, the Intelligence authorization conference report, and any additional legislative or executive items that can be cleared for action. Therefore, Members can anticipate rollcall votes throughout Tuesday's session of the Senate. As a reminder to all Members, the first rollcall vote will occur at 11 a.m. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators will have until the time of the vote for filing of second-degree amendments to H.R. 2646, the A-plus Education Savings Act.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just real quickly cover some of the things that have been said in the last 10 or 15 minutes. First of all, I do not like the way this ended up because we had to agree, in order to bring everyone in and to have a unanimous vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee, to allow the President of the United States to interfere and to politicize the BRAC process for the first time since it went in place in the round of 1989. Second, a quote has been attributed to me that I do not think that the private sector is going to want to bid on this. I think that is accurate, because the private sector would have liked very much to bid if they could get free--for maybe a dollar a year--a huge facility down in Texas or one in California. Sure, that would be certainly to their advantage, but the taxpayers would lose. All we are saying is: If you want to have free and open competition, let us take all costs, direct and indirect costs, to the Department of Defense and throw them in there. Two big costs: No. 1, the cost of the installation that would be used if privatization in place took place; and, No. 2, the cost of the excess capacity in the remaining three air logistics centers, which the GAO said would be about $468 million a year. Third, in terms of charges that have been made about competition, no one in this Chamber is going to be able to stand any higher than I do on my background in privatization. When I was mayor of Tulsa, I privatized everything that wouldn't move. This is different. This is our Nation's defense. However, this bill provides for privatization. It just says that we are going to have to take all costs into consideration. Fourth, there is one other area in the bill. It is called ``teaming.'' Right now under the current law, if this should be defeated, the private sector would not be able to go to the air logistics center in Georgia or anyplace else and compete because they are precluded from doing so. This defense authorization bill provides for much greater opportunity for the private sector to compete. The issue that the junior Senator from California brought up on privatization in place--she was not in here when I covered the details in that. The BRAC recommendations specifically precluded privatization in place for the air logistics centers. She quoted words out of the BRAC language, but she neglected to read the last sentence, which I will read to you: ``Move the required equipment and any required personnel to the receiving locations.'' Mr. President, you, of course, are a businessman. We have already heard your pitch. I agree with everything that you said. But the cost of keeping three air logistics centers at 50 percent capacity is a huge cost and has to be considered in the consideration of this. I came to the House of Representatives in 1987. That was my first year. One of the persons I had the most respect for was a Congressman by the name of Dick Armey. And Dick Armey, for the first time, convinced me that we have a real serious problem with excess capacity. We have never been able to do away with it because of the political interference of the local Congressman, of the Senators, and sometimes of the President. So he set up a system called the BRAC process. This process was to be free of any political interference--any political interference. He said, ``Someday I'm going to regret this because I'm going to have to go against my own State when we have to close down some type of installation.'' But you know, Mr. President, it worked. We went through, not three, as the senior Senator from Texas suggested, but we went through four BRAC rounds--1989, 1991, 1993, and 1995. During these BRAC rounds, we closed over 100 major installations. I suggest to you, Mr. President, that we would not have been able to close one of them if it had not been for Dick Armey from Texas, the Congressman who established the whole BRAC process. So while we talk about not having parochial interests, I can assure you that I do not. In fact, I am on record in the State of Oklahoma, in 1994, in my election to the Senate, the first time I was elected, they used it against me, because I said, ``I will not use political interference and will not try to politicize the system.'' That was used against me. So Congressman Armey prevailed. As a result of that, we have been able to close a lot of excess capacity. The other day he made a speech on the floor. Mr. President, I do not have the time--I was going to read the entire speech, but there isn't time remaining to do that. But I will just read one paragraph out of it. This is Congressman Dick Armey from the State of Texas: We had three rounds in base closing, and we are all very proud of the process because politics never intruded into the process. That ended in round four. And all of my colleagues knew at the time, and we know now, that the special conditions for McClellan and Kelly, California and my own State of Texas, where you might think I have a parochial interest, were in a political intervention. We talk about this being privatization. No, it is not. It is a new concept. It is privatization in place, created specifically for these two bases in an election year for no purpose other than politics. That is a quote from Texas Congressman Dick Armey, the founder of this system. Finally, Mr. President, they keep talking about, ``We had a deal.'' There was never any deal that was had. We have been negotiating this thing now for well over a year. And we negotiated it in years prior to this. We are trying now to get a defense authorization bill. We have caved in. We have provided for privatization in place so long as we take all costs into consideration. When it has been stated several times by the distinguished senior Senator from Texas that only a small number or group of people are concerned about this, I suggest to you that this bill that we are talking about, this conference report was passed out of the Senate Armed Services Committee by a vote of 18 to zero--18 to zero. A couple of nights ago--last night I guess it was--it was voted on in the House of Representatives. The vote was 286 to 123. I suggest to the senior Senator from California, if she is convinced that the President is going to veto this, we have the votes to override a veto. We are not going to allow the President to say, ``I'm vetoing a bill because I want to politicize the system for the first time since its inception in 1988.'' So, Mr. President, I feel very strongly that we have an opportunity here to have a defense authorization bill that does far more than correct a problem that has been there in the depots. It takes care of many, many needs to try to keep America strong. I agree with the Senator from Texas when he talks about the fact that our defense has been decimated. It has been decimated. We are going to try to do something about saving, in this case with this change in the air logistics centers, some $468 million a year. Mr. President, there are two individuals who are here who have not been heard from. I ask unanimous consent that both the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee be allowed to speak for 1 minute each.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. INHOFE. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch.

Mr. INHOFE. I am going to reserve the remainder of my time. The Senator from Texas can use his minute.

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Madam President. I ask how much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. INHOFE. I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished junior Senator from Georgia.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 29, 1997, at 2 p.m. on Death on the High Seas Act.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 29, for the purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 638, a bill to provide for the expeditious completion of the acquisition of private mineral interests within the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument mandated by the 1982 act that established the monument, and for other purposes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a business meeting Wednesday, October 29, 9:30 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406).

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, October 29, 1997, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 29, 1997, at 2 p.m. in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on judicial nominations.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 29, 1997, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing in room 226, Senate Dirksen Building, on antitrust implications of the tobacco settlement.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 29, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. on future of the NOAA Corps.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 29, 1997, at 10 a.m. in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on judicial nominations.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 29, 1997, at 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. to hold hearings.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Caucus on International Narcotics Control be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 29, 1997, at 2 p.m. to hold a joint hearing.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee special investigation to meet on Wednesday, October 29, 1997, at 10 a.m., for a hearing on campaign financing issues.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 29, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Building to conduct a hearing on S. 1077, a bill to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Securities of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 29, 1997, to conduct an oversight hearing on securities litigation abuses.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say that it seems customary on this floor to say how much you appreciate and love somebody and respect them. Of course, there is no better evidence of my affection for the senior Senator from Texas than the fact that back when--some may have forgotten that he ran for President. In the primary, he ran against the then majority leader Bob Dole. I openly supported the senior Senator from Texas over Senator Bob Dole, which was politically pretty dumb for me to do. But I did it because I felt he is a very capable individual. Having said that, I would like to respond to the items that he has stated in his statement. Let me cover a couple of things that the distinguished Senator from Texas talked about. For openers, the Senator from Texas stated that the BRAC Commission, during their process in 1995, offered as an alternative to privatize in place. Let me suggest to you, Mr. President, that is not the case. It was the case in Newark, it was the case in Louisville, it was the case in the Naval Air Warfare Center in Indianapolis; but it was not the case in either McClellan Air Force Base or Kelly Air Force Base. The reason I say that is that, specifically in those first three instances where they did privatize in place, the BRAC report said specifically ``privatize in place.'' Contrary to that, in the 1995 round, it specifically said that whatever happens, whether it is privatization or anything else, you have to move the required equipment and any required personnel to the receiving locations. I think we all know why that is the case. If you have five air logistic centers, each one operating at 50 percent capacity and you close the two least efficient ones, according to the BRAC Commission, you then would transfer that workload, and if you didn't transfer that workload, you would have to somehow account for paying for 50 percent of overhead that isn't being used. Now, when we talk about what this bill does, it is true that we are including in any competition a value for the vacancy that occurs, or the 50 percent capacity that is not being used in the remaining ALC's. There would be three remaining. That is only reasonable because there is a tremendous value to that. Second, we are also providing a value of the actual real estate value of the facilities that would be used. For example, if the Senator from Texas wanted competition to come in and use Kelly Air Force Base, it would not be fair competition to say, fine, you could have it for $1 a year. Instead, the bill provides that it would have to be for the value of that institution. Those are dollars that otherwise would be spent on our defense system. Third, I mention the question as to whether or not President Clinton made a political statement when he suggested out in Sacramento, CA, that they were going to leave that alone, I would like to read his statement to you. It says: On July 1, you were dealt a serious blow when the independent Base Closing Commission said that we ought to shut Kelly down. At my insistence and my refusal to go along with that specific recommendation, the Air Force developed the privatization in place plan that will keep thousands of jobs here at this depot. That is right before the Presidential election. If you look at this one sentence which says, ``At my insistence and my refusal to go along with that specific recommendation * * * '' that in and of itself is a very clear violation of both the intent and the letter of the BRAC process. I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today we will be having some conversation on the floor concerning the global warming treaty. I will make a few comments concerning that in that I am the chairman of the Clean Air Committee of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We have had extensive hearings on this. I will review just very briefly what we have learned from the hearing that we held in our subcommittee in the Environment and Public Works Committee insofar as global warming is concerned. In July, the Environmental Committee had a hearing on the global climate change treaty and we heard from five top scientists. The conclusions I found were very interesting, particularly since last night when I watched Administrator Carol Browner talk about the scientific evidence that is conclusive concerning global climate change. That is not at all what we found in our hearing. We had five of the top scientists around. While there is a large body of scientific research, there is much controversy and disagreement in scientific facts being misrepresented by the administration and the press. Four things that we came to a conclusion on were, No. 1, we don't know how much human activity has influenced the climate. One scientist before our committee said it could be as much as 6 percent. Second, if you look at satellite data, we are not sure if there has been any global warming. We had a very interesting session that lasted more than an hour with viewing the satellites and what conclusions could come, and there was no conclusive evidence that there has actually been any global warming. Three, even if we eliminate all manmade emissions, it may not have a noticeable impact on the environment, and the treaty may only eliminate emissions here in the United States and not in the entire world. Four, when asked, all five scientists stated that we would not have the uncertainties understood by this December, when the administration plans on making a decision regarding the treaty. Now, we found out yesterday that the President came and made his announcement. It is kind of interesting, Mr. President, because we passed a resolution on the floor of the Senate, by 95 to 0, that said we would reject any type of a treaty that came from Kyoto that didn't treat the developing nations the same as the developed nations. So the President came out with something where he is calling for a binding 30 percent reduction in emission levels by the year 2012. He calls this an important first step, with more reductions to follow. As chairman of the Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, I can tell you that this is going to have a profound negative affect on our ability to defend America, as the President stated yesterday that the military accounts for 43 percent of the Federal energy use. The Federal Government cannot reduce by 30 percent or more without significant cuts in the military. I think this equates to something like a 3 to 7 times greater cut than the Btu tax of 1993. One of the things that bothered me more than anything else is the moving target that we are dealing with. In March of 1995 in a House Commerce Committee hearing, Congressmen Dingell and Schaefer raised concerns that the new targets may not apply to all countries equally, and on behalf of the administration, Mr. Rafe Pomerance, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the State Department said, ``Our goal, Mr. Chairman, is that all parties participate in this next round of negotiations. We want to see that all governments participate and help define the post-2000 regime.'' One month later, the administration signed on to the Berlin Mandate to review the commitments made to reduce the greenhouse gases and adopt targets for further reductions. The conference differentiated between developed and developing nations. They signed on to this, totally at odds and contradicting the commitment made to the Congressmen. In June 1996, Mr. Pomerance stated, ``Are we going to agree to legally binding instrument in Geneva? No way.'' One month later, Under Secretary Wirth announced that the United States supported a legally binding emissions target. I want to also say that this has not changed since September 1996. It is before the same Commerce Committee. Assistant Secretary of State Eileen Claussen told Congressman Dingell and the committee that the United States would not be bound before we have completed the economic analysis and assessments. We have just learned that the administration's efforts to analyze the economic effects has failed. The models they used did not work, and we will not understand the effect on our nations's economy certainly before December. The reason I am concerned about this is, there is a very interesting parallel between what they are trying to do in the absence of any scientific evidence in global climate change, which has a dramatic deteriorating effect on our ability to be competitive on a global basis and on the ambient air changes promulgated by this administration. We all know that, just about a year ago, Carol Browner came out and unilaterally suggested--and now has promulgated--the rule change to lower the ambient air standards in both particulate matter and in ozone. We find that during the various hearings that we have had that Mary Nichols, who is immediately under Carol Browner, said that the cost would be $9 billion to put these standards in--the cost to the American people. At the same time, the President's Economic Advisory Committee said it was $60 billion a year. The Reason Foundation estimated the costs between $90 billion and $150 billion. This would cost the average family of four some $1,700 a year. They talk about the deaths, and Carol Browner reused this yesterday. There would be 60,000 premature deaths. Those deaths were lowered by the EPA last November to 40,000; then in December to 20,000, and in April to 15,000. Then the scientist who discovered the mathematic mistake now says it's less than 1,000. In our committee, Mary Nichols admitted these regulations would not save any lives over the next 5 years. I have watched how Carol Browner goes around and makes promises. She says to the mayors of America, ``This isn't going to affect you.'' She says to the farmers, ``This isn't going to affect you.'' She says to small businesses, ``This won't affect you.'' To some of the parishes in Louisiana that were found to be out of attainment, she said, ``This isn't going to make you do anything because the problem is for the neighboring State of Texas to the west; they are going to have to do this.'' So, Mr. President, I only ask the question, why is this obsession taking place in the administration if there is no scientific justification on either global warming or ambient air standards? Why are they trying to do this in eroding our personal freedoms? I think probably the best way to answer that is to read an article in Forbes magazine, called ``Watch Out For This Woman; The EPA's Carol Browner is exploiting health and the environment to build a power base.'' If you read this article, Mr. President, it says: If science isn't Browner's strong point, political tactics are. Her enemies can only envy the way the EPA uses the courts. . . . For her part, Browner often dismisses as simple male chauvinism any criticism of her hardball tactics. . . . She learned politics working on Gore's Senate staff, where she rose to be his legislative director before heading back to Florida to head the State environmental commission. . . . She is an environmentalist zealot. Mr. President, I know my time has expired. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.