[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22016-22017]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                DEFENSE

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, as we speak, there is an announcement 
coming from the White House, it is my understanding, that they are 
going to cancel the Eastern European sites we have been working on for 
such a long period of time. I think it is appropriate to quote 
something I saw many years ago and was foreseen by President Reagan 
when he was President. He said:

       Since the dawn of the atomic age, we have sought to reduce 
     the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by 
     seeking genuine arms control. Deterrence: Making sure the 
     adversary who thinks about attacking the United States or our 
     allies or our vital interests concludes that the risks to him 
     outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he 
     won't attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; 
     weakness only invites aggression.

  I wish people today would understand those words of Ronald Reagan 
quite some time ago and how prophetic they were as we look right now 
and see the administration is talking about canceling this program.
  I arranged to be in Afghanistan at the time Secretary of Defense 
Gates announced the budget, I believe last February, the Obama budget, 
so far as defense was concerned. I was very much concerned. I was 
concerned about what happened to the F-22. Initially, we were going to 
have the only fifth-generation fighter that this country has. We, 
initially, were going to have 750 of them. He terminated the program at 
187.
  I was concerned about the termination of the C-17 program. I was 
concerned about the termination of the Future Combat System. The Future 
Combat System is the only ground system that has gone through a major 
change in probably 50 or 60 years. So we will not have that improved 
ground capability for our young men and women who go into harm's way.
  Also, I made the comment that I suspected at that time, when he 
suspended the radar site in the Czech Republic and the interception 
capability in Poland, that that was easing into terminating that 
program. I think we are finding out today he is terminating that 
program.
  On February 3, 2009, Iran launched a satellite, on the 30th 
anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. On July 9 of 2008, Iran 
tested nine missiles, including the Shahab-3, which has a range of 
1,240 miles.
  I recognize the threat to Western Europe--this wouldn't quite do it. 
It is 1,240 miles. I think the range in order to be able to get 
something to Italy would be about 2,000 miles.
  On the other hand, we never guess these things right. I remember so 
well, in 1998, the Clinton administration made a statement in response 
to a question I asked on August 14, 1998: How long will it be until 
they have the multiple-stage capability in North Korea? The White House 
responded it was going to be between 10 and 15 years. Seven days later, 
on August 13, 1998, they fired it.
  This is how far off we are in our intelligence. We don't know. I 
don't want to guess this thing too close. Riki Ellison from the Missile 
Defense Advocacy Alliance said:

       The Islamic Republic of Iran has just proved for the first 
     time that it has the capability to place satellites in space 
     by successfully launching a 3-stage liquid fueled rocket that 
     has placed two objects in low-Earth orbit. . . .Iran has 
     demonstrated the key technologies of propulsion, staging, and 
     guidance to deliver a weapon of mass destruction globally.

  I am hoping the White House doesn't come out and say that is 
launching a satellite. It is the same technology, launching a nuclear 
warhead. This is getting very serious right now. The U.S. intelligence 
community has estimated Iran may have long-range ballistic missiles 
capable of threatening all of Western Europe and the United States by 
2015.
  Madam President, 2015, that sounds reminiscent of August of 1998, 
when they said it would be 10 to 15 years. Delaying this creates all 
kinds of problems for us. Our credibility in Eastern Europe is 
something that bothers me. I was recently in the Czech Republic. 
President Vaclav Klaus--they were cooperative in saying yes. The 
Parliament debated it and decided we could put a radar site there which 
would allow us to see something coming in; otherwise, we would not be 
able to do it. Then, next door in Poland, to have an interception 
capability--they agreed to do that. Parliament didn't want to do it. 
They were concerned about Russia's response and a lot of opposition 
that there might be. The thing I do not understand is why Western 
Europe is not lining up with us and saying we have to have those two 
sites. They are the ones who are naked now if we don't have that.
  I am very much concerned about that. MG Vladimir Dvorkin, who is the 
head of the Center for Strategic Forces in Moscow, said: ``Iran is 
actively working on a missile program,'' adding that Iran is ``1 or 2 
years'' from having a nuclear weapon. This concerns me. We have those 
individuals we seem to be catering to, the Russians, in order to leave 
ourselves without a type of defensive system to protect Western Europe 
and the Eastern United States. It is troubling to me.
  In April 2009, North Korea furthered their missile and nuclear 
development by a Taepodong-2 missile in the China Sea. That has a range 
of over 2,000--about 2,500 miles. That would reach Rome. That would 
reach Berlin. There has to be a concern that they have this capability, 
they have demonstrated this capability very clearly.
  NATO leaders stated in December of 2008, last Christmas, that:

       Ballistic missile proliferation poses increasing threat to 
     allied forces, territory and populations. Missile defense 
     forms a part of the broader response to counter this threat. 
     We therefore recognize the substantial contribution to the 
     protection of allies from long range ballistic missiles to be 
     provided by a planned development of the European-based 
     United States missile defense assets.

  That is what we are talking about. In Poland, the site in Poland 
would include up to 10 silo-based, long-range interceptors capable of 
shooting down hostile missiles from Iran in their midcourse. Let's put 
the chart up here.
  A lot of people do not realize this is very sophisticated. Our 
missile defense system takes into consideration three courses. For the 
segment here, the boost phase, we don't have anything there yet. We are 
supposed to be working on it. I was disturbed that one of the things 
that was terminated by this administration is that effort.
  The terminal defense segment is one we are working on right now. The 
airborne laser in the boost phase is one of the programs I believe the 
administration is canceling. The site in Poland would include up to 10 
silo-based, long-range interceptors. The radar site in

[[Page 22017]]

 the Czech Republic would house a narrow beam midcourse tracking radar 
that is currently used by our missile defense system in the Pacific. 
These are things we know work.
  I am very concerned about it. I have not heard the statement from the 
White House, but I have a feeling we are going to hear the same thing 
we heard back in 1998, and it is very troubling. This is something that 
can be--should be an act of desperation in terms of Western Europe at 
this time.


                             Cap and Trade

  Having said that, this is some good news. That was the bad news. The 
good news is we have notice this morning that the Democratic caucus, as 
reported in Politico, is split over the bill, the cap-and-trade bill we 
are talking about, with coal-, oil- and manufacturing-State Democrats 
raising concerns that a cap-and-trade system would disproportionately 
spike electricity bills for consumers and businesses in their regions.
  There is a recognition now that this thing we have been talking about 
ever since the Kyoto treaty--the threat at that time that they were 
talking about is now. Everyone realizes that is not what it was. 
Science has changed dramatically and most scientists now are saying 
this is something that was overstated that one time.
  The cost, though, is the big thing. I quit arguing about the science 
a long time ago. I gave a speech from this podium not too long ago. If 
anyone is interested, I ask my colleagues to go to the Web site 
inhofe.senate.gov, where we listed 700 scientists who were on the other 
side of the issue who are now on the skeptics' side, recognizing the 
science is not there. David Bellamy from Great Britain is one who was 
always talking about--he was on Al Gore's side on this thing. After 
going through and restudying and reevaluating the science, he agreed 
everything wasn't there.
  The same thing is true with leaders in France and Israel. But what we 
have now is something people do understand and that is the cost of 
this, the consistent cost. Kyoto's cost, if we lived by the emission 
standard, would be somewhere, according to the Wharton Econometric 
Survey, I think it was called back during the Kyoto days, would be 
between $300 billion and $330 billion every year. As bad as the 
stimulus was, at least that is a one-shot deal and the people would not 
have to pay for it every year. This will be every year.
  Then along came McCain-Lieberman in 2003 and 2005 and the same 
estimates came about that it would be a $300 billion tax increase. I 
remember 1993 when we had the Clinton-Gore tax increase, which was the 
largest tax increase in three decades.
  During that time we looked at it, it was a $32 billion tax increase: 
increasing inheritance taxes, marginal rates, capital gains, and all of 
that. That is only $32 billion. This is 10 times that size.
  Well, the White House was trying to say, and several of them on the 
other side in our committee--in fact, the chairman of our committee--it 
is going to cost a postage stamp a day. People are willing to pay for 
that.
  Those postage stamps must be getting pretty expensive. Now we have 
found out there is an analysis released by the U.S. Department of 
Treasury that was held down, not released. Now we know what it is. They 
said the cost would be between $100 and $200 billion a year.
  The cost--this is according to their figures now--to an American 
household would be an extra $1,761 a year. This is their analysis. I 
think that is right. In fact, we have seen the CRA report that shows 
the cost of this--and MIT agrees with this, I might add, because they 
evaluated the Warner-Lieberman bill 12 months ago--right now being 
closer to $366 billion a year, with a cost per family, the study has 
shown, in my State of Oklahoma and in the State of Texas, we would be 
the highest taxed. It would be $3,300 a year per family. That is huge. 
I know the east coast and the west coast is a little bit more than half 
of that, but still it is a huge tax increase.
  Finally, this report that was put together by the Department of 
Treasury has been released. And they admit it. So we can quit talking 
about some of these things that are not realistic.
  We know what the cost is. We know also the likelihood of it coming up 
this year is most unusual. I do not think it is going to happen. The 
Senate majority leader stated, I think 2 days ago, that the Senate may 
not act on comprehensive energy and climate change legislation.
  Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska, a Democrat, I might add, said: We 
have enough on our plate at the moment. With the fight over health care 
reform, it is questionable to open another front.
  The Senate majority whip, Dick Durbin, last week added that: It is a 
difficult schedule. Members are already anxious about health care 
reform. So I do not think it is going to come up. And I frankly will be 
ready here to fight to make sure it does not come up when the new year 
comes in.
  I do not think there are too many people in the Senate who want to go 
into their reelection in 2010 having voted for the largest tax increase 
in the history of America. This is exactly what it would be. Let's keep 
in mind, what was the largest tax increase in the history of America 
was the 1993 tax increase. This would be 10 times greater than that. 
And the people now realize that. That was good news today.

                          ____________________