Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, just to give others an indication as to where I am and where some of the others are with amendments, I do have an amendment. It will take some time to get through, and yet I have a very strong feeling I do not want to hold up the emergency supplemental. I just want to make sure to get that on record so everyone knows. I certainly would not object to taking up the emergency supplemental prior to completing the NATO expansion.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. President, I would just like to make a couple of comments, a couple of observations, one along the line of connections. Some people have said there should not be a connection between what is happening in Bosnia and the proposal to expand NATO to the three countries; and, second, as chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, how this impacts-- how Bosnia has impacted our state of readiness. I think in the first case, as we stood on this floor in November of 1995 and we talked about where we were going to go and how we were going to stop the deployment of troops into Bosnia, where we had no security interests, I was somewhat in the leadership of that losing battle--but we only lost it by three votes. I think if you could single out one thing that had a major impact that persuaded those three more people or four more Senators to vote in favor of allowing our troops to be sent to Bosnia, it would be our commitment and our obligation to NATO. There was not a discussion on this floor where NATO wasn't brought out and it was said, we have to do this to protect the credibility of NATO; to protect our status with NATO and our leadership in that part of the world, it is going to be necessary to send our troops into Bosnia. We know what happened after that. We know they went over with the idea they were going to be back in 12 months. We were told the total cost would be $1.2 billion. Now our troops, 2\1/2\ years later, are still over there, with no end in sight. Our direct costs have exceeded $9 billion, and I suggest that it is actually more than double that, because if you take the cost of the operations in the 21 TACCOM in Germany, take the cost of the 86th Airlift in Ramstein--all of them dedicating almost their entire operation to supporting the operation in Bosnia--then the cost is much, much greater. So there is a relationship between NATO and our troops in Bosnia. I see this as something that is very critical, because so long as we are supporting the Bosnia operation, we are not in a position to be able to logistically support any type of a ground operation anyplace else in that theater. Let's keep in mind that theater area does include the Middle East. It was not long ago when it was pretty well publicized that we might have to do surgical airstrikes on Iraq. They are talking about that again today. While the general public is deceived into thinking that we can do this without sending in ground troops, they are wrong. There is not anyone that I know of, who has a background in the military, who would tell you that you can go in and accomplish something from the air without ultimately sending in ground troops. We are not in a position, as a result of Bosnia, to support ground troops anywhere else in that theater. If there is any doubt in anyone's mind, all they have to do is call the commanding officer of 21 TACCOM in Germany, and they will tell them there is not the capacity to send one truck to logistically support an operation anywhere else in the theater. It is not that they are 100 percent occupied by Bosnia, they are 115 percent occupied with their support of Bosnia. So that has had a dramatic effect on our state of readiness. Second, we are using our troops at such a high OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO that we are not in a position to retain these people. And the cost of this is incredible. Mr. President, it costs $6 million to put a guy in the cockpit of an F-16. These people are leaving. Our retention rate has now dropped below 28 percent. That is unprecedented, and that is exactly what has been happening. So I do applaud the Senator from Idaho for bringing this up and making an issue out of this, because there is a definite connection. I think it is perfectly reasonable for us to have to give some type of approval, on an annual basis, for our troops being someplace where there are no national security risks at stake. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been watching with a great deal of interest the debate that is taking place. It has been a very healthy debate. Certainly the Senator from Wisconsin raised some very good points. As I listened to his comments, I can only say that I agree with almost everything he said except for his conclusion. I look at the cost of this, and we do not know what to anticipate should we extend NATO to these countries. I am deeply concerned about the costs that would be incurred. The range has been incredible. You talk about something between $400 million and $120 billion. That range is not one that gives me much comfort. I would like to remind my colleagues that the same group of people that are giving us their assurances now--that is, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the White House --that it is not going to cost over a certain amount of money, are the same ones that told us in November of 1995 that it would not cost more than $1.2 billion for our participation in Bosnia. We knew better. But, nonetheless, that is what they said. They said that is a guarantee. Yet here we are now. Our direct costs in Bosnia have exceeded $9 billion. I suggest that is less than half of the total direct and indirect costs. So I don't have a very high comfort level when it comes to being able to rely on what it might cost us to extend NATO to these three countries. The second thing as I read article V, which is the security guarantee, is that I see this as a very expensive security guarantee, and it is open ended. It stipulates that, ``An armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered as an attack against them all.'' It doesn't say that we would come to the aid of someone who is attacked if we have any national security interests. It doesn't say that if it should impair our Nation, we are going to be in a position to defend them. It is not like many of the situations where we have become involved in helping countries such as Nicaragua and others because we know it is cheaper actually to help them than it is to have to fight these battles ourselves. This just says, ``as an attack against them all.'' That means that if there is an attack, we have to come to their aid. We always take a much greater share of the burden than our partners do. The third thing is that I have no doubt in my mind that if we do this, this is just the beginning and that we will be extending it to more and more countries. I would like to remind you, Mr. President, of a quote from Secretary Albright that the door is open, she said, to other countries with democratic governments and free markets. ``The administration is fighting an effort by Warner and others to place a moratorium on admission of additional countries until it is known how well the first recruits are assimilated.'' After the first three recruits were invited last year, Albright said, ``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.'' So with the increased costs as we make these extensions, we are looking at Romania, Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Slovakia, and many others. I don't see where there is an end it to. However, I remind my colleagues that this is not a partisan subject. I was honored to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee with the Democrat who is probably more knowledgeable than any Democrat has been--certainly in my recollection--on that committee, Sam Nunn. Sam Nunn was quoted as saying, ``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.'' I agree with Senator Nunn that this is opening the door to something that is very expensive, and also it could impair what progress we have made with Russia. Just to quote the Duma, on January 23 they passed a resolution--this is in Russia, the Russian Duma--calling NATO expansion the biggest threat to Russia since the end of World War II. All of these things have been talked about on this floor. One thing that has not been talked about is what I would consider to be the greatest exposure we would be inheriting by making this extension. I can remember being here on the Senate floor back in November of 1995. We missed passing a resolution of disapproval to keep sending our troops over to Bosnia. We had no national security interest on a very expensive thing that now has caused the decimation of our entire defense system. We did that as a response to the strongest argument; that is, we must continue our commitment and our allegiance to NATO. So NATO is the reason that we are over in Bosnia today. Even though the administration said this would be something that would cost approximately $1.2 billion, it has cost directly $9 billion, and indirectly far more than that. Mr. President, it wasn't long ago that we were talking about making some strikes on Iraq. We know there are problems there. We know they have not kept their commitment to the United Nations. They have not allowed our inspection teams to see what they had agreed they should be able to see, and it looks like those storm clouds may be there. If that happens, I don't know of one person who has a background in military strategy in the Pentagon or one person in the administration who can tell you that you can go in there and do surgical strikes from the air and not end up having to send in ground troops. Where are we if we should have to do that? In the case of Iraq, we are talking about a theater that includes Bosnia. We are talking about the 21st COCOM located in Germany that was supposed to be offering the logistical support for any ground movement in any place within the theater. That would include Iraq. Right now, you go over to the 21st COCOM in Germany, and you will find out that we don't have the capability of supporting any other ground operations in addition to Bosnia because they are at over 100 percent capacity right now trying to support Bosnia. They don't have the spare parts for their equipment. They don't have the equipment. They are using M-115 trucks that have 1 million miles on them. It is something that we can't afford. It is something that we can't afford in terms of using up our military assets and our capability. Yet we are not able to support any ground operation anywhere else in the theater so long as we are offering that support to Bosnia. And the reason we are there is this allegiance that we apparently have to NATO. It seems to me, Mr. President, that in addition to all the other arguments we have heard, from the cost of the operation to our relationship with Russia and all the rest of them, that there is another very serious problem we are facing, and that is how many more Bosnians are out there that we are going to be obligated to support as a result of increasing our commitment to NATO. Mr. President, I would like to say that if you were in a position where most Americans think we are in right now, and that is where we are the superpower, that we are able to defend America on two regional fronts, then I would say maybe we should consider doing this. But right now we have a hollow force. We are in a situation very similar to what we were facing in the 1970s. Mr. President, I think we can no longer afford the luxury of any more activities such as the Bosnian operation. I think we would be best served not to extend NATO to these three countries. Mr. ROBERTS addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I would like to salute several outstanding young women who have earned the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. Gold Award. All are members of the Red Lands Council of Girl Scouts in Oklahoma City, OK. These outstanding young women will be honored on April 30, 1998, for earning the highest achievement award in Girl Scouting. The Girl Scout Gold Award symbolizes the outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. The Girl Scout Award can be earned by girls ages 14-17 or in grades 9-12. Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., an organization serving over 2.5 million girls, has awarded more than 25,000 Girl Scout Gold Awards to Senior Girl Scouts since the inception of the program in 1980. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must fulfill five requirements: earn four interest project patches, earn the Career Exploration pin, earn the Senior Girl Scout Challenge, and design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award Project. A plan for fulfilling the requirements of the award is created by the Senior Girl Scout and carried out through close cooperation between the girl and an adult Girl Scout volunteer. The names and projects of the young women receiving the Girl Scout Gold Award are as follows: Mary Foster put up a fence, cleaned up and fixed headstones in her community cemetery. Laura Hubbard made a camp song book and set up a workshop to teach children and adults. Taneya Hamlin made a take-home booklet for children to learn about nature. She achieved this by designing and drawing an activity/coloring book for young visitors to Martin Park Nature Center. Rebecca Shappie provided a method to raise money for scholarships for kids to go to camp. Christina Hammond, Carrie Heaton, and Sara Brannan, designed an Erosion Control Project at Lake Keystone which will benefit present and future generations. Patricia Bardick designed a program called ``Babies, Bears and Books.'' Jennifer Hall designed a program called ``Boredom Buster and Beauty Bags'' for the Baptist Children's Home. Parthenia Harding, Erica Hill, Nina Holman, Jamila Jones and Rachel Landry-Gators set up and taught a basic American Red Cross course at an elementary school. Michelle Lambertus created ``Huggable Gingerbread,'' a puppet show for children in the hospital. Joelle Parrot and Jamie Smith organized and staffed a community blood drive. The earning of the Girl Scout Gold Award is a major accomplishment for these young women, and I believe they should receive the public recognition due them for this significant service to their community and their country.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for yielding a little time here. I can remember in November of 1995 when the Senator from Texas was the primary author of the resolution of disapproval of sending troops into Bosnia. I was on the resolution with her. We only lost by three votes. In other words, if three Senators had voted the other way, we very likely would not have had to send troops into Bosnia to begin with. In anticipation of this, I went to Bosnia, up to the northeast sector, only to find there was never any belief that we could get into this thing and be out in 12 months. The reason the President was able to get the three votes necessary to defeat the resolution of disapproval was the guarantee that our troops that were going to be sent over there in November of 1995 would be home for Christmas in 1996. That was not an expectation; that was a guarantee. I can remember so well talking to General Haukland up in the northeast sector when he laughed and said, ``You mean 12 years.'' As the years and months are going by now, it looks like there is more and more truth to that. Let me just mention my concern is a little different than the concerns that are expressed by most people. Mine is one as to how this involvement in Bosnia is adversely affecting our ability to defend America. I am chairman of a committee called the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee that is in charge of training and making sure that we are ready. Until some of the recent scandals have taken the headlines off the front page, we have finally broken through the national media so that people realize, and the national media realizes, that we are facing huge threats today all over the world with over 25 nations with weapons of mass destruction with delivery systems that can reach the United States from anyplace in the world. With all this, we are concentrating our efforts and spending our defense dollars on Bosnia. This is the thing that concerns me. We keep hearing that there are only 8,500 troops in Bosnia. That is not much of a commitment, but I can assure you, Mr. President, it is far greater than that. If you just add the troops who are directly affected by the Bosnia operation in the rim countries, in Croatia, that adds up to 12,000. Then you go over to Europe and you see the logistical support of that operation. We find that in the 21st TACOM, for example. That is the operation that is responsible for logistical support of any ground operation, for example, if we should have to send ground troops into Iraq. I don't think anyone is naive enough to think we could surgically bomb Iraq if it became necessary and not have to make a commitment of ground troops. But if that happened, we don't have any way to support logistically those ground troops that would be sent to Iraq. The 21st TACOM, which has to support logistically ground troops anywhere in that theater, which includes Iraq, is now totally consumed by their participation and their support in Bosnia. Right now they are operating at a very high op tempo and pers-tempo rate so individuals are being consumed by the operation in Bosnia. We are at 115 percent capacity just supporting Bosnia. What does that mean? That means in the event we had to send ground troops someplace else in the world, we would not have the logistic support for them. When you ask the question, ``What would you do if that happened,'' the commanding officer at the 21st TACOM said we would be totally dependent upon the Guard and Reserves. I suggest to you, Mr. President--you know and the rest of us know who are close to this subject--we don't have the necessary MOSs and capacity in Guard and Reserves to make that support. You go 10 miles up the road to the 86th Airlift in Ramstein. In Ramstein, they are right now at 100-percent capacity just supporting the airlift to Bosnia. So the cost is far greater, even far greater than $8 billion that so far we have admitted we have spent in Bosnia. We are making a commitment that makes it virtually impossible for us to support any other operations should it become necessary. So I think there has to be an end to this thing. It is easy to get into these things; it is very difficult to get out. We got in; we got in with a guarantee it would be a 12-month operation; we got in with the expectations it would cost $1.2 billion. We knew better at the time. We knew they were not telling the truth about what kind of a commitment we were making and, consequently, we have to have some way of getting out. So this is a major national security issue, Mr. President, that we get out of Bosnia so that we can have the capacity to take care of the needs of the American people in terms of defending our country. With that, I defer to the Senator from Kansas for any comments he might want to make.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think it is very important that we get something in the Record here in terms of this Kosovo resolution so that it would be abundantly clear later on that it cannot be misconstrued as to being supportive in any way at the present time or in the future of any type of military action in Kosovo or anyplace in that area. I am very much concerned over what has happened in Bosnia. I am concerned about our state of readiness--or lack of readiness, I should say--and I certainly feel that if there is one factor that is contributing to our state of readiness, or lack of readiness, it is our activities in Bosnia. Of course, we knew back when we passed the resolution to send troops to Bosnia that our resolution of disapproval died by only three votes, and there was a guarantee by the President of the United States that it would be a 12-month operation, which would cost approximately $1.2 billion. Now it is passing through $8 billion and it looks like it is going to be ongoing. As a result of that, we are not able to support ground troops should they be called upon in such areas as Iraq, because we are consuming 100 percent of our capability to logistically support ground troops in Bosnia. Specifically, the 21st TACOM in Germany is at over 100 percent capacity, just supporting the logistics support of a ground operation going through into Bosnia. The 86th airlift in Ramstein is absorbed totally with taking care of the air operation to support Bosnia. If there is anything our country cannot afford, it is any type of expansion of that support to any other country in that legion or anyplace else that is going to use those assets. While I am an original cosponsor of this resolution, I want to be sure to condemn Milosevic and the atrocities that are committed and have been committed in Kosovo, and I want to make it abundantly clear that there are many of us who are supporting this resolution who will oppose any future attempt to send any type of military operation into Kosovo. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I would be pleased to respond to the Majority Leader, and I would like to thank him for his assistance in getting this amendment adopted.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Majority Leader raised this issue. I have seen press reports that have not accurately represented my conversation with Administrator Browner. During that conversation, I indicated that I had no plans to offer any additional clean air NAAQS legislation this year should the amendment be signed into law, barring any unforeseen circumstances. I did not indicate, however, that I would not offer clean air standards legislation after this year. I would not want to give up my right to legislate in the future and I did not do that.

Mr. INHOFE. That is correct, nothing in the amendment will affect pending lawsuits and nothing will affirm or ratify EPA's standards.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while debating my amendment, amendment number 1687, to S. 1173, the ISTEA Reauthorization Act, on Wednesday March 4, I referred to five letters and entered them into the Record. Two of those letters were inadvertenly omitted from the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment that I offered yesterday, amendment number 1687, to S. 1173, the ISTEA Reauthorization Act. This amendment was agreed to by voice vote. This amendment was cosponsored by Senator Breaux, Senator Byrd and Senator Sessions. The purpose of my amendment was to provide the necessary flexibility and funding to the States that was promised by President Clinton and EPA Administrator Browner for the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and particulate matter. These standards were promulgated last July. My amendment in no way ratifies or affirms the underlying standards. These standards are the subject of various lawsuits and pending legislation which seeks to overturn the standards in part or in whole. This amendment simply relieves the uncertainty for the States during the implementation phase over the next few years. The President and Administrator Browner promised a flexible implementation time frame for the standards which was not based in the Clean Air Act. This amendment ensures that the implementation of the standards would not occur at a faster rate than the President promised. The first section of the amendment, Section 2(a) provides that the EPA will fund all of the costs for the PM monitoring network with new program dollars and just doesn't take money from other State grants. The States claim that the EPA has reprogrammed fiscal year 1998 dollars from existing State Grant authorities, the amendment requires that these funds be repaid to the States. This provides the assurance to the States that this will not be another unfunded mandate. It also restores the grant funds to the States that the EPA diverted to the monitoring program in 1998. Section 2(b) ensures that the national network (designated in section 2(a)) which consists of the PM2.5 monitors necessary to implement the national ambient air quality standards will be established by December 31, 1999. EPA will have received the funding from Congress and they will be responsible for ensuring that the network will be in place. If they fail, they will be subject to legal action and must explain the cause of any delay. Section 2(c) requires that the PM monitoring network be in place and that the States have three years of monitoring data before the Governors are required to submit their recommendations to the EPA. Under the Clean Air Act the Governors must examine the data and notify EPA when an area in their State violates the standards. This will stop the possibility of the EPA being sued by a citizens group demanding that an area be classified before the data has been collected. The Clean Air Act does not require the monitoring data to be collected first. But the President and the EPA promised they would wait for the three years of data. This provision provides the legal authority to wait for the data. Section 2(d) follows the Clean Air Act and the EPA's implementation schedule, it is the EPA's official review of the Governor's recommendations. It ensures that the Governor's data and information is correct and allows EPA the time to publish the decision in the Federal Register. Section 2(e) addresses the concerns of the farmers who believe that they will be targeted for PM 2.5 even though their emissions are larger than 2.5. The study will examine the monitoring devices to ensure that they do not capture larger particles. This section is endorsed by the American Farm Bureau who wrote, ``The agriculture community continues to be concerned over the accuracy of EPA's fine particulate measurements, especially in regard to agriculture emissions. Testimony has been given in both the Senate and House Agriculture Committees indicating concern that agriculture would be `misregulated' due to inaccurate fine particulate measurements. This amendment will allow a comparison of EPA's approved method used to measure fine particulate and the new monitors to find if both adequately eliminate those particles that are larger than 2.5 micrograms in diameter.'' Section 3(a) follows the EPA's and the President's timeline for allowing the Governors two years to review the current ozone programs before they have to designate nonattainment areas. It allows the Governors to review the other ozone programs such as the new regional ozone transport program before they make new decisions about the new ozone standard. Section 3(b) follows the Clean Air Act and the EPA's implementation schedule, it is the EPA's official review of the Governor's recommendations. It ensures that the Governor's data and information is correct and allows EPA the time to publish the decision in the Federal Register. Finally, Section 4 protects the pending lawsuits so that others can raise the issues of Unfunded Mandates, Small Business Review, the validity of the standards, and other issues without having this amendment impede their legal rights. It affirmatively states that this amendment is not a ratification of the new standards and any and all legal challenges to the standards are still valid and real.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we have had an amendment and actually have had a bill to address a problem that many of us are concerned with having to do with a change that was proposed by the Administrator of the EPA in November 2 years ago. This made dramatic changes in the standards for particulate matter and for ozone. We held extensive hearings. As chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee, we had seven hearings on this bill. It has become very controversial. The Administrator of the EPA has set the standards. After having gone through the process of the hearings and the process of the comment periods, it is now set. However, in the memorandum of implementation by the President, we have a time guideline for the implementation of these standards. Let me repeat that. The standards are set in both particulate matter and in ozone but not yet implemented. The implementation period provides for certain periods of time for establishing a PM monitoring network for collecting data for Governors to recommend areas of designation for the EPA to designate new nonattainment areas, and then for the States to submit State implementation plans. That would be true on both ozone and particulate matter. What we are attempting to do with this bill is to take these guidelines to make sure that they are in order and that everyone has ample time to carry out what has to be done in order to implement these standards. That would require a period of time. So what I have done with this amendment is take the memorandum of implementation from President Clinton and put that down into periods of time as he recommends, and we are adding that as an amendment. Obviously, this is germane to this bill because if we are to find ourselves out of attainment, it would dramatically affect the ability of the States to be able to have their transportation funds. So with the following three exceptions, this amendment only puts into the bill the time guidelines that we have all agreed to. It has been signed off on by the minority and the majority and the EPA. The first one is an area that does not affect time lines. It has to do with fully funding. This is a conscientious concern. However, the States have talked to us through the Governors associations, U.S. Conference of Mayors, the counties, and the rest of them saying that what they don't want to have is an unfunded mandate whereby they would have all of these obligations to monitor the PM and go through all of this and not have it funded. This portion of the amendment, section (2)(a), requires that the EPA absorb all of these costs. The next area is one that meets a problem that mostly concerns the agricultural community throughout America; that is, their concern with how they will be treated. Section 2(e) says that this study would take place that would address the concerns of farmers who believe that they will be targeted for PM 2.5. And we talked about PM 2.5. We are talking about 2.5 micrograms as opposed to the current 10 and emissions larger than 2.5. This is their concern. Everyone has agreed that this is a legitimate concern that the farmers of America have, and we are accommodating them. The last section that does not affect just the timeline is section 4 where it says: Nothing in section 1-3 above shall be construed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or any court, State, or person to affect any pending legislation. There is some pending legislation. I would like to add that I had a conversation with Administrator Browner, and we have had many nice conversations. While we have occasionally disagreed philosophically on some things, I did agree with her that if this amendment passes and survives the conference, passes and then is signed into law, I have no intention of bringing up any other legislation or amendments affecting the national ambient air quality standards; that is, barring anything totally unforeseen. I can't imagine what that would be. Mr. President, my amendment today addresses the EPA's revised Particulate Matter and Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. As you know, I have been a vocal critic of the EPA's revised Particulate Matter and Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. My subcommittee has held extensive hearings on both standards, and I am convinced, based on the record developed in those hearings, that those standards are not needed to protect the health of our citizens, or our environment, and that the implementation of these standards will impose huge costs on the country, that are completely unjustified. For these reasons, I have sponsored legislation that would require EPA to reconsider these standards, before they are implemented. I rise today to pursue a narrower objective. The administration has announced an implementation plan for both standards. However, a number of concerns have been raised about EPA's ability to implement this plan under the Clean Air Act. One key concern has been whether EPA can hold off on designation areas as not meeting the new standards--i.e., as nonattainment areas. With regard to PM 2.5 (the new Particulate Matter standard), three years of federal reference method monitoring data are necessary to designate areas, and a monitoring network--funded by EPA, not the states--needs to be put in place to generate these data. With regard to the ozone standard, EPA needs to develop guidance on nonattainment boundaries, before the designation process can even begin. EPA says that this guidance will be available in 1999, but, the states still must submit their recommended designations to EPA this July unless something is done. The amendment I have offered is designed to address these concerns by giving the Agency clear authority to proceed with the schedule announced by the President last July. I am offering it because I believe it would be unacceptable for the Congress to allow a situation to develop where uncertainty about EPA's legal authority could result in confusion and chaos. I caution, however, that this legislation does not affirm the standards. Whether those standards are lawful, appropriate, and necessary is still an open question that is being considered by the Courts. We can't realistically expect this question to be answered in a year or more. This legislation is designed to assure that the agency has clear authority to proceed with its implementation schedule, while the very important questions about the legitimacy of these standards are still debated. This legislation addresses only the timing of attainment designation under the President's implementation plan for these standards. EPA recently proposed to order the states to develop plans, that, among other things, would require reductions in inter-state emissions that might be contributing to exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard. A number of legal and factual objections to this proposal have been raised by states, industry, and others. Since this is only a proposal, I have not addressed in this legislation EPA's authority under the Act to require any reductions before state plans are developed after areas have been designated. I thank very much Senator Baucus, Senator Chafee, and Administrator Browner, as well as some of the staff: Chris Hessler, Jimmie Powell, with whom I worked closely, Barbara Roberts, and Tom Sliter. They have been very cooperative and very helpful in bringing this to the point where we are today. At this point I yield for questions.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. I share the frustration of the chairman and ranking member. I advise them I have an amendment which is at the desk. Everything has been worked out with the minority, majority, EPA. In a very few minutes I would like to set aside any business to take that up. It should be a very short amendment and should be voice voted.

Mr. INHOFE. That is correct.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeff Sessions be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, that is correct. The amendment is simply designed to provide greater certainty for states, small businesses and consumers regarding control strategies for the new ozone and particulate matter standards.

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

Mr. INHOFE. That is my intention. Should this not be the case, we would have to revisit this issue legislatively.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield? Would it be a good idea to go ahead, rather than set it aside, and recognize the Senator from Nevada? It may be ready at that time.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support from the National Governors Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and two other letters.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator from Nevada yield? Is it the Senator's intention to have an amendment on my amendment or speak on my amendment?