Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be recognized as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, tomorrow we will be holding public hearings on a bill that is very significant. It is Senate bill 1084. Back almost a year ago, in November of last year, the Administrator of the EPA, Carol Browner, came out with the recommendation and the rule change to lower the ambient air standards as they pertained to particulate matter and to ozone. After looking at this, we found that there was at that time no scientific justification for lowering the ambient air standards. Consequently we started having hearings. Our first hearing was with the scientific community. We had representation there from CASAC, that is the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee. It was somewhat unanimous among all the scientific community that there is no scientific justification for lowering standards. One of the things that was rather interesting that came up in that first hearing was a group of young children, we understand now, that came from some hospital who came in wearing masks, as if to say, ``You must lower these standards or we're not going to be able to breathe.'' I think a great disservice was done because it came out during the course of that hearing that these children used breathers, respirators; they were using various medical equipment that has the chemical CFC in it that allows them to breathe. At precisely the same time that the Administrator of the EPA was saying that we had to do something about lowering the ambient air standards so these young people could breathe, I asked for a show of hands as to how many of them used, in their particular medical devices, CFC's. Every hand went up. I asked, ``How many of you are aware of the fact that Administrator Browner, the same one who is advocating lowering the standards, has said she's going to take CFC's off the market so you folks would not be able to use these in your breathers?'' I was pleased to find out this morning that Senator Tim Hutchinson from Arkansas has introduced legislation that will keep the EPA and the other various bureaucracies from taking this chemical off the market. I certainly applaud him for that. I will join him in that effort. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, 10 days ago was the 25th anniversary of a policy in this country that was articulated in a treaty called the ABM Treaty. It was a treaty that many of us at that time did not think was in the best interests of this country. It was a treaty that came from the Nixon administration, a Republican administration. Of course, Henry Kissinger was the architect of that treaty in 1972. Essentially what it did was say to any adversaries out there that we will agree to disarm and not to be prepared to defend ourselves if you agree to do the same thing. Some people refer to it as mutual assured destruction, a policy I certainly did not adhere to at the time, did not feel was good policy for this country. However, there was an argument at that time, because we had two superpowers--we had the then Soviet Union and of course the United States--and at that time we had pretty good intelligence on them, they had pretty good intelligence on us, so I suppose we would be overly critical if we said there was just no justification for that program, even though I personally disagreed with it at that time. Since that time, starting in 1983 in the Reagan administration, we have elevated the debate that there is a great threat out there and that threat is from the many countries that now have weapons of mass destruction. Over 25 nations now have those weapons, either chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The critics, those who would take that money and apply it to social programs as opposed to defending our Nation, use such titles as ``star wars,'' and they talk about the billions of dollars that have been invested. Anyway, we are at a point right now where something very interesting has happened just recently. That is, on this 25th anniversary, we have found that the Clinton administration, just about 10 days ago, agreed to create new parties to the ABM Treaty. That would be Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Russia. This is going to have to come before this body. I think this is an opportunity that we need to be looking for, because all it would take is 34 Senators to reject this multilateralization of the ABM Treaty. Right now we have a number of systems that we are putting into place to defend the United States of America, both the national missile defense as well as a theater defense. Certainly, with what is going on right now in Russia and Iran, the need for such a system has been elevated in the minds of most Americans. We have right now, as we speak, 22 Aegis ships that are floating out there in the ocean, already deployed. They have the capability of knocking down missiles when they are coming in. All we have to do is take them to the upper tier, and we will have in place a national missile defense system. Certainly that is something that could take care of our theater missile needs. So several of us feel that we should go ahead and conclude that is the system that we need. However, that does violate, probably violates, the ABM Treaty, as it is in place today. So I believe we should take this opportunity that is there, when it comes before this body for ratification, to reject this and thereby kill the ABM Treaty, which certainly is outdated. By the way, it is interesting, the very architect of that treaty, Dr. Henry Kissinger, someone whose credentials no one will question, even though they may question some of his previous policy decisions, Dr. Kissinger, who is the architect of the 1972 ABM Treaty, now says it is nuts to make a virtue out of your vulnerability. He is opposed to continuing the ABM Treaty at this time. So I hope we will take this opportunity to get out from under a treaty that imposes restrictions on our ability to defend ourselves and reject the upgraded system, or the treaty, as it comes before us and take this opportunity to defend America. We have an opportunity to get out from under the restriction imposed upon us by the ABM Treaty. We have an opportunity to elevate our Aegis system. We have an opportunity to defend America. After all, Mr. President, isn't that what we are supposed to be doing? I ask unanimous consent that a decision brief from the Center for Security Policy be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was in the chair when I heard the very eloquent speech, of course, as always, by Senator Lieberman. One thing he said at the very last surprised me a little bit. I think kind of out of desperation he said, ``We are only talking about $7 million. We try a lot of things that cost a lot more than that.'' I am here to inform Senator Lieberman--and I believe he knows it already--that it has been tried. I started with our mutual friend, Tony Coelho, in 1993, who established an organization called the Washington Scholarship Fund. There were many Democrats and Republicans involved. Senator Kerrey, at that time, was an honorary chairman, and Bill Bennett was one of the honorary chairmen, also. Directors and advisors included Boyden Gray and Doreen Gentzler, a local Channel 4 TV news anchor. Our goal was to help needy or low-income families send their children to private school--the very thing we are talking about here. We were trying it through the private sector to see if it would work. What we did was not pay the entire scholarship, as we are talking about here, for a number of students, but to pay half of it. I think the average tuition is around $3,000 a year. Now, what we did was, we would offer a scholarship of $1,500 a year, so that the parents would have to pay half of it, so they would have to have an interest in that. To be eligible, they had to be residents of the District of Columbia. Ours was K through 8, as opposed to K through 12. I think K through 12 is probably better. They must be low-income by Federal standards. Anyway, we went ahead with this program on the half tuition. We had people lined up in the school year of 1993 and 1994, and we had 57 students. That is about $75,000 that we raised privately for these one- half scholarships. Last year, we were up to 250 students that we helped. That is a substantial increase. But the interesting thing is that we have over 800 now on a waiting list. I am sure that there are probably more out there waiting that are not familiar with the program. But it is overwhelmingly successful. In the schools, they concentrate on strong values, basic reading and writing and math skills, and we have a lot of parental involvement. A lot of people are not aware that in Washington, DC, there are at least 25 private schools with tuitions less than $2,500 a school year. They average about $3,000. Most of the private schools in the District of Columbia operate way below capacity, or their average tuition probably could come down, they would estimate. The Washington Scholarship Fund is one of 32 private school scholarship programs nationwide in cities like Milwaukee, Los Angeles, New York, and, in fact, there is one in the home State of Senator Coats, in Indianapolis. They are currently helping approximately 12,000 needy children, and they have 40,000 on a waiting list. Well, when I heard the Senator from Connecticut say he didn't know exactly how much it was costing the public school system in Washington, DC, I think he is right because the accounting system, as he points out, is very poor. However, I have heard the range to be somewhere between $7,700 and $10,000. So here we are talking about being able to give a better education at approximately one-third of the cost--in other words, for the same cost, reaching three times the number of children.

Mr. INHOFE. I am sorry, I have to use my time. The dropout rate is a problem. I will read a couple of things that I think are significant. One of the mothers, named Voni Eason, said: My son loves the school. He even likes the uniform. He feels like he's a grown man. Without an education--and a good, strong education--he's not going to have a job. Without the Washington Scholarship Fund, he wouldn't be able to go to his school. That is a mother making a testimonial. Tanya Odemns' son actually tried the public schools system in Washington, DC. She said: My son wasn't learning anything. He didn't know his ABCs, didn't know how to spell his name . . . public school didn't give him any homework. I know my son is very intelligent and wants to learn. When I heard about the Washington Scholarship Fund, I just hopped on it real quick. [Now] he's excited when he comes home, wants to do homework. Mr. President, it has been tried and it is successful. It works. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Not on my time. On your time, I will.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Maj. Gen. Ray E. McCoy, USA, upon his retirement from the United States Army after more than 32 years of distinguished and dedicated service to our Nation. Major General McCoy, a native son of the Oklahoma farmland, graduated in 1965 from Oklahoma State University, where he received the prestigious Drummond Saber Award as the year's outstanding ROTC graduate. That honor was the harbinger of an extraordinary military career. After completing Infantry School and Ranger training, Ray McCoy served in a variety of combat and command assignments stateside and overseas, including two tours in Vietnam and one in Korea. In the operations theater, his abiding concern for his charges, his roll-up- your-sleeves approach to getting the mission done, and his tempered- steel military bearing earned him the respect of all who soldiered with and for him. As his career progressed, he served in a number of high-level staff positions at the Department of the Army, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Army Material Command, and the Defense Logistics Agency [DLA] America's combat support agency. For the past 2 years, Major General McCoy has served as DLA's Principal Deputy Director. His vision and leadership were vital to the agency's business-process reengineering, which incorporated the best public and private sector practices. These initiatives elevated material readiness and strengthened the management and oversight of Defense contracts--and at markedly reduced cost to the taxpayers and the warfighters. Blending combat experience with business acumen, Ray McCoy was instrumental in the agency's successful efforts to accelerate logistics response and improve weapons-systems readiness. With Major General McCoy having led the charge, DLA is now a front line partner with combat and contingency operations forces in Bosnia and around the world. Whether it was on the rough terrain of the combat theater or behind a desk, Ray McCoy served his country with valor, loyalty, and integrity. With the physical stature of a sturdy oak and the energy of a southwestern tornado, Ray McCoy demonstrates time and time again that he truly deserves to be called a soldier's soldier. On the occasion of his retirement from the U.S. Army, I offer my congratulations and thanks to this esteemed son of the Sooner State, and wish him well in his future pursuits.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has seen fit to pass the Oklahoma City National Memorial Act of 1997 (S. 871). I believe this was an important piece of legislation and one deserving immediate enactment. Once again, I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Nickles, for being the originating and driving force behind this piece of legislation in the Senate and Representative Lucas for shepherding through similar legislation in the House. Earlier, when we considered this bill, we were given the opportunity and the responsibility of remembering a unique group of American heroes. To most, these individuals are nameless, faceless victims of a savage terrorist attack. However, to friends and family of the victims they are remembered as far more. They are remembered as husbands, wives, and children. It was important for the rest of us to recognize the lives of these men, women, and children in their proper context. The 168 individuals who were killed during this cowardly attack, as well as those who were fortunate to survive, deserve our honor and utmost respect. It is fitting that the memorial was designed to honor them both in an appropriate and visible way. The victims of the bombing represent the true backbone of America. Their lives serve as a testament to what this country is, what it can be, and what will be. As heroes, they will be honored. As individuals, they will be missed, mourned, and remembered as the true embodiment of our great American spirit. In addition to the immediate victims of the bombing, we have also recognized the law enforcement officials, the emergency rescue personnel, and the countless volunteers who rushed to our aid in our moment of crisis. The proposed memorial's acknowledgment of not only the victims, but the others involved in the rescue process, was artfully done to remind all of us that we are part of a nation that cares and responds to those in need. The establishment of the memorial is not only appropriate but an important tool for teaching future generations of Americans what we are all about--coming together. It is also a reminder to us that the price of our freedom is eternal vigilance against those who would rob us of our sense of security through acts of terrorism. Throughout the entire legislative process, I was pleased to note the extent of involvement by the survivors and the families of those who tragically lost their lives, as well as the larger community. This type of cooperation is not only indicative of how Oklahomans get things done, but will result in a Memorial that is aesthetically designed and truly meaningful to all those who will visit the site for generations to come. In closing, I would like to thank my colleagues for recognizing the importance of this legislation and giving it their immediate attention. We can all be proud we will now have a suitable memorial to honor the lives of the men, women, and children killed in the bombing. Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 5 minutes as if in morning business.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Mother Teresa, truly a saint, died last week at age 87. I think we have all talked about her and the fact she dedicated her life to helping the poor and the sick, the dying around the world, particularly in India. But I remember so well a morning on February 3, 1994. It was a National Prayer Breakfast. We had invited Mother Teresa to come and be our speaker. She did not reject. She just said, well, if the Lord is willing, I will be there. And we said, do you think he will be willing? And she wasn't too sure. Nonetheless, she did show up and we had an audience of 3,000 people in the hotel, including the President and his wife, and the Vice President and Mrs. Gore, and congressional leaders, people from all over the Hill and from all over America. Every State was represented, almost every country was represented, and, of course, in addition to that there was a television audience of millions. Mother Teresa gave really an extraordinary speech. It was referred to by columnist Cal Thomas as ``the most startling and bold proclamation of truth to power I have heard in my more than 30 professional years in Washington.'' I think a lot of us know Peggy Noonan. She was the speech writer for Ronald Reagan. She called it ``a breathtaking act of courage.'' In describing it she said Mother Teresa was introduced and spoke of God and love and families. She said, ``We must love one another and care for one another.'' And she described it that there were ``great purrs of agreement'' from the audience. And I remember that so well because I was one who was purring. But the speech became more pointed at that moment. Mother Teresa--and I am quoting now, Mr. President--said: I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell people not to kill one another? She said: By abortion, the mother does not learn to love but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Then she said: Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. Mrs. Noonan described the scene: For about 1.3 seconds there was complete silence, then applause built up and swept across the room. But not everyone: the President and the First Lady, the Vice President and Mrs. Gore looked like seated statues at Madame Tussaud's, glistening in the lights and moving not a muscle. I remember when Mother Teresa then looked over at President and Mrs. Clinton and she said: Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child. From here, a sign of care for the weakest of weak--the unborn child--must go out to the world. If you become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be truest to what the founders of this country stood for. Mr. President, we must revere Mother Teresa for what she was, the saint that she was, and we must remember her. But I think most of all we must listen to her. I repeat: ``Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.'' I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, my amendment would provide $2,225,000 to establish a demonstration project to assist persons with disabilities due to the loss of a limb to return to work. According to a 1996 GAO report on SSA disability programs, ``[r]eturn-to-work strategies and practices may hold the potential for improving federal disability programs by helping people with disabilities return to productive activity in the workplace and at the same time reduce program costs.'' The GAO report goes on to note that the three most important strategies to mainstream individuals back into the work force are: intervene as soon as possible; identify and provide necessary return- to-work assistance; and structure benefits to encourage people to return to work. Using these GAO suggestions as a guide, I have attempted to address the medical, rehabilitative, and job training needs of individuals who have lost their limbs. Experience has shown that for people who have lost limbs, access to appropriate medical rehabilitation can mean the difference between prolonged dependence and a successful return to the work place. Due to advancement in modern rehabilitation medicine, persons who experience limb loss can now routinely expect to attain high levels of independence and functionality. Over the last several years, I have worked with Limbs for Life Foundation which provides financial help to amputees nationwide. As a result of my association with them, I have observed that a significant percentage of people who lose limbs do not return to the work force and subsequently become dependent on Social Security's Supplemental Security Income [SSI] and Disability Insurance [DI] programs. A leading cause for this dependence has been the inability to gain access to appropriate rehabilitation care. According to the Social Security Administration, less than half of 1 percent of Social Security beneficiaries return to work. Yet, they also estimate that as many as 3 out of 10 persons on disability may be good candidates for return to work but the system does not encourage it. I believe this partial due to the Social Security Administration's process for determining disability which does not generally assess the individuals functional capacity to work, but rather presumes that certain medical conditions are in themselves sufficient to preclude work. However, the link between medical condition and work incapacity is weak. While there are certainly some medical impairments which prevent individuals from working, others factors such as vocational, psychological, economic, environmental, and motivational are often more important determinants of work capacity. My proposed demonstration program will result in a better rate of return to work because it will provide people with the tools needed to successfully overcome many of the impediments which have traditionally held them back from main streaming into the work place. Specifically, by providing appropriate prosthetic and rehabilitation services, followed by an intensive regimen of occupational therapy the demonstration program will prepare amputees to meet the physical demands of the work place. Practical assistance such as job training and job placement are also critical for successful main streaming and would be a part of the program. Not only will we be helping people who want to work, but will more effectively spend our limited disability money. The Social Security Administration's estimates that lifetime cash benefits are reduced by $60,000 when an individual receiving Disability Insurance returns to work; $30,000 when an individual receiving Supplemental Security Income returns to work. The Limbs for Life Foundation has estimated that they could provide services for 775 individuals with the proposed $2,225,000 demonstration program. Under their proposal, this money would be combined with the Foundation's own funds and services and result in a net savings of $9 million. Mr. President, I believe this is a sound investment and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. amendment no. 1106 (Purpose: Provide for additional Security Administration continuing disability reviews as authorized by cap adjustment legislation) On page 71, line 23, strike ``$245,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof: $290,000,000. On page 71, line 25, after ``Public Law 104-121'' insert: ``, section 10203 of Public Law 105-33,''.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the senior Senator from Oklahoma. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Nickles in support of S. 871, the Oklahoma City National Memorial Act of 1997. I think it is a compassionate piece of legislation that deserves and will receive support for immediate passage. I thank, not just my colleague, Senator Nickles, for being the driving force behind this, but also express my appreciation to my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for acting so quickly to bring this matter before us. Mr. President, it is very easy for us to stand here and for people who were not out there at the time to be compassionate, to be sensitive to the needs of Oklahoma. But I can tell you, after having been there when it happened, it is indescribable when you go through a building that has parts of human bodies stuck to the walls and you see things that are crumbling. My son is an orthopedic surgeon. One of his partners actually had to go in during this thing and amputate a lady's leg, with no anesthetic, to extract her from that. Good friends, my closest friends, Don and Sally Ferrell lost their daughter. She was an attorney for HUD. Polly Nichols was not even in the building and came within a quarter of an inch of dying from flying glass. This is an opportunity for us to say to these people how much we love them. The 168 individuals who were killed during this cowardly attack and those who were fortunate to survive deserve our honor and respect. It is a fitting memorial that has been designed to honor not just the individuals who lost their lives, but the families of those who lost their lives and those who are survivors. Beyond the immediate victims of the bombing, we also recognize law enforcement officers and emergency people. I can remember on the first night, as I was walking toward the building, hearing this thundering cadence behind me. I turned to see several hundred firemen, all dressed up with their emergency equipment. They were not just from Oklahoma; they were from all over America, from as far away as right here, from Maryland. They were going in there, each one of them taking 30-minute spells. They were volunteers. They did not have to do this. They went in knowing they could very well lose their lives crawling through the rubble of a building still crumbling to save lives. So there are many, many heroes in this thing. And this is certainly a fitting tribute. I can only say, on behalf of all Oklahomans, we thank you for your generosity, your promptness, and your compassion.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Let me make a couple comments. Since we are down to a few minutes, there will not be the time for detail which I will go into later. Yesterday, Senator Breaux and I introduced S. 1084 entitled the ``Ozone and Particulate Matter Research Act of 1997.'' This bill offers a simple solution to a very serious problem. I think there is a large segment of the population out there that will consider this bill to be singly the most significant of this legislative session. In essence, this legislation provides the authority and resources to conduct the necessary scientific research and monitoring for the national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. It reinstates the preexisting standards for both pollutants and requires the agency to wait until the research is complete before they revise the standards. The bill creates an independent panel which will be convened by the National Academy of Sciences to prioritize the needed particulate matter research. This would take the politics out of setting research priorities. Next, a panel will be created to oversee the Federal research program in order to ensure that the priorities set out will be followed. Mr. President, just to bring us up to date here in this short period of time, last November the Administrator of the EPA came out with a message on behalf of the administration stating that we should change our ambient air standards so far as ozone and particulate matter are concerned. In particulate matter, it would mean that we would drop it down from 10 microns to 2.5 microns. In ozone, which is measured by parts per million, it would drop it down from .12 to .08. While that sounds technical and a little confusing to some people, the bottom line is that many counties throughout the United States would find themselves out of attainment with these new standards. I can tell you, when I was mayor of the city of Tulsa and we were out of attainment, how difficult it was. There was not any possibility of recruiting any new industry. A lot of industries had been shut down or had to reduce the number of shifts they had. We had to impose various requirements for car pooling and impose things that really changed the lifestyle of our citizens. The problem is that when the Administrator came out with the proposed new standards in November, we did some research only to find out that there is no scientific justification for lowering the standards. In fact, as the chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I held my first hearing, a scientific hearing, where we had members of CASAC--that is the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee--to come in and advise us as to what the science is behind these recommended changes, only to find that there is no scientific consensus behind these recommended changes. In fact, these experts said there is no bright line, as they call it, for ozone levels beyond which it can be said to be detrimental to human health. As far as particulate matter is concerned, they say there is no science that concludes that there is any causal relationship between any level or type of 2.5-micron particulate matter and respiratory diseases. When asked how long it would take to establish such conclusions, they said it would be approximately 5 years before we should know. Consequently, we feel that legislation is warranted to postpone any decision to set an arbitrary new standard for these pollutants. Instead we need more study and this bill provides for it. Clearly, as you can see from the original sponsor and cosponsor as well as from those behind a corresponding bill in the other body, this is a bipartisan effort. It is a bipartisan effort that wants clean air, that wants us to make sure that we do not impose any hardships on the American people which are going to be costly and make us noncompetitive on a global basis, inconvenience the American people, and cost us billions of dollars unless there is some scientific justification for it. I have been critical of EPA. When their proposed rules first came out, the Agency claimed the new standards were needed to prevent 40,000 premature deaths per year due to respiratory problems. Then some months later they changed that to 20,000 deaths, and then recently they knocked that down again to a much smaller amount. At the same time, a research group called the Reason Foundation out in California concluded that a more accurate figure would be no more than 1,000 premature deaths, if that. So there has been a lot of scare talk around. And a lot of misinformation. We hear many say that those of us who differ with the EPA don't want dirty air. Let me assure you, Mr. President, I have four kids and six grandkids. I do not want dirty air either. I care about their health and well-being as much, I dare say, as any public servant shuffling paper in some Federal agency. What I am concerned about is that we approach this issue in a rational and orderly manner. We should do the science first, we should know what's causing the problem, we should be clear about what is needed to address the problem and then take action with a proper consideration of all the consequences--both wanted and unwanted. What we don't want to do is put ourselves in a position where our philosophy is ``ready, fire and aim'' instead of the more reasonable ``ready, aim and fire.'' Unfortunately, the EPA wants to shoot first and ask questions later. This is not right. In the House of Representatives, on a bipartisan basis, H.R. 1984 was introduced, and this bill is very similar to the bill we are introducing. So I would like to suggest to you, Mr. President, that there is going to be a lot of activity during the August recess, a lot of education going on to make sure that people understand what is about to happen and to make sure we don't go ahead and adopt standards that are artificially reduced with inadequate science to justify those reduced standards. Mr. President, 12 o'clock being near, I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. I would like to have 5 additional minutes if I may.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. To give you an idea of how this issue has been distorted, it was stated by the administration that, in the event that we do adopt the lower standards for ozone and particulate matter, they said it would only cost $9 billion. Yet, last week, when we had Mary Nichols, the EPA's Assistant Secretary for Air, she stated that the cost would be $9.1 billion, a very uneven number, making us believe there is some scientific reason for that, when, in fact, the Reason Foundation, out in California, concluded, in its study, that the cost is not going to be $9.1 billion if we adopt these standards. Instead, they say it is going to be somewhere between $90 and $150 billion. In fact, the President's own Council of Economic Advisers put the cost at $60 billion for the ozone standard alone. If we split the difference between the $90 and the $150 billion, that means that for a family of four on average income, it would cost them approximately $1,600 a year--$1,600 a year--to do something for which there is not adequate science to justify it. Second, the administration, in their scare tactics, back in November, said in the event we do not do this, it is going to result in 40,000 premature deaths a year. In December, they dropped that down to 20,000 premature deaths a year. In April, it came down to 15,000 premature deaths a year. Again, many groups now say it is less than 1,000. It was kind of interesting, because when we had the people who are trying to claim the number of premature deaths that would be there if we did not lower these ozone and particulate matter standards, I described the death of my beloved mother-in-law, which took place on New Year's Day. She was 94 years old. It was one of those deaths that was a real blessing; the time was here. Yet, the circumstances under which she died would have qualified her, according to these so-called experts, to be counted as a premature death. I think we have also been told things that are not true by the administration, when they say how many people are going to be affected. I have a chart here that we found by some accident, of the Southeastern part of the United States. This came out of the EPA. This is not my chart. What they are trying to say is only the counties, if we lower these standards, in the dark green would be affected in terms of having to come into compliance. Now we see these concentric circles around here covering more than half of this whole region, admitting at one point there would have to be some controls. They call this level 1 control region; level 2 control region--this would be level 2. In other words, the areas actually subject to some form of regulation under these new standards are much larger than people are sometimes being led to believe. So we are getting information that is certainly not consistent with the facts. Another criticism I have with the administration is how they have tried to sell this idea by singling out certain people. Certainly the Presiding Officer, being from Kansas, and the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, understands that this would have a tremendous effect on the agricultural community throughout the United States. You would have Government saying when you can disk, when you can till, when you can burn off a field, when you can use fertilizers, when you can harvest a crop. I can tell you right now, if you ask the average farmer in America what his biggest problem is, it's not the taxes; it's the overregulation that takes away his freedoms. I have often said, every time you increase regulation, you take away a degree of individual freedoms. That is exactly what they have done. So we have an administration which now says to the farmers, don't worry, we are going to exempt you; you are not going be affected by this. Then they went to the U.S. Conference of Mayors--and I have to say that I used to be the token conservative on the board of directors of the U.S. Conference of Mayors when I was mayor of Tulsa, OK. It's not really a conservative operation. Yet, they voted, in San Francisco, overwhelmingly, to reject these standards, and these are the mostly Democrats talking, not Republicans. Why are they concerned about it? They are concerned about it because they know if we bring these standards down, those mayors are going to be running cities that will be out of attainment. This will be another, probably the most severe, of what they call the unfunded mandates that has been out there. The administration also tried to single out small business, to say this is not going to affect small business. They even said that to one of the Congressmen from Louisiana: Well, you have seven parishes, but don't worry, we won't make you do anything, we'll get the people to the west so when the air flows over it is going to clean up your air. So it has been a very dishonest campaign by the administration. I really believe during the August recess we are going to be able to show the American people what this is really all about. Last year we passed two significant laws. One is called SBREFA, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act--SBREFA. The thrust of this bill is you can't pass a new rule, a new regulation, unless you explain its effect on small business. So, during one of our committee meetings, we asked the Director of the EPA, ``Why is it that you have not explained what the effect of this will be on small business?'' The response was, ``There is no effect on small business.'' I can assure you, Mr. President, all these farms that are small businesses--I can assure you, any small business that has an electric bill, when they say this is going to increase the electric bills by somewhere between 8 and 10 percent, that's an impact on small business. The response of the EPA is, ``Wait a minute, all we are saying to the States is you have to come into attainment. You have to figure out how to do it. And whatever you do to your citizens to make that happen is your responsibility. So we--the EPA--are not the ones saying we are imposing a hardship.'' We passed another bill, the unfunded mandates bill, that says we cannot pass regulations here that result in an unfunded mandate to political subdivisions below the Federal Government. Consequently, I can assure you, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Governors, and the National Association of State Legislators, the National League of Cities and all these groups that are so concerned about this, they know exactly what an unfunded mandate is. I anticipate, when the time comes that these standards are put into effect, or set, that there are going to be some lawsuits. I think the American Truckers Association already stated they are going to be suing the EPA. So my concern is, with all these lawsuits that will take place, that we resolve this issue to some satisfaction now, before we get locked in endless litigation. the best way to avoid this happening, the best way to avoid these arbitrary, onerous, and unjustified regulations, would be to go ahead and pass this legislation, which is S. 1084. I believe S. 1084 and H.R. 1984 will be passed, and I think they will be passed with a large enough margin to sustain a veto. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that between now and 12 o'clock we have a period of morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 408, the House companion to the tuna-dolphin legislation. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to its consideration and all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 39 as passed by the Senate be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill then be considered read a third time and passed, with the motion to reconsider laid on the table.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the bill I introduced yesterday, S. 1084, that was introduced as the Inhofe- Breaux bill, be changed so that the bill be considered the Breaux- Inhofe bill.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I saw a very interesting article in Friday's Washington Times that has brought to surface the truth that is so often avoided around here concerning our state of readiness in our Nation' defense system. As the chairman of the readiness subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have had occasion to visit many, many of the installations around the country. I have been in the European theater, most of the installations in England, Italy, Hungary, and, of course, several times to Bosnia, Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base; Fort Hood, TX; Fort Bragg, NC; Corpus Christi Navy Air Base, and several others. What I am finding is that there are very serious problems they are facing. Mr. President, I know you are aware, as chairman of the personnel subcommittee, of some of these problems and how they are affecting our state of readiness. One of the contributing factors, of course, is our contingency operations. We have two serious problems with contingency operations. First of all, they are very expensive. We had occasion to narrowly lose our resolution of disapproval in order to keep our troops from being sent over to Bosnia here back in December 1995--only by four votes. And one of the determining factors was they said it would be a 12-month operation, which we all knew better, but they also said that the cost of the operation would not exceed $2 billion, it would be somewhere between $1.5 and $2 billion. At that time we felt, with mission creep and the fact it was easy to go in and very difficult to come out, that it would cost more. Well, sure enough. We are up there now, close to $7 billion it is going to cost us. Where does that money come from, Mr. President? It comes from our readiness accounts. This has become a very serious problem. The other problem is that it is using up our troops, keeping them from being able to be trained properly should an emergency come along, should some type of war operation become necessary to face. I have been going around, and they have been bringing out problems such as equipment is wearing out well before its projected lifetime, excessive usage of spare parts, pushing our people so hard they no longer have time to train. At almost every unit I saw maintenance personnel cannibalizing perfectly good, new equipment to keep other equipment working, which may solve the problem for today but it is very labor intensive by the time they get the machines working again. An Air Force maintenance officer told me, ``Our lack of spares has caused us to cannibalize perfectly good engines to keep others operating, requiring my maintenance troops to work even more hours to keep our planes flying. Our normal workweek is now 50 to 56 hours a week.'' With regard to OPTEMPO--when we talk about OPTEMPO, we are talking about the tempo of operations--an F-18 squadron commander told me, ``The high OPTEMPO at which our personnel are operating is definitely causing a strain on our people's families and the strain also affects my pilots' job performance.'' We know our retention is low. In my State of Oklahoma, we will spend--we actually save $86,000 a primary student. That is the savings. Imagine what it costs to put someone in training. Right now the airlines are coming along and taking some of our very best. And the ones I talked to, Mr. President, do not want to leave. They want to stay in. They are soldiers, they are fighters, but they have to do it. And their family situation is demanding that they do. An Air Force F-16 squadron commander said, ``The number of days we fly to support Bosnia doesn't leave us with enough time to train. The only areas where we get training from our Bosnia missions is in reconnaissance and close air support. The rest of our training areas are suffering.'' This goes on and on. An Air Force C-130 squadron commander told how they are now up to 160 days in their TDY as opposed to their goal of 120. Now, what does this do? It is quite obvious. When you talk to the services, you give them choices. You say, well, if you are going to have to take money to put in these contingency operations, it is going to either have to come out of force strength, readiness, quality of life, or modernization. Those are the only four areas over which we have control. And I can tell you that each one of the chiefs has said we cannot take any more money out of any of these areas. Now, there is an assumption around here that somehow we have a state of readiness that would allow America to protect itself in two regional contingencies. I can tell you right now that this is not the case. In fact, it has been stated by most of the chiefs now that we could not fight today the Persian Gulf war. I will just read a couple excerpts from the article that came out Friday morning. It is the first time I have seen it in print. It was in the Washington Times Friday morning. It said, ``The Air Force is suffering from pilots who have lost faith in their generals, jet engines that still don't work after repairs, and maintenance depots with little quality of work being produced. Pilots complain of poorly equipped fighter wings, too much time away from their families, and air patrol types of missions that do little to hone their air combat skills.'' And it goes on and on. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks the article of Friday morning be printed in the Record.