[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 144 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11004-S11007]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             GLOBAL WARMING

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today we will be having some conversation 
on the floor concerning the global warming treaty. I will make a few 
comments concerning that in that I am the chairman of the Clean Air 
Committee of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We have had 
extensive hearings on this. I will review just very briefly what we 
have learned from the hearing that we held in our subcommittee in the 
Environment and Public Works Committee insofar as global warming is 
concerned.
  In July, the Environmental Committee had a hearing on the global 
climate change treaty and we heard from five top scientists.
  The conclusions I found were very interesting, particularly since 
last night when I watched Administrator Carol Browner talk about the 
scientific evidence that is conclusive concerning global climate 
change. That is not at all what we found in our hearing. We had five of 
the top scientists around. While there is a large body of scientific 
research, there is much controversy and disagreement in scientific 
facts being misrepresented by the administration and the press.
  Four things that we came to a conclusion on were, No. 1, we don't 
know how much human activity has influenced the climate. One scientist 
before our committee said it could be as much as 6 percent.
  Second, if you look at satellite data, we are not sure if there has 
been any global warming. We had a very interesting session that lasted 
more than an hour with viewing the satellites and what conclusions 
could come, and there was no conclusive evidence that there has 
actually been any global warming.
  Three, even if we eliminate all manmade emissions, it may not have a 
noticeable impact on the environment, and the treaty may only eliminate 
emissions here in the United States and not in the entire world.
  Four, when asked, all five scientists stated that we would not have 
the uncertainties understood by this December, when the administration 
plans on making a decision regarding the treaty.
  Now, we found out yesterday that the President came and made his 
announcement. It is kind of interesting, Mr. President, because we 
passed a resolution on the floor of the Senate, by 95 to 0, that said 
we would reject any type of a treaty that came from Kyoto that didn't 
treat the developing nations the same as the developed nations. So the 
President came out with something where he is calling for a binding 30 
percent reduction in emission levels by the year 2012. He calls this an 
important first step, with more reductions to follow.
  As chairman of the Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, I can tell 
you that this is going to have a profound negative affect on our 
ability to defend America, as the President stated yesterday that the 
military accounts for 43 percent of the Federal energy use. The Federal 
Government cannot reduce by 30 percent or more without significant cuts 
in the military. I think this equates to something like a 3 to 7 times 
greater cut than the Btu tax of 1993.
  One of the things that bothered me more than anything else is the 
moving target that we are dealing with. In March of 1995 in a House 
Commerce Committee hearing, Congressmen Dingell and Schaefer raised 
concerns that the new targets may not apply to all countries equally, 
and on behalf of

[[Page S11005]]

the administration, Mr. Rafe Pomerance, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
the State Department said, ``Our goal, Mr. Chairman, is that all 
parties participate in this next round of negotiations. We want to see 
that all governments participate and help define the post-2000 
regime.''
  One month later, the administration signed on to the Berlin Mandate 
to review the commitments made to reduce the greenhouse gases and adopt 
targets for further reductions. The conference differentiated between 
developed and developing nations. They signed on to this, totally at 
odds and contradicting the commitment made to the Congressmen.
  In June 1996, Mr. Pomerance stated, ``Are we going to agree to 
legally binding instrument in Geneva? No way.'' One month later, Under 
Secretary Wirth announced that the United States supported a legally 
binding emissions target.
  I want to also say that this has not changed since September 1996. It 
is before the same Commerce Committee. Assistant Secretary of State 
Eileen Claussen told Congressman Dingell and the committee that the 
United States would not be bound before we have completed the economic 
analysis and assessments. We have just learned that the 
administration's efforts to analyze the economic effects has failed. 
The models they used did not work, and we will not understand the 
effect on our nations's economy certainly before December.
  The reason I am concerned about this is, there is a very interesting 
parallel between what they are trying to do in the absence of any 
scientific evidence in global climate change, which has a dramatic 
deteriorating effect on our ability to be competitive on a global basis 
and on the ambient air changes promulgated by this administration. We 
all know that, just about a year ago, Carol Browner came out and 
unilaterally suggested--and now has promulgated--the rule change to 
lower the ambient air standards in both particulate matter and in 
ozone. We find that during the various hearings that we have had that 
Mary Nichols, who is immediately under Carol Browner, said that the 
cost would be $9 billion to put these standards in--the cost to the 
American people. At the same time, the President's Economic Advisory 
Committee said it was $60 billion a year. The Reason Foundation 
estimated the costs between $90 billion and $150 billion. This would 
cost the average family of four some $1,700 a year.
  They talk about the deaths, and Carol Browner reused this yesterday. 
There would be 60,000 premature deaths. Those deaths were lowered by 
the EPA last November to 40,000; then in December to 20,000, and in 
April to 15,000. Then the scientist who discovered the mathematic 
mistake now says it's less than 1,000. In our committee, Mary Nichols 
admitted these regulations would not save any lives over the next 5 
years.
  I have watched how Carol Browner goes around and makes promises. She 
says to the mayors of America, ``This isn't going to affect you.'' She 
says to the farmers, ``This isn't going to affect you.'' She says to 
small businesses, ``This won't affect you.'' To some of the parishes in 
Louisiana that were found to be out of attainment, she said, ``This 
isn't going to make you do anything because the problem is for the 
neighboring State of Texas to the west; they are going to have to do 
this.''
  So, Mr. President, I only ask the question, why is this obsession 
taking place in the administration if there is no scientific 
justification on either global warming or ambient air standards? Why 
are they trying to do this in eroding our personal freedoms? I think 
probably the best way to answer that is to read an article in Forbes 
magazine, called ``Watch Out For This Woman; The EPA's Carol Browner is 
exploiting health and the environment to build a power base.''
  If you read this article, Mr. President, it says:

       If science isn't Browner's strong point, political tactics 
     are. Her enemies can only envy the way the EPA uses the 
     courts.
       . . . For her part, Browner often dismisses as simple male 
     chauvinism any criticism of her hardball tactics.
       . . . She learned politics working on Gore's Senate staff, 
     where she rose to be his legislative director before heading 
     back to Florida to head the State environmental commission.
       . . . She is an environmentalist zealot.

  Mr. President, I know my time has expired. I ask unanimous consent 
that this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From Forbes magazine, Oct. 20, 1997]

                 Carol Browner, Master of Mission Creep

                 (By Pranay Gupte and Bonner R. Cohen)

       As the center of that enormous rent-seeking organization 
     known as the federal government, Washington, D.C. has evolved 
     its own vocabulary. There is, in bureaucratese, an innocent-
     sounding but insidious phrase: mission creep. Mark it well: 
     Mission creep explains a lot about how big government grows 
     and grows and grows.
       Mission creep is to a taxpayer-supported organization what 
     new markets are to a business organization. It involves a 
     gradual, sometimes authorized, sometimes not, broadening of a 
     bureaucracy's original mission. It is a way to accrete money 
     and power beyond what Congress originally approved when it 
     funded an agency.
       Playing mission creep is an old game in Washington. But no 
     one has ever played the game with more skill than Carol M. 
     Browner, Bill Clinton's choice to head the Environmental 
     Protection Agency.
       From a modest beginning a quarter-century ago, the agency 
     has grown to employ nearly 20,000 people and control an 
     annual budget of $7 billion. But these numbers are a poor 
     measure of the agency's power: Because its regulations have 
     the force of law, the agency can jail people, close factories 
     and override the judgments of local authorities.
       In its quest for power and money, the agency has imposed 
     many unnecessary costs on American industry, and ultimately 
     on the American people--costs that do more to satisfy 
     bureaucratic zeal than to clean the air or the water.
       The EPA was established in 1970 by an executive order 
     issued by President Richard M. Nixon. Rachel Carson, a patron 
     saint of the environmental movement, had made a huge impact 
     with her emotional tract, Silent Spring, a few years earlier.
       The public was right to be alarmed. Industrialization has 
     imposed hidden costs in the form of polluted air, despoiled 
     streams, unsightly dumps and a general degradation of the 
     landscape. Concerns about pollution could, of course, have 
     been dealt with by existing agencies, but that is not the 
     nature of American politics. Politicians must be seen to be 
     doing something dramatic. Creating new agencies makes 
     favorable waves in the media.
       Nixon created a new agency. Pulled together from a 
     hodgepodge of existing federal programs, the EPA never had a 
     congressional charter that would have defined its regulatory 
     activities. It was simply given the task of carrying out the 
     provisions of what, over time, became 13 environmental 
     statutes, each with its own peculiarities and 
     constituencies.
       Without perhaps fully comprehending the issues, Nixon made 
     the new EPA the instrument for a tremendous power grab by the 
     federal government. Most environmental problems--chemical 
     spills, groundwater contamination, abandoned dump sites--are 
     purely local in nature. But suddenly they were federal 
     matters. In the name of a greener, cleaner Earth, Washington 
     mightily increased its power to intervene in the daily lives 
     of its citizens. It was a goal so worthy that few people saw 
     the dangers inherent in to. Mission creep had begun.
       In 1978 then-EPA administrator Douglas Costle cleverly 
     shifted the focus of the agency. Henceforth the EPA would 
     protect not just the environment but your health. ``Costle 
     became determined to convince the public that [the] EPA was 
     first and foremost a public health agency, not a guardian of 
     bugs and bunnies,'' wrote Mark K. Landry, Marc J. Roberts and 
     Stephen R. Thomas in their book, The Environmental Protection 
     Agency: Asking the Wrong Questions from Nixon to Clinton.
       People do care about forests and wildlife, but they care 
     much more about themselves and their families. There is a 
     strong strain of hypochondria in the American people, and 
     nothing grabs our attention faster than an alleged threat to 
     our health. If the alleged threat involves cancer, it is 
     almost guaranteed to make the six o'clock news. Costle 
     shrewdly exploited cancerphobia to expand his agency's reach 
     and to wring money from Congress. He launched the EPA on a 
     cancer hunt, looking for carcinogens in foods and air and 
     water, even in the showers we take.
       Carcinogens, of course, abound in nature, ordinary sunlight 
     being one of the most prevalent. So it is with many man-made 
     substances. The exposure to background levels of these 
     carcinogens is so minimal in most cases as to pose no serious 
     threat in the over whelming majority of cases. Never mind: 
     EPA scientists, following the agency's cancer-risk 
     guidelines, were soon ignoring the age-old admonition that 
     the ``dose makes the poison.'' If it was man-made and carried 
     carcinogens, the EPA would root it out. As one EPA scientist 
     explained it to Forbes: ``At EPA, we're not paid not to find 
     risks.''
       Under the mantra of ``one fiber can kill,'' the EPA in the 
     1980s mounted a costly and probably self-defeating nationwide 
     effort to rip asbestos out of schools. Simply sealing the 
     substance would have kept the fibers away from kids at a 
     fraction of the cost. But it would not have yielded the same 
     harvest in headlines.

[[Page S11006]]

       Even more than her predecessors--and possessing much 
     greater resources--Carol Browner presents herself as the 
     great family physician. ``There isn't a decision I make on 
     any given day that's not related to the health of the 
     American people.'' she tells Forbes. Browner, it's worth 
     noting, is a lawyer with no medical training.
       After all, she reminds us, she's the mom of a young boy. 
     Attendees of Capitol Hill hearings snicker at her constant 
     references to her son, Zachary, when she testifies on 
     environmental issues. But she never misses a chance to repeat 
     the message. ``If we can focus on protecting the children . . 
     . we will be protecting the population at large, which is 
     obviously our job,'' she tells Forbes.
       Who said that was her job? Nobody, but that's what mission 
     creep is all about.
       Last September Browner announced the release of a new EPA 
     report setting forth a broad national agenda to protect 
     children from environmental risks. She followed up the report 
     with the creation earlier this year of the Office of 
     Children's Health Protection at EPA.
       There was no congressional mandate, but Congress meekly 
     went along by failing to challenge the agency's justification 
     of the program. Who would want to face reelection accused of 
     being callous toward children? Especially when the EPA's kept 
     researchers stand by ready to produce scare studies on EPA 
     money (see box, p. 172).
       Where most agency chiefs tremble at criticism from 
     Congress, Browner has a platform from which she can 
     counterattack. An EPA-funded newsletter was recently 
     distributed by the National Parents Teachers Association. At 
     the time an internal EPA memo noted: ``The PTA could become a 
     major ally for the Agency in preventing Congress from 
     slashing our budget.'' Thus does Browner's EPA use taxpayer 
     money to fight efforts to trim the federal budget.
       On Mar. 15, 1995 David Lewis, an EPA scientist attached to 
     the agency's laboratory in Athens, Ga., was told by his 
     supervisor that EPA employees with connections to members of 
     Congress should use their influence to sway lawmakers against 
     a bill proposed by Representative Clifford Stearns (R-Fla.)--
     if it could be done ``without getting into trouble.'' 
     Stearns' bill would have reduced funding for EPA. The 
     scientist later said in a deposition: ``We were being asked 
     to do this during government business hours, and the purpose 
     was to protect EPA funding levels.'' This request on the part 
     of high-level EPA officials to lobby Congress on government 
     time is under investigation by the House Government Reform 
     and Oversight Committee.
       Had this been a Republican administration and had the 
     department involved been other than the EPA, one can imagine 
     the outcry in the media.
       Asked about the growing criticism of her tactics, Browner 
     blatantly ducks the question with: ``This isn't about me. It 
     never has been about me. It's about the air being cleaner. Is 
     the water going to be safer? It's about business going to be 
     able to find a better solution to our environmental 
     problems.''
       It's really about politics. When supportive lawmakers ask 
     to borrow EPA experts for their staffs, the EPA hastens to 
     comply. Requests from liberal Democrats almost always are 
     filled, those from Republicans rarely. A request by 
     Representative Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) for an EPA detailee 
     was rejected on Jan. 2, 1997 on the grounds that ``new 
     procedures'' were being written. Less than four weeks later 
     (Jan. 28), a similar request from liberal Democrat 
     Representative Charles Rangel of New York was approved, 
     without reference to any ``new procedures.''
       Since 1995 her office has approved all requests for 
     employee details to four Democratic lawmakers--Senator Frank 
     Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Senator 
     Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) and Rangel. Of the four GOP 
     requests, three were rejected.
       Browner was at her politically impressive best in this 
     summer's debate over the EPA's tougher clean air standards. 
     Because air quality levels have improved markedly since 
     passage of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, it was 
     widely hoped--especially in areas that badly need new jobs--
     that the standards would not be further tightened. The EPA's 
     own data showed that levels of the particulates have dropped 
     dramatically over the past decade. Many local governments, 
     anxious for jobs and economic development, were looking 
     forward to being removed from the list of so-called 
     nonattainment areas for ozone and particulate matter, or PM.
       In July the EPA finalized new tighter standards for ozone 
     and PM. For communities that had made expensive efforts to 
     comply with the current law, the higher standards were like a 
     baseball player, having rounded third base and heading toward 
     home, being told he had to circle the bases again to score.
       A good many congresspeople were outraged. Browner's 
     insistence on imposing the new standards in the face of 
     nothing more than scanty scientific evidence unleashed howls 
     of protest from elected officials in the affected 
     communities.
       Legally, Browner was probably in the right. In its haste to 
     seem to be attending to the environment, Congress failed to 
     exert control over EPA standards and regulations.
       There was nonetheless quite a donnybrook, with veteran 
     Democrat John Dingell of Michigan leading the charge against 
     Browner. A lot of jobs were at stake in Michigan, still 
     headquarters of the U.S. auto industry. Congress, he 
     insisted, should be consulted. Dingell was not alone.
       With lots of support from Vice President Al Gore's office, 
     Browner went to work putting down the congressional revolt. 
     Her testimony before Congress was, by general agreement, 
     brilliant, though her facts were often shaky.
       Until then, Bill Clinton had remained on the sidelines. But 
     Browner maneuvered the President into a corner, where he 
     faced the politically embarrassing choice of supporting her 
     controversial initiatives or disavowing his outspoken EPA 
     administrator. Clinton then got to the head of the parade by 
     declaring his support for Browner. The game was over. Browner 
     1, Congress 0.
       If EPA's new standards survive congressional and legal 
     challenges, state and local governments will have to devise 
     elaborate State Implementation Plans, or SIPs, detailing 
     their strategies for complying with the agency's latest 
     regulatory diktat. And in accordance with the Clean Air Act, 
     it will be up to the EPA to approve or disapprove the SIPs. 
     The estimated cost of compliance with the new standards for 
     the Chicago area alone is projected to be between $3 billion 
     and $7 billion.
       ``I wish we never had that fight with Congress,'' she tells 
     Forbes. ``I wish it could have been avoided. I think it came 
     at great expense to the country. I think it was very 
     unfortunate.'' Note the implication: The way it could have 
     been avoided was for Congress to avoid challenging her.
       You can admire Browner's skill and still be appalled by 
     what she is doing. ``This is by far the most politicized EPA 
     I've seen in my three decades of working in state 
     governments,'' says Russell J. Harding, director of 
     Michigan's Depatment of Environmental Quality. ``It is an 
     agency driven more by sound bites than by sound science.''
       Says Barry McBee, chairman of the Texas Natural Resource 
     Conservation Commission: ``EPA continues to embody an 
     outdated attitude that Washington knows best, that only 
     Washington has the capability to protect our environment. 
     States are closer to the people they protect and closer to 
     the resources and can do a better job today.''
       As a weapon to humble the state regulatory bodies, Carol 
     Browner's EPA has embraced the politically correct concept of 
     ``environmental justice.'' This broadens EPA's mandates even 
     beyond protection of everyone's health.
       In early 1993 Browner set up the Office of Environmental 
     Justice within EPA which, among other things, passes out 
     taxpayer-funded grants for studying the effects of industrial 
     pollutants on poorer, mostly black, communities. In 1994 the 
     White House supported this initiative by ordering federal 
     agencies to consider the health and environmental effects of 
     their decisions on minority and low-income communities.
       That's the rhetoric. The reality is that the federal 
     agencies have a new weapon for overruling state agencies. 
     Browner's EPA recently delayed the approval of a $700 million 
     polyvinyl chloride plant to be built by Japanese-owned 
     Shintech in the predominantly black southern Louisiana town 
     of Convent. Louisiana's Department of Environmental Quality 
     had already given the go-ahead; the plant would have created 
     good-paying jobs and opportunities in an area suffering from 
     60% unemployment and low incomes. But the EPA argued that 
     blacks would suffer disproportionately from potentially 
     cancer-causing emissions of the plant in an area already 
     lined with chemical factories of all descriptions.
       Louisiana Economic Development Director Kevin Reilly was 
     enraged. ``It is demeaning and despicable for these people to 
     play the race card,'' he says, pointing out that poor people 
     and blacks would have gained economically and were at little 
     health risk. The scientific evidence bears Reilly out: A 
     recent article in the Journal of the Louisiana Medical 
     Society found that cancer incidence in the area is in most 
     cases no higher than nationally.
       But never mind the facts: This kind of decision has less to 
     do with science than with power politics. It delivers the 
     message: Don't mess with the EPA. ``Carol Browner is the best 
     hardball player in the Clinton Administration,'' says Steven 
     J. Milloy, executive director of The Advancement of Sound 
     Science Coalition in Washington, a longtime critic of EPA who 
     acknowledges receiving funding from industry. ``She has the 
     105th Congress completely intimated by her debating skills 
     and her sheer grasp of facts, however questionable. She eats 
     their lunch.''
       Like many Clintonites, Browner takes her own good time 
     about responding to congressional requests for EPA documents. 
     When word got out that EPA was developing a series of 
     proposals for reducing U.S. emissions of man-made greenhouse 
     gases, the House Commerce Committee asked for a copy. The EPA 
     ignored the request for two years.
       When the proposals were leaked to the committee late last 
     week, it was immediately clear why EPA had stiffed Congress. 
     The document was loaded with proposals for raising taxes to 
     pay for new EPA initiatives. Produced in the agency's Office 
     of Policy, Planning & Evaluation and dated May 31, 1994, 
     EPA's ``Climate Change Action'' recommends a new 50-cent-per-
     gallon gasoline tax, with an estimated cost to motorists of 
     $47 billion in the year 2000 alone. Seven other tax increases 
     were recommended: a ``greenhouse gas tax,'' a ``carbon 
     tax,'' a ``btu tax,'' an ``at-the-source ad-volorem tax'' 
     on the value of the fuel at the source of extraction,

[[Page S11007]]

     an ``end-use ad valorem tax'' on the value of the fuel at 
     the point of sale, a ``motor fuels tax'' on the retail 
     price of gasoline and diesel, an ``oil import fee.'' Also 
     recommended: A new federal fee on vehicle emissions tests 
     of $40 per person to ``shift the cost of vehicle 
     inspection from the state to the vehicle owner.''
       How could they hope to get so many new taxes through a tax-
     shy Congress? The ``Climate Change Action Plan'' contains 
     repeated references to how each of the above taxes and fees 
     can be imposed under existing laws. Talk about taxation 
     without representation.
       It's not entirely surprising that Browner and her crew 
     think in terms of government-by-edict. Browner's 
     extraordinary power is in many ways a consequences of 
     Congress' delegation of its lawmaking power to the EPA. It 
     has let the agency micromanage environmental activities 
     throughout the nation with little regard for either local 
     wishes or the cost. This negligence has permitted the agency 
     to ignore scientific data that conflict with agency 
     orthodoxy. The EPA is in many ways becoming a state within 
     the state.
       ``This is Washington at its worst--out-of-touch bureaucrats 
     churning out red tape with reckless abandon. The EPA hasn't 
     taken into account an ounce of reality,'' says Representative 
     Fred Upton (R-Mich.), a frequent critic, referring to the new 
     clean air rules.
       If science isn't Browner's strong point, political tactics 
     are. Her enemies can only envy the way the EPA uses the 
     courts. An organization such as the Natural Resources Defense 
     Council will go into federal court and sue to force the EPA 
     to do something. The EPA will wink and, after the courts 
     expand its mandate, see to it that big legal fees go to the 
     NRDC.
       Mission creep, in short, takes many forms and its 
     practitioners have many ways to plunder the public purse.
       For her part, Browner often dismisses as simple male 
     chauvinism any criticism of her hardball tactics. ``I think 
     sometimes that it's an issue of men and women,'' she says, 
     coyly.
       Such cute demagoguery aside, there is no doubting Browner's 
     sincerity. She is an environmentalist zealot. She was clearly 
     behind the decision to tighten the clean air standards to 
     what many people regard as unreasonable levels. If not a 
     tree-hugger she is philosophically close to Al Gore and his 
     quasi-religious environmentalism.
       After graduating from University of Florida law school, 
     Browner (both of whose parents were college teachers) went to 
     work for a Ralph Nader-affiliated consumer advocate group. 
     There she met her husband, Michael Podhorzer, who still works 
     there.
       She learned politics working on Gore's Senate staff, where 
     she rose to be his legislative director before heading back 
     to Florida to head the state environmental commission.
       After the EPA, what's next for this tough and aggressive 
     politician? If Al Gore's presidential hopes aren't dashed by 
     the fund-raising scandals, there's vice presidential slot on 
     the Democratic ticket up for grabs in 2000. A female 
     environmentalist and mother of a young boy would do a lot to 
     bolster Gore's otherwise soggy appeal.
       In a statement to Forbes, Gore went so far as to try to 
     claim for Browner some of the credit for the current economic 
     prosperity. ``She has helped prove,'' he declares, ``that a 
     healthy environmental and a strong economy are inextricably 
     linked.''
       If not a vice presidential run, what? Could Browner be 
     nominated by the Clinton Administration to be the next head 
     of the United Nations' environment program? Or would the 
     Administration nominate her as the new U.N. Deputy Secretary 
     General? Either position would give Browner instant 
     international visibility, which couldn't hurt her political 
     prospects in Washington.
       One way or another, you are going to be hearing a lot more 
     about Carol M. Browner; whenever you do, it's unlikely to be 
     good news for business--and it may not even be good news for 
     the environmental.

  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I believe that we have 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 minutes under the control of the 
Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] and the Senator from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina is here. So 
with your permission, we will proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Ford and Mr. Faircloth pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1310 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Nebraska is 
recognized. There will now be 35 minutes under control of the Senator 
from Idaho [Mr. Craig] and the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Hagel].

                          ____________________