Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today for myself and on the behalf of my colleague, Dr. Coburn, to reintroduce a bill to honor the memory of an American hero and proud son from our great State of Oklahoma. Ernest Childers was the first Native American to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. This is our Nation's highest military award and it was awarded to him by Congress ``for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty in action.'' Ernest Childers was born in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, on February 1, 1918 as the third of five children. His father died when he was young and he grew up mostly on a farm. His hunting skills in his youth provided much of the food for his family and formed the basis of a great military career. Ernest Childers enlisted in the Oklahoma National Guard in 1937 while attending the Chilocco Indian School in north-central Oklahoma. He then went to Fort Sill in Lawton, Oklahoma, for basic training before being deployed to Africa in World War II. On September 22, 1943, despite a broken instep that forced him to crawl, Second Lieutenant Childers advanced against enemy machine gun nests in Oliveto, Italy, killing two snipers and capturing an enemy mortar observer in the process. His actions were instrumental in helping the Americans win the Battle of Oliveto and won him the Congressional Medal of Honor. He continued his career in the Army earning several other military awards including the Combat Infantry Badge, Europe and Africa Campaign Medals, The Purple Heart, The Bronze Star, and the Oklahoma Distinguished Service Cross. He retired from the Army in August of 1965 as a lieutenant colonel in Oklahoma's 45th Infantry Division. Ernest Childers passed away on March 17, 2005, and was Oklahoma's last Congressional Medal of Honor winner still living in the State. He was an honored guest of many Presidential inaugurations and as a Creek Indian, was named Oklahoma's Most Outstanding Indian by the Tulsa Chapter of the Council of American Indians in 1966. He once said ``The American Indian has only one country to defend, and when you're picked on, the American Indian never turns his back.'' I am proud and believe it is only appropriate to introduce once again this year a bill to rename the Department of Veterans Affairs' Outpatient Clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Ernest Childers Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic to honor the enduring legacy of a true hero and fine soldier. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today for myself and on the behalf of my colleague, Dr. Coburn, to reintroduce a bill to honor the memory of an American hero and proud son from our great State of Oklahoma. Ernest Childers was the first Native American to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. This is our Nation's highest military award and it was awarded to him by Congress ``for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty in action.'' Ernest Childers was born in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, on February 1, 1918 as the third of five children. His father died when he was young and he grew up mostly on a farm. His hunting skills in his youth provided much of the food for his family and formed the basis of a great military career. Ernest Childers enlisted in the Oklahoma National Guard in 1937 while attending the Chilocco Indian School in north-central Oklahoma. He then went to Fort Sill in Lawton, Oklahoma, for basic training before being deployed to Africa in World War II. On September 22, 1943, despite a broken instep that forced him to crawl, Second Lieutenant Childers advanced against enemy machine gun nests in Oliveto, Italy, killing two snipers and capturing an enemy mortar observer in the process. His actions were instrumental in helping the Americans win the Battle of Oliveto and won him the Congressional Medal of Honor. He continued his career in the Army earning several other military awards including the Combat Infantry Badge, Europe and Africa Campaign Medals, The Purple Heart, The Bronze Star, and the Oklahoma Distinguished Service Cross. He retired from the Army in August of 1965 as a lieutenant colonel in Oklahoma's 45th Infantry Division. Ernest Childers passed away on March 17, 2005, and was Oklahoma's last Congressional Medal of Honor winner still living in the State. He was an honored guest of many Presidential inaugurations and as a Creek Indian, was named Oklahoma's Most Outstanding Indian by the Tulsa Chapter of the Council of American Indians in 1966. He once said ``The American Indian has only one country to defend, and when you're picked on, the American Indian never turns his back.'' I am proud and believe it is only appropriate to introduce once again this year a bill to rename the Department of Veterans Affairs' Outpatient Clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Ernest Childers Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic to honor the enduring legacy of a true hero and fine soldier. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution honoring the efforts and contributions of the members of the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives Program under the Civil Affairs and Military Government Sections of the U.S. Armed Forces during and following World War II. This group, known as the ``Monuments Men,'' was responsible for the preservation, protection, and restitution of priceless artistic, and cultural treasures in countries occupied by the Allied armies. In 1938, the Nazi party in Germany began a wide-scale confiscation of millions of pieces of artwork and other cultural artifacts throughout continental Europe, including masterpieces by Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Rembrandt. Much of the art was confiscated from Nazi- conquered Europe, as well as from Jewish private collectors who were forced to relinquish their property rights. In 1944, with the Allied armies rolling across Europe, the Monuments Men began their work. They were given the charge of protecting the cultural treasures of Europe, which proved to be a daunting task, given that they, at times, had to protect these treasures from friend as well as foe. Their first task was to prevent Allied forces in the field from damaging national monuments and from damaging or looting public or private collections. In the spring of 1945, the Monuments Men began discovering large caches of Nazi- confiscated artwork and artifacts. They began the arduous process of cataloging and repatriating the artwork and artifacts to their rightful owners. I would like to take this moment to recognize the efforts of a couple of my fellow Oklahomans who served as Monuments Men. CPT Walter Johan Huchthausen served as a Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives officer with the U.S. 9th Army in Europe. Captain Huchthausen was born in Perry, OK on December 19, 1904. He earned a master of architecture degree from Harvard University in 1930 and went on to become the director of the Department of Design at the Boston Museum School of Fine Arts before joining the faculty at the University of Minnesota. Captain Huchthausen enlisted in 1942. He served as a Monuments Man in France and Germany before he was tragically killed by gunfire in April of 1945 while working to salvage an altarpiece in a German town. Technical SGT Horace V. Apgar of Oklahoma City was transferred to the Monuments Men in Frankfurt in 1945, where he was involved in the retrieval and restitution of Jewish property. He was then assigned to the Rothschild home in Paris, which was being used as a depository for recovered Jewish artifacts stolen from synagogues and temples. Mr. Apgar returned home after the war and sought a career in music. He graduated from the Eastman School of Music at the University of Rochester in 1949 served as a bass teacher at the University of Oklahoma from 1951 to 1955. He went on to a 56-year career with the Oklahoma City Philharmonic Orchestra. It is in large part due to the tireless efforts of Captain Huchthausen, Sergeant Apgar, and the many brave American men and women who served as Monuments Men that over 5 million works of art and other cultural treasures were protected and preserved following the collapse of the Nazi regime.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is very simple. I hope everyone understands and is listening. We are going to have an opportunity in a few minutes to vote on another amendment which we will describe at that time with 2 minutes equally divided. If you are opposed to English as the national language of the United States, then vote for the Salazar amendment. That is exactly what it does. His amendment says anyone who receives Federal money is entitled--this is an entitlement--to have the documentation in any language he or she chooses. It could be in Swahili, French, any other language. So if you are opposed to English as the national language, go ahead and vote for this amendment. But keep in mind, when you do, that 91 percent of Americans are on our side of this issue and want English to be the national language, and 76 percent of the Hispanics, as a result of a poll that was taken in May of this year--a Zogby poll--are for English as the national language. I ask you to defeat the Salazar amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I object.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last year, a year and a month ago, we had this same vote. Sixty-two people in this Chamber voted in favor of it, and I will ask them to do the same again. This, very simply--we talked about this many times--makes English the official, the national language of the United States as opposed to giving an entitlement to anyone, to any other language, which is in, of course, the amendment we passed. If this amendment passes, it will go to conference, and we will have an opportunity to do something in conference to decide whether it is a combination of these or one or the other should prevail. So I ask that you do what 90 percent of your constituents want you to do and that is vote yes on the Inhofe amendment to make English the national language of the United States of America.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Colorado and I have each had 5 minutes on my amendment. I have not had 5 minutes in rebuttal of the amendment of the Senator from Colorado. Let me tell you what is going on. I know a lot people in this Chamber are going to think no one is going to figure this out. I am going to say it over and over again after this is over if the outcome is as I anticipate it will be. First, this is probably the first time in 20 years we have had an honest effort where we can make English our national language in the United States of America. This is something all the polling data shows is in the nineties--91 percent, 93 percent of the people in America who want to have this amendment adopted. In fact, a Zogby poll last month in May showed 76 percent of the Hispanics in America want to have English as the national language. The Salazar amendment is precisely what the underlying bill is. The underlying bill--and I can read it to my colleagues, but I have done it three times on the floor already--yes, it does put into law the controversial Executive Order 13166. My colleagues have heard a lot about this from their constituents. It says you are entitled to have your information, if you receive Government money, in any language of your choosing--Swahili or any other language. That is what is in the underlying bill. That also is in the Salazar amendment. This is what is going to be happening. My colleagues have a chance to change all of this when they vote on the Inhofe amendment, which is I believe the third amendment in line tonight. What I don't want my colleagues to do is vote for my amendment and then vote for the Salazar amendment. All that does is put it right back where the bill is now. In other words, it would do away with my amendment and put it back as the language is in the underlying bill. So there is no reason in the world to do it, unless someone is trying to cover up their true position. If my colleagues believe we should join the other 50 countries, such as Kenya, Ghana, and other countries around the world, that have English as their official language, then this is a chance to do it. If my colleagues do not believe it, then this is their chance to vote against the Inhofe amendment. It is an act of hypocrisy if colleagues vote for the Inhofe amendment and then vote for the Salazar amendment to undo the Inhofe amendment. That happened a year ago. Democrats and Republicans did that. However, this time it will not go unnoticed. It is interesting that every President back to and including Teddy Roosevelt in 1916 said very emphatically that we should have English as our official language, as our national language. It was said by President Clinton, it was said by the other President Roosevelt, by both President Bushes, and everyone has been for it. I have a listing I wish to make part of the Record that shows all of the polling data in the last 5 years. It shows that between 85 and 95 percent of the American people want this amendment adopted. My colleagues can turn their backs on them or they can try the old trick they do around here all the time: Vote for the Inhofe amendment, and then turn around to vote to undo it if they want. One thing that was stated by the Senator from Colorado was there are a lot of statutes this would negate. I remind my colleagues, if they read this bill, it says: Unless specifically provided by statute, no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform, or provide services or provide materials in any language other than English. I have a list I also want to be made part of the Record that shows there are many statutes where they mandate languages other than English. A good example is the Court Interpreters Act. That is put in there to protect the sixth amendment to the Constitution, so people can be advised of their rights. Again, my colleagues are going to have the opportunity to vote to make English our national language. I hope they will adopt this. They will certainly be serving their constituents well if they do. But if they do, they shouldn't turn around and undo what they just did because that is not going to go unnoticed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the polling information and the list of selected Federal laws requiring the use of languages other than English be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I understand that. Parliamentary inquiry: Since we are talking about two amendments, the Salazar amendment and the Inhofe amendment, then I would assume there would be another 10 minutes equally divided later on this evening if it is the desire of the offerors; is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry, before the Senator speaks: Is the 2 minutes equally divided?

Mr. INHOFE. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me tell you something procedurally that is going to happen here in about an hour at 10 o'clock. There is a list of amendments. First, there are two of them, and then the Salazar amendment will be considered. After that, the Inhofe amendment will be considered. Now, I want to get something understood procedurally because I think it is very important for everyone, particularly the occupant of the chair at this time, who has the Salazar amendment, to know what is going on. A year ago, we debated the Inhofe amendment that would make English the national language for the United States of America. We debated it at length, hour after hour. We talked about that every President back to and including Theodore Roosevelt in 1916 made comments that English should be the official and should be the national language of the United States of America. We talked about the 50 countries that have English as a national language, one being in west Africa--Ghana--and one being in east Africa--Kenya--but not the United States of America. Now, one of the things that happened a year ago is I had my amendment up, which is essentially the same amendment that will be up tonight. I would like to have you listen carefully. It is really a one-sentence amendment. All it says is: Unless specifically provided by statute, no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services, or provide materials in any language other than English. In other words, this is an entitlement. Now, it has exceptions in there for laws that are on the books, such as laws protecting the sixth amendment, which would be the Court Interpreters Act and other such things. However, it was aimed--I don't want to act as if I am hiding this because we talked about this a year ago. One of the things has been very controversial: At the very end of the Clinton administration was when he passed Executive Order No. 13166, and 13166 essentially said that if you are a recipient of Federal funds, then your documentation can all be done in whatever language you desire, so it could be Swahili, it could be Spanish, or any other language. Now, what happened a year ago was they passed my amendment--and my amendment was exactly the same as it is today--and it passed by a vote of 62 to 35. Does that sound right? So, 62 to 35. Then right after that, the Salazar amendment--and I see the Senator from Colorado is preparing to respond--was passed, which gutted my amendment, did away with it. So those individuals who voted for my amendment and then voted for the Salazar amendment--and there are quite a few Democrats and Republicans who did that--voted to make English the official language and then, in the next vote, 3 minutes later, voted to take it away. Now, I see that this is happening again tonight because, unfortunately, I have to offer my amendment first. I anticipate it will be adopted because it is very popular. Right now, the polling shows that 91 percent of the people in America want English as an official language, and 76 percent of Hispanics believe English should be an official language. Now, I am prepared to go on and debate this issue. I should not have to do it since 62 Members of this body already voted in favor of it. What I am going to say now, though, is very significant because if you vote for the Inhofe amendment when it comes up tonight, then vote for the Salazar amendment, you are essentially saying you are gutting the Inhofe amendment and you do not want English to be the official or the national language of the United States of America. The Salazar amendment is exactly the language in the underlying bill. I have it before me. I would be glad to read it. In fact, I am not sure how this time is going to work out. If we have time equally divided, I am going to run out of time. So I will just state that the language is precisely the same in the underlying bill. The underlying bill actually puts into law executive orders, and this specific executive order of 13166, which gives anyone an entitlement to any language he or she wants, will become law. That is the language which is in there right now. I am attempting to change that language. If my amendment is adopted, it will change. However, the next vote is going to be on the Salazar amendment. I am just saying to you, as my friends out here, do not vote for both of us because if you vote for both of us, you are voting to make English the official language, and then, in the very next vote, you are taking it away and reinstating the original language in the bill. So I hope no one is going to think it is going to go unnoticed if anyone votes for my amendment and then votes to kill the amendment they just supported. That is what is going to happen tonight. I look forward to the vote.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me make an inquiry. It is my understanding that under the UC, all of the eight amendments that will be considered on the floor have been called up and are in order to be considered; is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I got a very early phone call from my daughter in Italy. Of course, their time is 6 hours ahead of ours, and they heard about Craig before we did. I have listened to some of my colleagues talking about Craig. You know, there are some people you have more in common with than others. I can recall Craig and I both came to the House of Representatives about the same time. Then we both decided we would run for the Senate in 1994. That was a decision we made. We talked to each other and we decided that that would be the best thing for us to do and perhaps we would be able to articulate our concerns a little bit more. He was a marine, I was in the Army. We had a lot in common. I think it was Mitch McConnell or perhaps Harry Reid this morning who talked about his calm toughness, his way of expressing himself. I have always been very envious. I would come down, and I would watch Craig Thomas on the floor. He would say things as antagonistically, as offensively as I would, except people loved him when he said it and they hated me when I said it. I was never able to master that. I watched him day after day, month after month, and year after year being able to do that. I think Mike Enzi is right when he said Craig Thomas was the voice of the Senate. Let me correct Senator McConnell on one thing he said. I chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee when Craig Thomas was on that committee. This morning Mitch McConnell said he was as much at home on a horse as he was in a committee meeting. Well, let me correct you because he was much more at home on a horse than he would be in that committee meeting. I can remember seeing him staring off, and then I would go over and visit while some people were testifying, perhaps on the other side, and he would tell me his stories. He was a real cowboy. A lot of us ride horses in parades; he was a real cowboy and such a great guy. Many years ago, I was mayor of Tulsa. We had our annual meeting in Ketchum, ID. I was flying a plane up there, when we were weathered in in Saratoga, WY. Saratoga, WY, is a town that Lewis & Clark came through at the bend of the river. I fell in love with that town. For the next 7 years that I served in the capacity of being mayor, I always purposefully stayed in Saratoga, WY. I went up to him in the House of Representatives in the 1980s, and I said: Craig, you know when I was in--when I would stop, make my stop in Saratoga, WY, and stay at the Wolf Hotel--I might add, I would stay at the Wolf Hotel in the presidential suite; it was the only one with a bathroom in it. I told him almost everyone I would run into on the streets of Saratoga, WY, reminded me of Craig Thomas. These are salt- of-the-earth people, wonderful people, people I learned to dearly love. Kay told me this morning, when we heard about Craig, she said: You probably forgot this, but when you were in voting on the day that we had the spouses dinner, that was 2 weeks ago today, on Tuesday, I saw him walking across the parking lot while I was waiting for you to vote, and he was walking a little slower than usual. I said: Hey, handsome. And his whole face lit up. And he came over and he embraced Kay. That is the way that he was to a lot of people. So let me say this to Peter, Paul, Patrick and Lexie and Susan. Susan, you have some people you have heard from this morning who dearly love you and would love to have some way of comforting you. We know how difficult it is. We will pray for you, for your kids. I have to say this also, I do not think it has been said yet about Craig. Craig Thomas was probably the most consistent Member of the Senate prayer breakfast because he was always there. Mike Enzi knows this because he is the chairman now. He was always there. I give the Scripture at this thing. So we knew that if we did not see Craig Thomas anyplace else during the week, we would see him at the Senate Prayer Breakfast. The Senate Prayer Breakfast is similar to a lot of these things. It is based on Acts 2:42. Acts 2:42 is the genesis of these meetings you do on a regular basis. You get together and you do four things: eat together, pray together, fellowship together, and talk about the precepts of Jesus together. We talked about the precepts of Jesus together every Wednesday morning. That is the comfort I had with Craig Thomas. Some people, you wonder if they are going to be there. But Thomas you didn't wonder, you knew. So, Craig, all I can say is, this is not goodbye, this is, ``We will see you later.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Gas Petroleum Refiner Improvement and Community Empowerment Act or Gas PRICE Act. While chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I sought to move a similar measure. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle managed to block the bill at that time. Today, motorists are facing record high gas prices and according to Labor statistics, those higher fuel prices are hurting the national economy as a whole. Unfortunately, the pain at the pump, the grocery store, and the shopping mall were predicted long ago and are largely a function of politicking, rhetoric, and finger pointing, actions that continue today. According to Deutsche Bank energy experts Paul Sankey and Rich Volina, who testified May 15, 2007 before the Senate Energy Committee, ``Anybody who blames record high U.S. gasoline prices on ``gouging'' at the pump simply reveals their total ignorance of global supply and demand fundamentals.'' Yet yesterday the House narrowly passed a bill that; goes just that; goes after so called ``gougers'' while doing nothing to affect supply. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will join me and quickly pass the bill I am introducing today. Our constituents elected us to solve problems and make their lives better, not to name call and demagogue. I have been talking about the lack of adequate refining supplies for some years. In May 2004, while chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I held a hearing on the environmental issues regarding oil refining. The committee received testimony about the lack of adequate refining capacity and the obstacles the industry faced in order to meet consumer demand. In a May 2005 speech, then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated, ``The status of world refining capacity has become worrisome as well. Of special concern is the need to add adequate coking and desulphurization capacity to convert the average gravity and sulphur content of much of the world's crude oil to the lighter and sweeter needs of product markets, which are increasingly dominated by transportation fuels that must meet ever-more stringent environmental requirements.'' The fact of the matter is that, like it or not, the U.S. needs to increase its refining capacity if we are to solve the economic struggles facing every family. The bill I am introducing today redefines and broadens our understanding of a ``refinery'' to be a ``domestic fuels facility.'' Oil has been and will continue to play a major role in the U.S. economy, but the future of our domestic transportation fuels system must also include new sources such as ultra-clean syn-fuels derived from coal and cellulosic ethanol derived from home-grown grasses and biomass. Expanding existing domestic fuels facilities like refineries or constructing new ones face a maze of environmental permitting challenges. The Gas PRICE Act provides a Governor with the option of requiring the Federal EPA to provide the state with financial and technical resources to accomplish the job and establishes a certain permitting process for all parties. And it does so without waiving environmental laws and working with local governments. The public demands increasing supplies of transportation fuel, but they also expect that fuel to be good for their health and the environment. To that end, the bill requires the EPA to establish a demonstration to assess the use of Fischer-Tropsch FT diesel and jet fuel as an emission control strategy. Initial tests have found that FT diesel emits 25 percent less NOX, nearly 20 percent less PM1O, and approximately 90 percent less SOX than low sulfur petroleum diesel. Further, U.S. Air Force tests at Tinker base in my home state found that blends of FT aircraft fuel reduced particulate 47-90 percent and completely eliminated SOX emissions over contemporary fuels in use today. Good concepts in Washington are bad ideas if no one wants them at home. As a former Mayor of Tulsa, I am a strong believer in local and state control. The Federal Government should provide incentives to not mandate on local communities. Increasing clean domestic fuel supplies is in the nation's security interest, but those facilities can also provide high paying jobs to people and towns in need. My bill provides financial incentives to the two most economically distressed communities in the Nation, towns affected by BRAC and Indian tribes consider building coal-to-liquids and commercial scale cellulosic ethanol facilities. I am very proud that my home state of Oklahoma is a leader in the development of energy crops for cellulosic biofuels, and specifically coordinated programs through the Noble Foundation in Ardmore. The key now is to promote investment in this exciting area, and nothing would speed the rapid expansion of the cellulosic biofuels industry more than investment by the Nation's traditional providers of liquid transportation fuels. Many integrated oil companies have formed or substantially expanded their biofuels divisions within the past year to prepare for the eventuality of cost-competitive cellulosic biofuels. Cellulosic biorefineries will want to create an assured supply of feedstock and will enter into long-term contracts with surrounding biomass producers. One of the incentives for oil companies to invest in exploration is that their stock prices are affected by their declared proved reserves. Creating a definition of renewable reserves would create a similar incentive for them to invest in cellulosic biofuels. In 1975, Congress directed the SEC to promulgate a definition of proved reserves. At that time, the SEC based its definition upon broadly-accepted industry standards established by the Society of Petroleum Engineers 1978 FASB System. While no broadly accepted industry standards yet exist for thinking about dedicated energy crops, industry, growers and agronomists could be brought together to agree on standards and practices. Agronomists could play a similar role in estimation of renewable reserves to that of petroleum engineers in proved reserves by providing independent projections of biomass yields. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Department of Energy to accelerate the commercial development of oil shale and tar sands. As these unconventional fuel sources reach viability, the SEC will be pressured to develop methodology to incorporate them into its reserves hierarchy. Given the country's interest in developing renewable alternatives to fossil fuels, it is logical that the SEC would develop criteria for the incorporation of biomass feedstock sources into its hierarchy at the same time. This is Congress's least expensive way to jumpstart the cellulosic biofuels industry. Much has changed in Washington since I was chairman of the Environment Committee and held hearings on the need to improve our domestic transportation fuels system. I hope that the new majority joins me in quickly passing the Gas PRICE Act doing so would be a material and substantive action toward their stated goal of ``energy independence'' and would go far beyond more partisan symbolism.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Gas Petroleum Refiner Improvement and Community Empowerment Act or Gas PRICE Act. While chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I sought to move a similar measure. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle managed to block the bill at that time. Today, motorists are facing record high gas prices and according to Labor statistics, those higher fuel prices are hurting the national economy as a whole. Unfortunately, the pain at the pump, the grocery store, and the shopping mall were predicted long ago and are largely a function of politicking, rhetoric, and finger pointing, actions that continue today. According to Deutsche Bank energy experts Paul Sankey and Rich Volina, who testified May 15, 2007 before the Senate Energy Committee, ``Anybody who blames record high U.S. gasoline prices on ``gouging'' at the pump simply reveals their total ignorance of global supply and demand fundamentals.'' Yet yesterday the House narrowly passed a bill that; goes just that; goes after so called ``gougers'' while doing nothing to affect supply. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will join me and quickly pass the bill I am introducing today. Our constituents elected us to solve problems and make their lives better, not to name call and demagogue. I have been talking about the lack of adequate refining supplies for some years. In May 2004, while chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I held a hearing on the environmental issues regarding oil refining. The committee received testimony about the lack of adequate refining capacity and the obstacles the industry faced in order to meet consumer demand. In a May 2005 speech, then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated, ``The status of world refining capacity has become worrisome as well. Of special concern is the need to add adequate coking and desulphurization capacity to convert the average gravity and sulphur content of much of the world's crude oil to the lighter and sweeter needs of product markets, which are increasingly dominated by transportation fuels that must meet ever-more stringent environmental requirements.'' The fact of the matter is that, like it or not, the U.S. needs to increase its refining capacity if we are to solve the economic struggles facing every family. The bill I am introducing today redefines and broadens our understanding of a ``refinery'' to be a ``domestic fuels facility.'' Oil has been and will continue to play a major role in the U.S. economy, but the future of our domestic transportation fuels system must also include new sources such as ultra-clean syn-fuels derived from coal and cellulosic ethanol derived from home-grown grasses and biomass. Expanding existing domestic fuels facilities like refineries or constructing new ones face a maze of environmental permitting challenges. The Gas PRICE Act provides a Governor with the option of requiring the Federal EPA to provide the state with financial and technical resources to accomplish the job and establishes a certain permitting process for all parties. And it does so without waiving environmental laws and working with local governments. The public demands increasing supplies of transportation fuel, but they also expect that fuel to be good for their health and the environment. To that end, the bill requires the EPA to establish a demonstration to assess the use of Fischer-Tropsch FT diesel and jet fuel as an emission control strategy. Initial tests have found that FT diesel emits 25 percent less NOX, nearly 20 percent less PM1O, and approximately 90 percent less SOX than low sulfur petroleum diesel. Further, U.S. Air Force tests at Tinker base in my home state found that blends of FT aircraft fuel reduced particulate 47-90 percent and completely eliminated SOX emissions over contemporary fuels in use today. Good concepts in Washington are bad ideas if no one wants them at home. As a former Mayor of Tulsa, I am a strong believer in local and state control. The Federal Government should provide incentives to not mandate on local communities. Increasing clean domestic fuel supplies is in the nation's security interest, but those facilities can also provide high paying jobs to people and towns in need. My bill provides financial incentives to the two most economically distressed communities in the Nation, towns affected by BRAC and Indian tribes consider building coal-to-liquids and commercial scale cellulosic ethanol facilities. I am very proud that my home state of Oklahoma is a leader in the development of energy crops for cellulosic biofuels, and specifically coordinated programs through the Noble Foundation in Ardmore. The key now is to promote investment in this exciting area, and nothing would speed the rapid expansion of the cellulosic biofuels industry more than investment by the Nation's traditional providers of liquid transportation fuels. Many integrated oil companies have formed or substantially expanded their biofuels divisions within the past year to prepare for the eventuality of cost-competitive cellulosic biofuels. Cellulosic biorefineries will want to create an assured supply of feedstock and will enter into long-term contracts with surrounding biomass producers. One of the incentives for oil companies to invest in exploration is that their stock prices are affected by their declared proved reserves. Creating a definition of renewable reserves would create a similar incentive for them to invest in cellulosic biofuels. In 1975, Congress directed the SEC to promulgate a definition of proved reserves. At that time, the SEC based its definition upon broadly-accepted industry standards established by the Society of Petroleum Engineers 1978 FASB System. While no broadly accepted industry standards yet exist for thinking about dedicated energy crops, industry, growers and agronomists could be brought together to agree on standards and practices. Agronomists could play a similar role in estimation of renewable reserves to that of petroleum engineers in proved reserves by providing independent projections of biomass yields. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Department of Energy to accelerate the commercial development of oil shale and tar sands. As these unconventional fuel sources reach viability, the SEC will be pressured to develop methodology to incorporate them into its reserves hierarchy. Given the country's interest in developing renewable alternatives to fossil fuels, it is logical that the SEC would develop criteria for the incorporation of biomass feedstock sources into its hierarchy at the same time. This is Congress's least expensive way to jumpstart the cellulosic biofuels industry. Much has changed in Washington since I was chairman of the Environment Committee and held hearings on the need to improve our domestic transportation fuels system. I hope that the new majority joins me in quickly passing the Gas PRICE Act doing so would be a material and substantive action toward their stated goal of ``energy independence'' and would go far beyond more partisan symbolism.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I thank the Senator very much for the time. Iraq Madam President, before getting into this bill, I want to comment that last week when I was there--it was my 14th time to be in the AOR of the Middle East and where the conflict is--the progress that is being made there is incredible. I sat here and I heard a couple Senators talk about how bad things were there and that we are losing and all this. This is the first time--I remember a year ago in Ramadi they actually declared Ramadi was going to be the al-Qaida capital of the Middle East or the terrorist capital of the Middle East. Right now, it is completely changed. IEDs are down 81 percent. Attacks are down 74 percent. Then, next door at Fallujah, they are now totally under the security of the Iraqi security forces. So all these good things are happening there. I wish Members of this Senate would go over there and see for themselves instead of trying to use it politically to advance their careers. You are doing a great disservice to our troops over there. But that is not why I am here in the Chamber. I appreciate the comments that have been made by the Senator from Alabama. I agree with everything he has said. My concern is at 2 a.m. on Saturday morning is when all this came up. We did not have any way of knowing exactly what was in it. Yet I am concerned about all sorts of things, such as how do you make a Z visa work. But the reason I want to have a little time right now is because I do have an amendment. It is my understanding I will be able to call up this amendment for consideration after the Senator from North Dakota has his up, and that will be later this afternoon. My amendment is the English amendment. Those Members on the floor can remember a year ago I got an amendment adopted that made English the national language for the United States of America. It passed by a vote of 62 to 35. There are some extremist groups that opposed it and, quite frankly, some of the liberal Members of the Senate were afraid to vote for it without having a backup where they could negate it. This is what happened. They voted for my amendment. The amendment is very simple. It says there is not an entitlement for language, other than the English language, to be given to people who want Government services. Very simple. That is the same way over 50 other countries, including Ghana in West Africa, have it. The Presiding Officer knows I have spent a lot of time in Africa on some of the same programs she has been involved with, and most of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa--the ones that speak English--all have English as their national language. Thirty states have it as their national language, but not we in the United States of America. There is going to be an effort on my part to get this in the bill, and I am going to use the same text I had last time. It is interesting when you hear different Presidents talk about this issue. In 1999, in his State of the Union Address, President Clinton said: Our new immigrants must be part of our one America . . . that means learning English. Everyone said ``hooray,'' and then he came along with an executive order right after that which did away with that statement completely. President Bush said: The key to unlocking the full promise of America is the ability to speak English. We know how many States have adopted this. The polling is incredible. A 2006 Zogby poll reported 84 percent of Americans--I have polls showing up to 91 percent--said English should be the national language. And 77 percent of Hispanics polled by that Zogby poll said the same thing. This poll was in 2006, only a year ago, demonstrating how many Americans believe English should be our national language. Establishing English as a national language should not be viewed as a partisan issue. It is widely supported throughout the country. In this Congress, in this immigration debate, I am again offering my amendment to make English the national language. My amendment would accomplish three things. No. 1, it would establish English as the national language of the United States of America. No. 2, it would establish that the official business of the Federal Government should be conducted in English, and eliminates all of the entitlements people would have for language other than English. Now, it does respect current law. For example, we have the Court Interpreters Act. The Court Interpreters Act is necessary to support the sixth amendment, the right to counsel, and we are making sure this doesn't affect that in a negative way. So we create no restriction of providing materials of other languages and allow certain exceptions where it is specifically mandated by statute. We made that very clear. My amendment does not prohibit the use of other languages. However, my amendment states: There is no entitlement to individuals that Federal agencies must act, communicate, perform, or provide services or materials in any language other than English. So it is hypocritical that the immigration legislation we are considering now contains a section generally recognizing the importance of English. However, this section 702 of this immigration legislation does not establish English as a national language. Now, we had this debate. We were on the Senate floor and debating this about a year ago right now, and people were hesitant to vote against it. We had every kind of excuse in the world. They came trotting in here with State flags that had foreign languages on them saying: We would have to do away with all of these State flags. It has nothing to do with that. We are talking about entitlements. We had one Member come in and say: You are going to be responsible for the deaths of Hispanics. I said: Explain that. This Member on the Senate floor, right down here, said: Well, you know, they have some bad currents down in the Potomac, and we have ``no swimming'' signs that are written in Spanish. If you don't have those, then people are going to drown. This has nothing to do with that. You can put up any kind of sign you want that is in the best public interest. We had one Member come down and say: You would never be able to speak in Spanish on the floor of the Senate. Well, that has nothing to do with it. I have made a few speeches in Spanish, and there is a reason for it which I will not go into now. But these are things that people say are problems and things that just don't hold up. Now, I think it should be pointed out--because a very good friend of mine was on a television station this morning, and I know this individual would not have said what he said if he were aware of the truth, but let me just bring this out. A year ago, when I had my amendment, which would do essentially what the amendment will do if it is passed today, Senator Salazar from Colorado came up with an amendment right afterwards. In fact, we voted on it in a matter of minutes after we voted on mine, 62 to 35, and his passed also. All his did was offer language that is totally different from mine. For example, I am going to read his. It didn't say English is the national language, it says it is a common language. Preserving and Enhancing the Role of the English Language: The Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the language of the United States. But listen to this: Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights under the laws of the United States relevant to services or materials provided by the Government of the United States in any language other than English. There it is, folks: ``Nothing herein shall diminish or expand . . .'' In other words, it is going to continue to be the same. Now, there are a lot of people out there who are going to be looking at this amendment. Americans are clamoring to have this done. They don't understand why we don't do this. I don't understand it either. But this language is found in the current immigration bill. Down here under ``definition'' in section 702, which was in the language that was put in 2 minutes after my vote took place a year ago, it says: For the purposes of this section, law is defined as including provisions of the United States Constitution, the United States Code, controlling judicial decisions, regulations, and Presidential Executive Orders. Now, this is a very significant one because what you hear about quite often is President Clinton's Executive Order No. 13166 entitlement, which offers entitlement to translation in any language of your choice, anyone who receives any Federal funds. Well, that completely opens the door for every possible language. A lot of people think we are only talking about Spanish. That is not correct. That Executive order refers to any language at all. This bill we are considering that I will oppose has language in there that would codify that Executive Order No. 13166, and I think it is one that people have to understand. The Senator from Alabama is not back, so I will take a little bit more time. I am going to read the language now that is actually in the amendment which says English shall be the national language of the Government of the United States: The Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America, unless specifically provided by statute. Now, I use as an example the court interpreters law, existing law right now. It says, unless specifically provided by statute, no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform, or provide services or provide materials in any language other than English. If an exception is made with respect to the use of a language other than English, the exception does not create a legal entitlement to additional services in that language or in any language other than English. Forms--it says: If any form is issued by the Federal Government in any language other than English, or such form is completed in a language other than English, the English language version of the form is the sole authority for all legal purposes. Again, there is one sentence in there that says: Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the use of language other than English if it is codified into law. That is what we use the Court Interpreters Act for, and a few others, where there is a constitutional reason--in this case it is the sixth amendment to the Constitution--for having that language in there. So what I will do until the Senator from Alabama returns is mention a few other things I think are significant. This is not a new issue. This is an old issue, and the old issue goes back to many years ago, to President Theodore Roosevelt in the 1900s: Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but that he has got to learn it. He has got to consider the interests of the United States or he should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in this country depend on his knowing English and observing American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an industrial asset. Now, that was President Theodore Roosevelt in 1916. I could go through--we have them all the way up, including Ronald Reagan and other Presidents. Later on, I will go over the polling data. Later on, if we have a chance to present this and debate this amendment, I am going to go over all the polling data. You cannot find any polling data that says less than 84 percent of the American people want to have English as the national language. So even LaRaza, an extremist, leftwing group, says they found in a 2004 poll that LaRaza did, 97 percent strongly--86 percent--97 percent that is strongly or somewhat agreed that the ability to speak English is important to succeed in this country. That is the extremist group. In other words, if you want to be an attorney or a doctor instead of a busboy, you need to learn the language. Now, I see the Senator from Alabama is back, but let me just repeat the one thing that I think is very important because so many of our own Members--Republicans and Democrats--believe somehow this bill positively addresses the problem or it makes English the national language. I am going to go ahead and tell you that when they put section 702 in instead of my language, section 701, all they said is English is a common language in the United States. Big deal. But it says in here: Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights under the laws of the United States relative to services or materials provided by the Government of the United States in any language other than English. Well, there it is, I say to my friend from Alabama. Nothing in here would diminish or expand. In other words, it is going to stay like it is today. But then it goes on to say--and this is the critical thing-- all the criticism of President Clinton when he passed Executive Order No. 13166, which was an entitlement for a translator in any language you want other than English, or the language of your choice if you are a recipient of Federal funds. So that definition, if we pass this bill--which I don't think we are going to, and which I don't want to for many other reasons--but if we pass it, we would say for the purposes of this section of law, the law is defined as including provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the United States Code, controlling judicial decisions, regulation, and Presidential Executive orders. In other words, we are codifying this very Executive Order that so many people in America find so offensive. So I think this is an opportunity to put this in. Quite frankly, I think unless the bill would be dramatically changed, I still wouldn't support the bill, but we need to have every opportunity we can, when we are addressing problems with immigrants or legislation of this nature, to make English the national language. Ninety percent of the American people are for it, 77 percent of the Hispanics are for it, and I am for it. I thank my colleague very much for his time, I say to the Senator from Alabama, who has done a great job. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have come a long way. I am sorry I wasn't here to hear Senator Boxer's remarks, but I am sure I agree with the remarks of the chairman of the committee. We are down now to a manageable number of amendments. We are working very diligently, and I understand there are two Republican amendments and four Democratic amendments. The time is here for us to do everything we can to try to make this happen. I think almost everyone in here, Democrat and Republican, is for this bill. It has been 7 years since we have had this reauthorization bill. It is overdue, so we need to have it now. We debated this for 2\1/2\ hours yesterday, so I would encourage any one of the authors of these six amendments to come and work with us and get this thing done. It would be a shame if we came this far and didn't get it done. So I join my chairman, Senator Boxer, in encouraging everyone to work together. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. I would like to yield whatever time the Senator from Louisiana would like to use. I have to say he has been very cooperative. I know he has gotten the most he could for Louisiana, and that is our job when we come down here. But he has been very cooperative in working things out, and I thank him so much for his cooperation.

Mr. INHOFE. As I have said before, we have an infrastructure crisis in this country. If we do not provide for adequate water transportation infrastructure, we will force even more traffic to our already-clogged highways. I believe we need to provide proper maintenance of our entire system, including the Great Lakes, not just switch focus from one component to another as they begin to fail.

Mr. INHOFE. I agree that the corps needs to make sure that its funding allocations take into consideration small harbors with large economic impacts. The corps should not develop a budget that is unfairly biased against rural communities, and which will have a detrimental effect on small-town, rural America, causing job losses, and increased hardship for businesses. We must work to protect our Nation's shipping infrastructure.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we are operating under 20 minutes equally divided, although there is more time than that before the vote. I ask unanimous consent that we be able to continue our remarks up to the time of the vote at 5:15 p.m.