Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the managers of this bill for giving me this time to make this presentation. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside for the consideration of amendment 988.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, may I ask a point of inquiry of the Senator from Massachusetts. Apparently the desk is not in agreement with what we did. We set aside the pending amendment for consideration of my amendment which I brought up and presented. Then we returned to that amendment. I would like to ask the Chair if that is accurate.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his tolerance. Mr. President, I introduced last year a bill I called the Child Medication Safety Act. We are offering it as an amendment to this underlying bill. It is my anticipation that we will get a vote on it ultimately. This is to protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance or psychotropic drug in order to attend school. The House passed their version of H.R. 1790 by 407 to 12 under suspension of the rules in November of 2005. Parents today face many challenges when raising their children, one of which is ensuring that their children receive the best education possible. My views on education come from a somewhat unique perspective in that my wife Kay was a teacher at Edison High School. My daughters are both teachers. I can assure my colleagues that I am one of the strongest supporters of quality education. However, it has come to my attention that schools have been acting as physicians or psychologists by strongly suggesting that children with behavioral problems be put immediately on some form of psychotropic drugs. Schools and teachers are not equipped to make these diagnoses and should make it mandatory for the student to continue attending the school. This is clearly beyond their area of expertise. Therefore, I am introducing this legislation to ensure that parents are not required by school personnel to medicate their children. The Child Medication Safety Act requires, as a condition of receiving funds from the Department of Education, that States develop and implement policies and procedures prohibiting school personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription as a condition of attending school. It should be noted that this bill does not prevent teachers or other school personnel from sharing with parents or guardians classroom-based observations regarding a student's academic performance or regarding the need for evaluation of for special education. Additionally, this bill calls for a study by the Comptroller General of the United States reviewing: No. 1, the variation among States in the definition of psychotropic medication as used in public education; No. 2, the prescription rates of medication used in public schools to treat children with attention deficit disorders and other such disorders; No. 3, which medications listed under the Controlled Substances Act are being prescribed to such children; and, No. 4, which medications not listed under the Controlled Substances Act are being used to treat these children and their properties and effects. This GAO report is due no later than 1 year after enactment of this act. I believe it is an extremely important amendment. It protects the rights of our children against improper intrusion regarding health issues by those not qualified. If a parent or guardian believes their child is in need of medication, then they ought to have the right to make that decision and consult with a licensed medical practitioner who is qualified to prescribe an appropriate drug. I am hoping others will join me in support of the amendment. It is a parental rights amendment that should be supported by all. With that, it is my intention that we will be putting this in line to get a vote. I ask unanimous consent now to return to the previous pending amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. I do apologize to the managers of the bill as well as to the Chair. It was my understanding that I actually had that done previously. With that, if it is proper form now to get into the mix, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 12 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. That would be fine. My intention was to set aside the pending amendment so I could consider this. Then set this aside and go back to the pending amendment.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am here today to recognize and pay tribute to COL Anthony J. ``Lazer'' Lazarski, Chief of the Air Force Senate Liaison, for his 25 years of exceptional service and dedication to the U.S. Air Force and our great country. Colonel Lazarski is a command pilot with over 2,300 flight hours in 12 different types of aircraft, including the RF-4, F-15, F-16, F-111 and F-117. He has supported combat operations around the world, to include the Libya Raid and Operations Desert Storm, Desert Fox, Allied Force, Southern Watch, and Iraqi Freedom. Throughout his military career, he has been recognized by his superiors and subordinates as a leader in the air and on the ground--an Airman with the ability to motivate and lead. COL Lazer Lazarski grew up in North Arlington, NJ, and watched them build the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center from the basement up. He earned an appointment to the Air Force Academy and graduated in 1982 with military honors. Upon completion of pilot training, he was selected to fly the F-111 and earned the distinction of Top Gun for both his T-38 Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals class and his F-111 Replacement Training Unit class. While flying in Tactical Air Command with the 79th NATO Tigers at RAF Upper Heyford, he was selected as the wing's youngest instructor pilot. Shortly thereafter, he was selected as the youngest United States Air Forces in Europe flight examiner. As a pilot, I can attest to the fact that you only allow your sharpest and most mature pilots to set, evaluate, and enforce the standards for other pilots. I happen to be a flight instructor currently. I can assure you, they are the very best people. This is a major accomplishment he was able to achieve. Colonel Lazarski later transitioned to the F-117 Stealth Fighter and earned Top Gun in his third aircraft, this time during a Southern Watch deployment over the skies of Iraq. Colonel Lazarski demonstrated he could not only deliver precise weapons on target on time, he could also motivate and lead others. In recognition of his extraordinary leadership, he was named 12th Air Force Flight Commander of the Year, and selected to attend the Naval War College. After graduating from the Naval War College in 1994, he served 3 years in Naples, Italy at NATO Headquarters, including as the aide-de- camp to two different Commanders, Allied Air Forces in Southern Europe. One of these Commanders was then LTG Mike Ryan, who would later become Air Force Chief of Staff. During his tour, he was one of the first combat troops on the ground in Sarajevo as he helped set up the NATO Air Operations Center. In 1997, he transitioned to the F-15 Strike Eagle, serving as the 336th Fighter Squadron Assistant Operations Officer and deployed commander from Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, NC. During this tour he also served as Chief of the Command Post and integrated new command and control systems to include hurricane tracking/forecasting systems put to test in 3 years of multiple hurricanes. In 2001 he graduated No. 1 from his Air War College Class, earning the Wright Brothers Officership Award and Military Outstanding Volunteer Medal. This honor earned him the right to serve the next year at Vance Air Force Base, in my home state of Oklahoma as the Deputy Operations Group Commander. Due to the superb leadership Colonel Lazarski demonstrated at Vance, he was selected as the Director of Air Combat Command's Commander Action Group--the strategic ``think tank'' for our Air Force's lead combat command. In this position he was given the immense responsibility for developing strategy, doctrine, concepts, tactics and procedures for U.S. air and space power employment. Colonel Lazarski's next assignment led him back to command, this time in Air Education Training Command as the Commander of the 479th Flying Training Group where he was responsible for training new pilots in the T-6, and new fighter pilots and weapons officers in the T-38. Colonel Lazarski oversaw 115 aircraft averaging 300 sorties a day, and despite five hurricanes in one season, no student ever graduated late under Colonel Lazarski's leadership. In 2005 at the culmination of an exceptional military career, Colonel Lazarski was reassigned to Capitol Hill as the Chief of the Air Force Senate Liaison Division. Here Colonel Lazarski integrated his remarkable experience and leadership with ceaseless integrity, initiative, and persistence to result in unparalleled effectiveness on behalf of the Air Force and our Nation. We offer our sincere thanks to Colonel Lazarski, his wife Stephanie, and their son Andrew for their unwavering support of our country and the freedom we hold so dear. We congratulate Colonel Lazarski on the completion of an exemplary active-duty career. Utilizing the theme from one of my favorite books, Message to Garcia, let me close by saying: Message delivered and job well done! Now a new mission awaits you, and I'm honored to have you serve your country again, this time as my Military Legislative Assistant. Congratulations and welcome!

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on the bill under consideration at the present time, it is my intention to--and I have already placed at the desk two amendments, 987 and 988. Briefly, what is the order right now?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendments, No. 988 and No. 987, with the intention to resubmit them when a substitute is made in a few minutes.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Today I have submitted amendments to S. 1082 requiring parental consent for intrusive physical exams administered under the Head Start Program. Young children attending Head Start Programs should not be subjected to these intrusive types of physical exams. We had an incident in my town of Tulsa, OK, where we felt that their rights, children's rights, were violated. They were subjected to different types of intrusive examinations. I will be bringing this up at an appropriate time. Secondly, briefly, as I see the manager of the bill is here, we will be introducing an amendment No. 988, having to do with protecting children from parents being coerced into administering a controlled substance or psychotropic drug in order to attend school. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, and I won't object, I am wondering why we are confining the time to 5 minutes if we have that many minutes remaining. If the Senator wishes to expand the time--

Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry, please: I ask the Senator from Washington, that takes place after the Senator from Illinois and I are recognized, is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is very difficult for me to believe some of the things I am actually hearing right now. In fact, I don't believe them after General Petraeus has made such a fine presentation to us. There are a few things in the closed session that we cannot talk about, but I have taken those out. The things we can talk about--in answer to a question, you said: Can you talk about some of the positive things that have happened? He is talking about Anbar. I am now quoting: Anbar has gone from being assessed as being lost to a situation that now is quite heartening because of the decision by a number of Sunni Arab tribes to join the fight against al-Qaida; the reduction of sectarian murders in Baghdad, that is down by approximately a third; progress in Anbar is almost something that is breathtaking--the killing of the security Amir of al-Qaida in eastern Anbar Province; the detention of the Khazali network; we have picked up the Shabani network head in Iraq. That is the explosively-formed projectile element in Iraq that gets them from others in Iraq, these are the explosively-formed projectiles. It goes on and on. He talks about the progress in Ramadi. My only wish is that so many of those who are detractors would have had the opportunity and had taken the opportunity to go and spend the time in the area of operations, in the whole area out there. But I can recall so many things that people just are not aware of here. I remember being in Tikrit. Tikrit is where they had the Iraqi security forces building that was blown up. Forty of them were either-- these are Iraqi security trainees--40 either were killed or were injured so that they would not be able to go back to the fields. You know, the families--you do not hear about this--of all 40 of these supplied the one who had died with another member of the family. In other words, they have this commitment that is so strong. I asked the general yesterday, I said: Are you still getting the family support that I witnessed when I was over there? He said: It is even stronger now. They are lined up and talking about it. The Iraqi security forces in Fallujah--now, that was a great experience that I had, having the honor of being there during two of their elections. The Iraqi security forces go out and vote the day before the rest of the public votes for two reasons: one, so they can provide security for the public when they vote, and the second reason is that they go out there knowing that is the risky time. They are willing to risk their lives, and several of them in the Fallujah area died just in the process of voting. I remember sitting down with the general--his name is General Mahdi-- and he was one, I have to say--he was the brigade commander for Saddam Hussein. He hated Americans. He was the one who said--when they came in there after the fall of Saddam Hussein--he was still the brigade commander for the Iraqis until the marines came to Fallujah and started training with the Iraqi security forces. He made the statement--he said: We became so close to the marines--this is the general who had been Saddam Hussein's brigade commander. He said: We became so close to the marines that when they rotated out, we got together and we all cried. We went from there on up, flew in a Black Hawk, and the easiest way to get around there is to fly low and fast over the Triangle, only to see the little kids down there waving American flags. I just wonder, if something like this is passed and we are telling all of those kids down there and we are telling the Iraqi security forces that are doing so well right now in their advanced training, that they are now on the point of these invasions that are taking place, the defenses that are taking place all throughout Iraq, that we are saying that we are the cut-and-run guys, we built up your hopes, we now see an improved Iraq, we see hospitals are opened, we see manufacturers that are making clothing, we see girls who are going to school when this has never happened in the history of Iraq, we have seen all of this progress, but we are going to dump on you now. So I just hope that we can stand back from the politics and do the right thing and get a good resolution--defeat this bill, get it vetoed, get a good resolution so we can finish what we started and give General Petraeus a chance to finish what he has started so successfully. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have already stated what this amendment does. It does try to get some sense into some of these organizations advocating noncompetitiveness or anticompetitiveness for the United States. One such organization is called the OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This organization I have already talked about, but one of the things they advocate is high taxes for the United States. In order to make sure we can still use this organization for a function that seems to be desirable by the tax committee, I will read the modification. The amendment currently reads: Notwithstanding any other provision of the Law; no federal funds shall be provided to any organization or entity that advocates against tax competition or United States tax competitiveness. This is the modification: Provided, however, that advocating for effective tax information exchange, advocating for effective transfer pricing, and advocating for income tax treaties is not considered to be advocating against the competition of United States tax competitiveness. I think we have taken care of that need. With that, I ask that we get into the mix here so we can get a vote on this or else agreement.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we had some objection to this amendment. We have been working with people from both tax committees and the Foreign Relations Committee. I have agreed to some language. I will read the language, but first I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 955.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is going to be my intention in just a moment to bring up and ask for the immediate consideration of my amendment, No. 955. We are working on a modification to make sure those on the Finance Committee will find it to be acceptable. I have discussed this with the leadership and the minority. However, it will take a minute to get the language up. Essentially, what the amendment will say is, notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no Federal funds shall be provided to any organization or entity that advocates against tax competition or U.S. tax competitiveness. Now, I cannot think of anything that would be more significant in a competitiveness bill than to have this language. There are several organizations, one of which is called the OECD, which is the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. This organization actually was transformed back in 1961 after the Marshall Plan came into effect, and they have been, over a period of time, advocating increases in taxes for the United States. In fact, over the past fairly short period of time, 24 different times they have advocated increases in U.S. taxes. One was--I will just list them here--a value-added tax, a 40-cent increase in the gas tax, a carbon tax, a fertilizer tax, ending the deductibility of State and local taxes in the calculation of Federal taxes, new taxes at the State level, and a host of other new and innovative taxes on U.S. citizens. They also have advocated for a period of time a global taxation scheme. It is very difficult to find anyone in this country who would say this is in our best interest. Now, in this particular organization there are some things they do that I have found have been helpful. So the modifications I am making will list three things that will not be considered under this act to be anticompetitive. That is the language I am waiting for right now, which we should have in the next couple of minutes. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, what the Senator from New Mexico is suggesting is exactly what I have in mind. I have an amendment I will be calling up at an appropriate time that is mutually agreeable. It does affect the taxation end. I have talked to Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley. I believe they are going to be favorable toward it. There are not many one-sentence amendments. That is what this one is. Let me read it to you and tell you why I am offering it. Then I will wait until tomorrow and hopefully get in the mix. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law; no federal funds shall be provided to any organization or entity that advocates against tax competition or United States tax competitiveness. Let me just give you an example. After World War II, there was an effort to implement the Marshall Plan. When that was done, in 1961, an organization was formed that was called the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This is an international organization which advocates tax increases for the United States specifically to make us less competitive. They have stated explicitly that low-tax policies ``unfairly erode the tax bases of other countries and distort the location of capital and services.'' What we have here is a Paris-based bunch of bureaucrats seeking to protect high-tax welfare states from the free market. That is why the OECD goes on to say that free market tax competition ``may hamper the application of progressive tax rates and the achievement of redistributive goals.'' Clearly, free market tax competition makes it harder to implement socialistic welfare states. The free market, evidently, has not been fair to socialistic welfare states. Well, it is a good thing they have the OECD and nearly $100 million in U.S. taxpayer money to aid them. Noted economist Walter Williams clearly sees the direction in which this is headed when he says that ``the bottom line agenda for the OECD is to establish a tax cartel where nations get together and collude on taxes.'' Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill seconded that when he said that he was ``troubled by the underlying premise that low tax rates are somehow suspect and by the notion that any country . . . should interfere in any other country's'' tax policy. So the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has issued a report entitled ``Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue,'' which establishes a new international body, the Forum on Harmful Tax Practices, to implement the measures outlined in the report. The OECD has endorsed and encouraged higher taxes, new taxes, and global taxes no fewer than 24 times. They have advocated a value- added tax, a 40-cent increase in the gas tax, a carbon tax, a fertilizer tax, ending the deductibility of State and local taxes from Federal taxes, and new taxes at the State level. So I believe this is something we will have a chance to debate, and I would think it actually would be accepted. Again, all it is going to be is just one sentence. It reads: Notwithstanding any other provision of the law; no federal funds shall be provided to any organization or entity that advocates against tax competition or United States tax competitiveness. I cannot think of any more appropriate bill to have this on than this bill we have before us currently. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from Ohio, who has stepped aside for me.