Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from Tennessee wants to make a comment. If the Senator from Ohio would permit me, I have a very short statement to make concerning an amendment. It will not take more than 5 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Alternative Fuel Standard Act. The bill that I am introducing today reflects the President's draft legislation to which he referred in his State of the Union. Although I may have some questions with the particulars of the President's plan, he and I share the common goal of increasing domestic energy security without compromising environmental quality. As the committee of principal jurisdiction, the Committee on Environment and Public Works has a long history of moving fuels legislation. While chairman, I successfully discharged legislation that served as the historic fuels title to the comprehensive energy bill. That renewable fuels plan was the product of years of hearings, negotiation, and debate. The President's initiative deserves the same amount of attention. According to a Labor Department report this month, most of the country's inflation can be directly attributed to higher gas prices. The USDA's Economic Research Service concluded that high gas prices will increase food costs in 2007; the Service noted that the food consumer price index increased at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in 2006 and will increase 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent. The Energy Information Administration's April 2007 Outlook noted that the higher prices are due to continued international tensions, the conversion to summer blends, and unanticipated refinery problems. AAA found that the average national price for gasoline is $2.87 up from $2.55 just a month earlier. Yet those national high prices seem low compared to California. AAA of Northern California noted that the average price for gasoline is $3.41 in Oakland, $3.53 in San Francisco, and averages $3.34 statewide. The bottom line--supply source instability and inadequate domestic infrastructure have and will continue to contribute to high prices and inflation unless Congress does something about it. The President's ambitious proposal seeks to alleviate those concerns by sourcing new supply domestically. The proposal that I am introducing would amend the Clean Air Act's existing renewable fuels standard by diversifying the types of qualifying fuels and increasing the volumes. Qualifying alternative fuels will be expanded to include fuels derived from gas and coal, and hydrogen, among others. Cellulosic biomass ethanol is a promising technology that could significantly increase fuel supplies without compromising the food and feed prices. I am proud to say that some of the foremost research in the field is being done in my own State of Oklahoma, including a team at the Noble Foundation. Their work is engineering high energy and perennial crops that can be grown across the country. Similarly, coal-to-liquids fuels could be the greatest domestic energy resource of all time. I have been promoting the technology for years, particularly for defense aircraft, but now is the time to expand this super clean fuel for use across America. The plan would replace the current RFS by requiring 10 billion gallons of alternative fuel to be used in 2010 and increasing to 35 billion gallons by 2018. The bill similarly builds upon the current RFS by requiring EPA to incorporate the newer qualifying fuels into the credit trading system. I have been seeking to increase U.S. energy security for years. I am glad that the President has stepped up and taken this issue head-on. The proposal deserves careful and proper consideration. The American people require as much. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve U.S. domestic energy security while fully considering public health and welfare.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Alternative Fuel Standard Act. The bill that I am introducing today reflects the President's draft legislation to which he referred in his State of the Union. Although I may have some questions with the particulars of the President's plan, he and I share the common goal of increasing domestic energy security without compromising environmental quality. As the committee of principal jurisdiction, the Committee on Environment and Public Works has a long history of moving fuels legislation. While chairman, I successfully discharged legislation that served as the historic fuels title to the comprehensive energy bill. That renewable fuels plan was the product of years of hearings, negotiation, and debate. The President's initiative deserves the same amount of attention. According to a Labor Department report this month, most of the country's inflation can be directly attributed to higher gas prices. The USDA's Economic Research Service concluded that high gas prices will increase food costs in 2007; the Service noted that the food consumer price index increased at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in 2006 and will increase 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent. The Energy Information Administration's April 2007 Outlook noted that the higher prices are due to continued international tensions, the conversion to summer blends, and unanticipated refinery problems. AAA found that the average national price for gasoline is $2.87 up from $2.55 just a month earlier. Yet those national high prices seem low compared to California. AAA of Northern California noted that the average price for gasoline is $3.41 in Oakland, $3.53 in San Francisco, and averages $3.34 statewide. The bottom line--supply source instability and inadequate domestic infrastructure have and will continue to contribute to high prices and inflation unless Congress does something about it. The President's ambitious proposal seeks to alleviate those concerns by sourcing new supply domestically. The proposal that I am introducing would amend the Clean Air Act's existing renewable fuels standard by diversifying the types of qualifying fuels and increasing the volumes. Qualifying alternative fuels will be expanded to include fuels derived from gas and coal, and hydrogen, among others. Cellulosic biomass ethanol is a promising technology that could significantly increase fuel supplies without compromising the food and feed prices. I am proud to say that some of the foremost research in the field is being done in my own State of Oklahoma, including a team at the Noble Foundation. Their work is engineering high energy and perennial crops that can be grown across the country. Similarly, coal-to-liquids fuels could be the greatest domestic energy resource of all time. I have been promoting the technology for years, particularly for defense aircraft, but now is the time to expand this super clean fuel for use across America. The plan would replace the current RFS by requiring 10 billion gallons of alternative fuel to be used in 2010 and increasing to 35 billion gallons by 2018. The bill similarly builds upon the current RFS by requiring EPA to incorporate the newer qualifying fuels into the credit trading system. I have been seeking to increase U.S. energy security for years. I am glad that the President has stepped up and taken this issue head-on. The proposal deserves careful and proper consideration. The American people require as much. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve U.S. domestic energy security while fully considering public health and welfare.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am honored today to congratulate 19 girls from Oklahoma for receiving the highest youth award in Girl Scouting, the Gold Award. I would like to honor Jamie Andrews, Tiffany Marie Cathey, Anna Elizabeth Davis, Alonna Marie Dray, Bridget Gibbons, Ashley Goodman, Justinn N. Hamby, Molly Elizabeth Henry, Laura Hopkins, Beth Johnson, Grace E. Lewis, Pammy Mackiewicz, Sarah Pierce, Alexanne E. Schallner, Haley Taylor, Joy-Lee Stowe, Kimberly L. Watson, Kaitlyn Willit, and Alicia Koch. Girl Scouts of the USA, an organization serving more than 2.5 million girls, has awarded more than 25,000 Girl Scout Gold Awards to Senior Girl Scouts since the beginning of the program in 1980. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must fulfill four requirements: earn the Girl Scout Gold Leadership Award, earn the Girl Scout Gold Career Award, earn the Girl Scout Gold Become, Belong, Believe, Build Award, and design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award Project. They also have to complete a plan for fulfilling the requirements of the award and follow through with close cooperation between a community consultant and an adult Girl Scout volunteer. The Gold Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. In achieving this prestigious award these young women show their dedication and commitment to their families, community, the Girl Scouts, and their country. I am honored to congratulate these recipients of this award from the State of Oklahoma.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to have proudly introduced a resolution designating April 8, 2007, as ``National Cushing's Syndrome Awareness Day.'' I have long been dedicated to quality health care and therefore seek to raise awareness of this debilitating disorder that affects an estimated 10 to 15 people per million. I seek your help in raising awareness of Cushing's Syndrome, which is an endocrine or hormonal disorder caused by prolonged exposure of the body's tissue to high levels of the hormone cortisol. Though it can lead to death, Cushing's Syndrome often goes undiagnosed or misdiagnosed because the initial symptoms are shared with a number of milder ailments. These symptoms include, but are not limited to, abnormal weight gain, skin changes, fatigue, diabetes, high blood pressure, depression, and osteoporosis. Cushing's Syndrome can take a variety of forms. Normally, the hypothalamus, a part of the brain which is about the size of a small sugar cube, stimulates the pituitary gland, the adrenal glands, and then the kidneys, which release cortisol into the bloodstream. High levels of cortisol can result from overproducing cortisol or from taking glucocorticoid hormones, which are routinely prescribed for asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other inflammatory diseases. Doctors can detect Cushing's Syndrome through a series of tests, often using x-rays to examine adrenal or pituitary glands to locate tumors. However, since awareness of the syndrome is low, doctors do not always run these tests, and patients do not know to ask for them. Therefore, treatment often comes later than it should for victims of Cushing's Syndrome. Potential treatments for Cushing's Syndrome include surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, cortisol-inhibiting drugs, or reducing the dosage of glucocorticoid hormones. The need for heightened awareness of Cushing's Syndrome was brought to my attention by constituents who suffer from this dangerous disease. For the sake of these individuals and for the benefit of sufferers in your own State and around the Nation, I ask you to join me in this effort to raise awareness of Cushing's Syndrome.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, let me thank the Senator from South Carolina, who has been steadfast all the way through this, and who has made such great contributions. In addition to what he said, I think it is worth observing that this is working. In this morning's Washington Post, there is an article about the successes that are taking place. The top U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said the number of sectarian killings has dropped since the operation began in mid-February. Then on the other side, GEN Qassim al-Mousawi, who is the Iraqi military spokesman, also offered an upbeat assessment of the Baghdad security plan and how well it is working now. So I think, frankly, this is sooner than I thought we would be getting some positive results. Let me also make one observation before going on to the next speakers. That is, after receiving rather late the resolution by Senator Murray, 107, in reading it, unless I misread it, it appears to me she is outlining some things that are pretty consistent with what is in the Gregg resolution. So I do not know--with the three resolutions we have--the order. That is going to be determined, but right now we are not sure of it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, be recognized for 20 minutes, followed by Senator Ensign for 7 minutes, followed by Senator Tester for 10 minutes, followed by Senator Kyl for 7 minutes, then any intervening Democrat, to be followed by Republican Senators Brownback, Warner, and Vitter for 7 minutes each.

Mr. INHOFE. I wish to inquire how much time we have remaining on our side.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I see no speakers on the other side, so I will elaborate on my remarks. I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Missouri talked about specifically what would be the consequences of timelines or withdrawal. I can speak from personal experience, having spent time in Iraq. As I mentioned before, I plan to take my 13th trip to AOR in a couple of weeks. I believe what is not understood by people who are debating these resolutions is some of the good things about the Iraqi security forces. I had the honor of being in Iraq when some of the new leadership took office. I remember Dr. Rubaie, who is the National Security Adviser, and Dr. Jassim--I believe he was the Minister of Defense at that time-- they articulated in a very effective way that most of the differences between the two major factors over there were Western concepts, were Western ideas. It appeared to me that was the case. As we debate these resolutions, we need to remember how we got in there in the first place. Remember what happened prior to 1991, remember the monstrous commissions that were made by Saddam Hussein and the number of people, the volumes of people who died tragic, painful deaths. As far as the Iraqi security forces are concerned, it is pretty obvious to me that these individuals want to be in charge. I get the idea, when I listen to some of the people on the other side, that the Iraqi security forces somehow are inferior, somehow they don't have the knowledge and the capability, the potential to become great fighters. Yet when I talk with them, they are the ones who are anxious to get themselves in a position where they are going to be carrying the load for us. The whole idea of the embedded training is that we put our people in the rear to advise the Iraqis on what to do and to train them while they are actually embedded and fighting with them. This has worked very effectively. It has been effective. I happened to be there at a time when in one of the training areas for Iraqi security forces, there was an explosion. Some 40 were killed. What the people over here don't understand is the commitment the Iraqis have to their own security. It happens that 40 families of those who were killed in this blast all supplied another member of their family to go in and carry the load for the deceased trainee. These individuals are committed. They are as anxious as we are to get to the point where they have the capability of offering the security against the terrorists. From time to time, they have gotten that way. There was a time when the entire western one-third of Baghdad was under security control by the Iraqis themselves. They were just not in a position to sustain that control. We saw the commitment the Iraqis had in Fallujah, when a general who had been the brigade commander for Saddam Hussein--this guy hated Americans; he was a brigade commander for Saddam Hussein, until we went into Fallujah with our Marines and they started the embedded training, the embedded training referred to by my friend from Missouri. It was so successful and they enjoyed each other so much that this man, this general, his name is Mahdi, he looked me in the eyes and said: I hated Americans before all this happened. I certainly hated the Marines. When they came in and started embedded training, I learned to love them so much that when they rotated out, we all got together and we cried. This is the commitment the Iraqis have. When you get into one of the helicopters and go from place to place, maybe 50 feet off the ground, and you see the commitment of these individuals in the small towns and the kids who are down there--a lot of times the people who are supporting our troops send over candy, cookies, and this type of thing don't realize that when our troops get them, they normally repackage them, and then as they are in these helicopters going across the triangle and other places, you can see the little Iraqi kids out there waving American flags and our troops are throwing them candy and cookies. This is the type of relationship we don't see in this country. Mr. President, while we are calling to make sure that some of them get down to the floor from both sides, let me suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Fine. We are next going to hear from the Senator from South Carolina. I wish to say, after the conclusion of the remarks, I am going to be trying to line up, by unanimous consent, several speakers. It is my understanding Senator Byrd wants to come down and speak. But between the next speaker and Senator Byrd, we are going to try to get some lined up for a period of time. That will be our intention.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, before the Senator leaves, as it is right now, we have 10 minutes left on this side. There is 1 hour left on the Senator's side. We want very much to get some speakers down here, if we could. I understand we are trying to reserve 20 minutes for leadership time and 10 minutes on each side. If the Senator has speakers, this would be a good time to have them down here.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, rather than to speak myself, since there is going to be equal time coming off for both sides until a speaker gets down here, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the last quorum call time be taken from the Democrats' time, and that future quorums come from the Democrat side.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding the debate will start with our side. I encourage all Members who wish to be heard on our side on any of these resolutions to come to the floor and be heard. Let me share some thoughts. This is a rather awkward situation we find ourselves in because we are debating three resolutions concurrently. Frankly, one of the three I have not even seen yet, so it is very difficult to debate something you have never seen. But I do know from the past discussions the type of concerns people have, the differences between, quite frankly, the Republican side and the Democratic side. I know it is not right down party lines, but let me share some concerns I have and some thoughts I have. We heard from several Senators who expressed their concern over our micromanaging the war from this body and from the body of the other side. Five hundred and thirty-five people cannot be Commanders in Chief. It seems as if that is what is happening. Also, I observe, and I am only speaking for myself, that this thing has become highly politicized. When the war first started, the whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was the media trying to make us believe that is what it was all about, but that isn't what it was all about. I was on the Senate Armed Services Committee during that time, both before and after 9/11, and I observed what was going on. I observed what was going on in Iraq for a long period of time. I had the honor back in 1991 of going to Kuwait on what they called at that time the ``First Freedom Flight.'' There were Democrats and Republicans on that flight. We were the first ones to land in Kuwait. The Iraqis didn't even know the war was over at that time, and the oilfields were burning in Kuwait. I remember Tony Coelho was one of the Democrats who was on the trip, and Alexandria Hague was one of the Republicans on the trip. He also had the Ambassador from Kuwait to the United States and his daughter on the trip, going back for the first time to Kuwait to see what damage was done by Saddam Hussein in Kuwait City. I remember so well--I don't recall the age of the daughter; maybe she was about 8 years old. I remember so well that when we landed, the oil fields were burning, Iraqis were still fighting, not knowing there had been an agreement and fires should have ceased by that time. They were still shooting at each other. When it calmed down, we went to their home. Keep in mind the Ambassador to the United States from Kuwait was of nobility and he had a daughter with women. They had a mansion on the Persian Gulf, a beautiful place. We got there in time to see that their house had been used as one of the headquarters of Saddam Hussein. His young daughter wanted to see her bedroom, her stuffed animals and things girls want to see. We found out her room had been used for a torture chamber. There were body parts stuck to the walls, human hair and hands, where the torturing had been taking place. I think sometimes people forget about how bad this guy was. We hear a lot about Adolf Hitler, and this guy was certainly the worst since the brutality of Auschwitz and Hitler and, of course, the Holocaust. If you had been there and looked down and seen the bodies in the open graves, if you heard the testimony from others whose daughters could not get married because they could not have weddings on the streets of Baghdad because, if they did, people would come in, the Iraqis, and Saddam Hussein's sons would come in and mob everybody and they would kill people and take the pretty girls and rape them and bury them alive. These atrocities that took place were inconceivable to people. You don't hear about this in the media. They say they didn't find weapons of mass destruction. Well, you know, that is a moot point. There were weapons of mass destruction because they used weapons of mass destruction. They used them in the northern parts of Iraq. Saddam Hussein brutally, painfully murdered his own people, and the types of gases used in these weapons of mass destruction were the most painful kind that would torture people to death, burn them from the inside out. All the time this was happening, we heard testimonials about how Saddam Hussein was treating his people he thought perhaps were his enemies and didn't follow him after the war in 1991, and how they would put people to death, torture them, and drop them into vats of oil. The victims would be praying that they would put them in head first because their life would be over sooner. It was the same with the massive machines-- like what we call shredders in this country--where they would shred the live bodies of these individuals. They used the most brutal types of torture imaginable. I thought once they get Saddam Hussein and once he is disposed of and is dead, people will realize this monster is not coming back. Unfortunately, there are other monsters who would take up the mantle. These things have gone undiscussed, unnoticed. Even if there had not been weapons of mass destruction--which there were, because they used them, either chemical or biological, which is just as cruel as nuclear, and effective, and it kills many people. Even if that had not been the case, America could not stand by and watch that type of thing happening. I have had the honor of going back more times than any other Member of the Senate. I will be going next week. It will be my 13th trip to the area of responsibility in Iraq. Each time I come back, after seeing the progress that is being made, I read the newspapers, the press accounts, and there is no relationship between reality and the press accounts we get. I had the honor of being in Fallujah during a couple of the elections. The Iraqi security forces--people are not aware of this, but they allowed them to vote a day in advance of the normal voting that took place. I was purposely at a couple of these elections in Fallujah because that was where the problems were supposed to exist. That is where our marines were. They conducted door to door and they did incredible and great work at that time. The Iraqi security forces were the first to go down and vote. I remember one night having them come back and talk about the threats that had been made on their lives. Some were shot during the process. They were willing to risk their lives to vote and then to help the people vote the next day. The next day, the other Iraqis came to vote. We all heard about the fingerprinting and holding up with pride their stained finger, which would be a death sentence on individuals. In this country, when such a small percentage of the people vote, and we look at those who are willing to risk their lives, I think how dear that privilege is and how we do not appreciate it as we should. Anyway, they voted and, of course, they knew when they were going to vote, they would be in harm's way, and many were shot. There are heroic stories of Iraqis going to vote where they would lay down their lives and get in the line of fire to save somebody else. So these were experiences that we had, the real reasons for being there. As we approach these resolutions--I see my friend from Missouri is here and I will soon yield to him whatever time he asks. As we discuss the resolutions, I want people to keep in mind the one thing those of us who believe the generals are more capable of running this war than are the individuals in this body, the 535 Members of the House and Senate--and of the 535, many of them want to be Commander in Chief; many are running. The generals make these decisions. At this time, I ask my friend from Missouri how much time he wishes.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield 15 minutes to Senator Bond.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, ironically, I agree with the Senator from Washington, although I disagree with the characterization of this resolution. First of all, the resolution does essentially the same thing the Gregg resolution does. No. 1, the Gregg resolution uses the language that ``Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field.'' That is exactly the same language that is in the Murray resolution: ``Congress should not take any action that will endanger the Armed Forces.'' The Gregg resolution talks about article II, section 2, of the Constitution, in terms of the President's constitutional powers, and article I, section 8 of the power of Congress; and the Murray resolution does essentially the same thing, except it doesn't cite it. It merely says Congress and the President should continue to exercise their constitutional responsibilities. So I am going to vote for the Murray resolution and vote for the Gregg resolution. I don't see any difference in them. I think we are supporting the President, and this is the right thing to do.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the independent producers of oil and gas are the backbone of our domestic supply of energy. They have played and continue to play a critical role in meeting our domestic needs, especially as the big oil companies' focus mainly offshore. In fact, independents develop 90 percent of our Nation's wells. According to the Department of Energy, independent producers supply 68 percent of American oil production and 82 percent of overall American natural gas. Therefore, I rise today to introduce legislation that eliminates the taxable income limit on percentage depletion for oil and natural gas produced from marginal wells; wells producing 15 barrels of day and less than 90 thousand cubic feet of natural gas. Under current law, the percentage depletion method is limited to only independent producers and royalty owners. It is a form of cost recovery for capital initially invested toward production of oil and gas wells. Generally, the percentage depletion rate is 15 percent of the taxpayer's gross income from an oil and gas producing property and is limited to a daily average of 1,000 barrels of oil or 6,000 thousand cubic feet of natural gas. However, under the net income limitation, percentage depletion is limited to 100 percent of the net income from an individual property. In the case of marginal wells, where total deductions often do exceed this net-income, this limitation discourages producers from investing in the continued production from marginal wells. As a result Congress has suspended the net-income limitation for 1998 through 2005; and again for 2006 and 2007, with the passage of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, H.R. 6111. My bill would simply clarify the policy by doing away with the taxable net income limitation altogether. In my own State of Oklahoma, it is the small independents, basically mom-and-pop operations, producing the majority of oil and natural gas, with 85 percent of Oklahoma's oil coming from marginal wells. Because marginal wells supply such a significant amount of our oil and gas, it is vital we keep them in operation. According to the Energy Department, between 1994 and 2003, we lost 110 million barrels of crude oil due to plugged marginal wells. Thus, when we lose marginal wells, we become more dependent upon foreign sources of energy, at a time when virtually all agree that U.S. policies should encourage reliance upon domestic sources. Furthermore, we lose domestic jobs to foreign nations. My bill would allow independents the necessary capital to continue to produce from these existing marginal wells--which is critical to the Nation's overall energy security. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague, Tom Coburn, to proudly reintroduce the Child Medication Safety Act, a bill to protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance or psychotropic drug in order to attend a school. 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 in Tulsa for many years and now both of our daughters are teachers. I can assure you 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 this diagnosis and should not 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 polices and procedures prohibiting school personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription as a condition of attending the 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 for special education. Additionally, this bill calls for a study by the Comptroller General of the United States reviewing: (1) the variation among States in the definition of psychotropic medication as used in public education, (2) the prescription rates of medication used in public schools to treat children with attention deficit disorder and other such disorders, 3) which medications listed under the Controlled Substances Act are being prescribed to such children, and 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 one year after the enactment of this Act. I believe this is an extremely important bill that 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 have the right to make that decision and consult with a licensed medical practitioner who is qualified to prescribe an appropriate drug. Please join us in support of this legislation that protects the freedoms of our children.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Capital Gains Inflation Relief Act of 2007. The taxation of inflation is one of the most unjust practices of the tax code. This simple improvement will not only enhance the basic fairness and efficiency of the tax code, but will also immediately increase the net return on capital investment. Under current law, a taxable capital gain occurs whenever a capital asset is sold at a price higher than the original purchase price. However, the timing of capital gains taxation sets it apart from other types of income. While wages are generally taxed on a yearly basis, the taxation on capital assets occurs at the time the capital asset holder chooses to sell his asset and realize his gains. The gains on capital assets accrue over the course of the asset's life, which is usually many years. This is generally favorable to the capital asset holder, because he can defer taxation on his gains to a future year. This tax deferral is often cited as the primary reason for holding assets long term. However, the value of tax deferral is often times overstated because current tax policy taxes the capital asset holder not only on real gains, but also on gains due to inflation. This creates a situation that is patently unfair to the American taxpayer. For example, an American who purchased a share of stock for $10 in 1950 and sold it for twice that amount today would be subject to capital gains taxes on the nominal gain of $10, though the transaction was a clear loss when one accounts for inflation. Why should an American taxpayer, who invested in a capital asset in his youth, be forced to pay capital gains taxes, on what can only be viewed as a loss, in his later years? In spite of all our efforts to curb inflation, it will remain a fact of life. This does not mean we should tax hard-working Americans with long-term goals on gains that are due to inflation, gains that they will never actually realize. Without an inflation index, the tax code incentivizes short-term speculation and discourages long-term capital investment. The current turmoil in the subprime lending market is an example that demonstrates the perils of emphasizing short-term speculation over long-term capital investment. Though inflation has remained relatively modest recently, there is no guarantee of future stability. Inflation indexing would instantly increase the net return on capital investment and consequently encourage more of it. Inflation indexing would also restore core principles of sound tax policy such as ``horizontal equity,'' wherein two taxpayers in identical situations are treated identically by the tax system. Indexing capital gains would improve the basic fairness of the tax code with only a minor increase in administrative costs and a single step of simple multiplication for taxpayer compliance. The need for indexing is clear. It would help average Americans and improve tax policy by enhancing both the basic fairness and the pro- growth incentive of the tax code. The merits of the capital gains tax are themselves debatable, but if we are to tax capital gains let us make sure they are taxed fairly. Please join with me in supporting this legislation to free the American taxpayer from the unfairness of the current tax policy.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the independent producers of oil and gas are the backbone of our domestic supply of energy. They have played and continue to play a critical role in meeting our domestic needs, especially as the big oil companies' focus mainly offshore. In fact, independents develop 90 percent of our Nation's wells. According to the Department of Energy, independent producers supply 68 percent of American oil production and 82 percent of overall American natural gas. Therefore, I rise today to introduce legislation that eliminates the taxable income limit on percentage depletion for oil and natural gas produced from marginal wells; wells producing 15 barrels of day and less than 90 thousand cubic feet of natural gas. Under current law, the percentage depletion method is limited to only independent producers and royalty owners. It is a form of cost recovery for capital initially invested toward production of oil and gas wells. Generally, the percentage depletion rate is 15 percent of the taxpayer's gross income from an oil and gas producing property and is limited to a daily average of 1,000 barrels of oil or 6,000 thousand cubic feet of natural gas. However, under the net income limitation, percentage depletion is limited to 100 percent of the net income from an individual property. In the case of marginal wells, where total deductions often do exceed this net-income, this limitation discourages producers from investing in the continued production from marginal wells. As a result Congress has suspended the net-income limitation for 1998 through 2005; and again for 2006 and 2007, with the passage of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, H.R. 6111. My bill would simply clarify the policy by doing away with the taxable net income limitation altogether. In my own State of Oklahoma, it is the small independents, basically mom-and-pop operations, producing the majority of oil and natural gas, with 85 percent of Oklahoma's oil coming from marginal wells. Because marginal wells supply such a significant amount of our oil and gas, it is vital we keep them in operation. According to the Energy Department, between 1994 and 2003, we lost 110 million barrels of crude oil due to plugged marginal wells. Thus, when we lose marginal wells, we become more dependent upon foreign sources of energy, at a time when virtually all agree that U.S. policies should encourage reliance upon domestic sources. Furthermore, we lose domestic jobs to foreign nations. My bill would allow independents the necessary capital to continue to produce from these existing marginal wells--which is critical to the Nation's overall energy security. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Capital Gains Inflation Relief Act of 2007. The taxation of inflation is one of the most unjust practices of the tax code. This simple improvement will not only enhance the basic fairness and efficiency of the tax code, but will also immediately increase the net return on capital investment. Under current law, a taxable capital gain occurs whenever a capital asset is sold at a price higher than the original purchase price. However, the timing of capital gains taxation sets it apart from other types of income. While wages are generally taxed on a yearly basis, the taxation on capital assets occurs at the time the capital asset holder chooses to sell his asset and realize his gains. The gains on capital assets accrue over the course of the asset's life, which is usually many years. This is generally favorable to the capital asset holder, because he can defer taxation on his gains to a future year. This tax deferral is often cited as the primary reason for holding assets long term. However, the value of tax deferral is often times overstated because current tax policy taxes the capital asset holder not only on real gains, but also on gains due to inflation. This creates a situation that is patently unfair to the American taxpayer. For example, an American who purchased a share of stock for $10 in 1950 and sold it for twice that amount today would be subject to capital gains taxes on the nominal gain of $10, though the transaction was a clear loss when one accounts for inflation. Why should an American taxpayer, who invested in a capital asset in his youth, be forced to pay capital gains taxes, on what can only be viewed as a loss, in his later years? In spite of all our efforts to curb inflation, it will remain a fact of life. This does not mean we should tax hard-working Americans with long-term goals on gains that are due to inflation, gains that they will never actually realize. Without an inflation index, the tax code incentivizes short-term speculation and discourages long-term capital investment. The current turmoil in the subprime lending market is an example that demonstrates the perils of emphasizing short-term speculation over long-term capital investment. Though inflation has remained relatively modest recently, there is no guarantee of future stability. Inflation indexing would instantly increase the net return on capital investment and consequently encourage more of it. Inflation indexing would also restore core principles of sound tax policy such as ``horizontal equity,'' wherein two taxpayers in identical situations are treated identically by the tax system. Indexing capital gains would improve the basic fairness of the tax code with only a minor increase in administrative costs and a single step of simple multiplication for taxpayer compliance. The need for indexing is clear. It would help average Americans and improve tax policy by enhancing both the basic fairness and the pro- growth incentive of the tax code. The merits of the capital gains tax are themselves debatable, but if we are to tax capital gains let us make sure they are taxed fairly. Please join with me in supporting this legislation to free the American taxpayer from the unfairness of the current tax policy.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague, Tom Coburn, to proudly reintroduce the Child Medication Safety Act, a bill to protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance or psychotropic drug in order to attend a school. 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 in Tulsa for many years and now both of our daughters are teachers. I can assure you 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 this diagnosis and should not 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 polices and procedures prohibiting school personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription as a condition of attending the 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 for special education. Additionally, this bill calls for a study by the Comptroller General of the United States reviewing: (1) the variation among States in the definition of psychotropic medication as used in public education, (2) the prescription rates of medication used in public schools to treat children with attention deficit disorder and other such disorders, 3) which medications listed under the Controlled Substances Act are being prescribed to such children, and 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 one year after the enactment of this Act. I believe this is an extremely important bill that 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 have the right to make that decision and consult with a licensed medical practitioner who is qualified to prescribe an appropriate drug. Please join us in support of this legislation that protects the freedoms of our children.

Mr. INHOFE

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