Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was honored a few minutes ago to talk about this very outstanding young man, Greg Frizzell. Unfortunately, as the senior Senator from Vermont knows, we tried our best to get him in last year. We were unable to do it. But thanks to him and helping us to expedite the confirmation of this fine young man, we will be voting now. This gentleman comes from a background that is unusual and unique. I know of no one who has said anything negative about him in our State of Oklahoma. So I think justice will be served with the confirmation of Greg Frizzell for the Northern District of Oklahoma. I am proud to stand here today in support of Judge Greg Frizzell's nomination to be the U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma. After his Judiciary Committee hearing in September, I was certain that he would be confirmed before the end of the year. However, due to some regrettable political wrangling, his nomination was stalled. Fortunately, over the past few weeks, I have spoken to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help expedite Judge Frizzell through the committee process and bring his nomination to the Senate floor. I am convinced that he is the most capable and well-qualified person for this position. His family is no stranger to the legal field--I can remember his father, Kent Frizzell. He served as attorney general for the State of Kansas--that is when I first got to know his family. Later on, when they moved to Oklahoma, we became very close friends. He has had all kinds of experience in the past--serving the Under Secretary of Interior, and he has taught at the University of Tulsa Law School for almost 20 years. So given his father's distinguished work, it is no surprise that Judge Frizzell felt compelled to pursue a career in public service, and his friends and colleagues have praised his professional qualifications and personal integrity, as well as his ability to rule fairly from the bench. Someone who has been around as long as this young judge has been around, you would think you would hear negative things--I have never heard anything negative about him. Robert Sartin, member of the board of governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association said, ``Judge Frizzell is a man of extremely good character and high integrity, with a deep sense of personal responsibility toward his fellow man.'' Judge Claire Egan, praised him and talked about the urgency to fill vacant spots on the bench--she emphasized the fact that the court right now has three judges doing the work of six. One of the prominent and well-respected attorneys in Oklahoma, Joe Wohlgemuth of a distinguished law firm in Tulsa, called Judge Frizzell ``a man of integrity and a straight arrow''. Before serving in the current position of District Judge of the 14th Judicial District of Oklahoma, Greg Frizzell had a long and distinguished legal career and ample Federal experience. After graduating with a law degree from the University of Michigan, he clerked for Judge Tom Brett--Tom Brett is now in retirement and there is no one who has a better reputation than he, and he has praised Greg Frizzell time and time again. Ralph Thompson, a prominent senior judge serving on the Federal bench in Oklahoma, has also praised him. After clerking for Judge Brett, Frizzell became an associate at an Oklahoma law firm and then ran his own private legal practice until he was selected to be general counsel to the Oklahoma Tax Commission. After serving for a period of time at the Tax Commission, he was then appointed to his current position as Judge of the 14th District of Oklahoma. Not only has Judge Frizzell proven an effective and fair legal professional, he is a devoted husband and loving father of six children. Getting back again to Mr. Wohlgemuth, he recalls an incident where Judge Frizzell, had to work late one night doing work and he brought all six kids to spend time with them into the late hours--anyone who can handle six kids while doing his judicial work, I think can handle this job. So, Judge Frizzell is a man of great moral integrity who has proven his character in both his private and public life. I cannot say enough about him and his qualifications to be the next U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma and I urge my colleagues to confirm his nomination.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I will unavoidably miss the final vote on the minimum wage bill but I come down here now to ask unanimous consent that the Record reflect, immediately after the vote, my announcement that I would have voted against this bill. In so doing, I remain consistent on the issue. Government is best when it is does not pick winners and losers--when it does not competitively advantage one group of people over another or one set of States over another. Senator DeMint offered an amendment to equally and fairly increase the minimum wage by $2.10 for each State over what the wage is today. The fact that the liberals voted against the DeMint amendment is proof that their bill as now constituted is really about damaging the competitiveness of middle America--the so-called red States, disparagingly called `'fly-over country'' by liberals--compared to the liberal fringe States. Without this amendment, the underlying legislation would partially exempt minimum wage workers in higher-cost States that already have State minimum wage rates greater than the Federal level of $5.15 an hour, and completely exempt minimum wage workers in highest-cost States that have State minimum wage rates near $7.25 an hour. The DeMint amendment would increase the Federal minimum wage equally for workers in all States at the same rate as H.R. 2 would increase the minimum wage from the current Federal minimum wage rate. Senator Kennedy's arguments against this amendment have been both confusing and contradictory. On the one hand, he said that we need a one-size-fits-all mandate, and then he said that Massachusetts has a higher cost of living. I will not stand for people in Washington, DC, damaging the competitiveness of Oklahoma against other States. If Oklahomans vote to change our own laws, that is one thing, but we are not going to buckle under to DC and the liberal fringe States. Thus I would vote nay. I ask unanimous consent that the following chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent I be recognized for up to 25 minutes in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on Tuesday, November 14, 2006, members of the San Francisco School Board voted 4 to 2 to eliminate over the course of 2 years the San Francisco School District's Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps. We call this JROTC. This was an arrogant, mean-spirited, absolutely foolish decision. The decision was a disservice to children of every socioeconomic and racial background, and it reveals a gangrenous, antimilitary bigotry that festers in some circles of the United States today. The vote deprives hundreds of children of a safe, extremely popular, and cost-effective program that provides structure and enjoyment to the lives of children through an emphasis on physical activity, responsibility, self-discipline, and teamwork. The merits of the JROTC program alone compel a reversal of this decision, but it is more than that. It is only the latest antimilitary decision in the Bay City. The antimilitary counterrecruitment movement is undertaken by activists and groups who have moved beyond simple disagreement with foreign policies to the outright opposition to the military as an institution. They explicitly deprecate basic civic service and exhibit an utter lack of respect for the sacrifices of men and women which they have made in the defense of our country. Allow me to offer a statement of one such activist before moving on, to get the sense of the nature of the movement behind the JROTC decision. This is: When soldiers are really hurt because there are no new recruits, then we are getting somewhere. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, when the school board announced its vote to eliminate the 90-year-old program in which 1,600 children participated, the dozens of children and their families gathered at the board meeting were absolutely stunned. Many cadets burst into tears, their faces in their hands, in silent bewilderment. ``It provides me a place to go,'' said a fourth-year cadet, Eric Chu, as he began to cry. At the same time, the board's decision was loudly cheered by JROTC opponents and counterrecruitment activists. Former teacher Nance Manchias summarized the reason behind their jubilation by declaring, ``We need to teach a curriculum of peace.'' Arguments marshalled in support of this kind of antimilitary activity are not generally arguments of outright opposition to the military. Counterrecruitment activists you usually hear cloak their opposition to the military in discussions about discrimination, about the military's ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy regarding homosexuals. But in this case these arguments do not apply--not to the JROTC. You don't believe me? The editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle, which is not really a bastion of conservatism, explains. They say: The high-flown arguments fall apart when the drill-and- discipline JROTC basics are examined. The San Francisco Chronicle's board, writing in support of the JROTC program, continues by explaining the nature and specifics of the program: Sorry, adults, but kids love this program as if it's family. There are 1,600 students enrolled in the classes, which fulfill physical-ed requirements. Punctuality, team work, camaraderie are the hallmarks. There, military drill competitions are as popular as football games. There are no weapons, just sticks and flags used in marching. Some ROTC members go on to serve in the military, but the vast majority don't, seeing classes as an enjoyable experience and a chance to learn new things: map-reading, leadership skills and self- discipline that goes with military-style assignments and crisp uniforms. I am quoting from the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board. What were the reasons, then, for the elimination of this program? Were there safety concerns, a lack of interest in the program, budgetary issues, problems with poor management, or a troubling lack of diversity? In fact, none of these factors were at issue in the decision. The program was popular. More than 1,600 kids were active participants in the JROTC program. Finances were not a problem. The program enjoyed a modest $1 million budget from a school district budget of $365 million. That is $1 million out of $365 million, or a cost of just under three one-thousandths of the entire budget. Was the program poorly managed? The San Francisco Chronicle answers: No one has offered an alternative as coherent and well-run as the JROTC. How about safety? Not a problem. There are no weapons involved. The programs are nonviolent; they are simply character-building exercises which emphasize leadership and self-discipline. And what about the big one, diversity? For this, I repeat the words of the Chronicle reporter, Jill Tucker, in a story she wrote about the JROTC cadets at Galileo High School: These students are 4-foot-10 to 6-foot-4, athletic and disabled, college-bound and barely graduating, gay and straight, white, black, and brown. Some leave for large homes with ocean views. Others board buses for Bayview-Hunter's Point. Many of the students were immigrants, and one is autistic. According to the San Francisco Chronicle: Opponents acknowledge the program is popular and helps some students stay in school and out of trouble. So, again, why eliminate a school program in which students simply receive phys-ed and elective credits required for graduation? Sandra Schwartz of the American Friends Service Committee, an organization dedicated to active opposition to the JROTC program, explains: We don't want the military ruining our civilian institutions. In a healthy democracy, you contain the military. You must contain the military. So we have an answer to the question as to why this program was eliminated. It wasn't because of any practical consideration such as cost, interest, or safety, nor was it opposition to a specific policy of the Government. It was opposition to the military as an institution. But the JROTC decision in San Francisco should come as no surprise. It comes on the heels of two other antimilitary decisions in the Bay City which have taken place over the past year or so. Last year, San Francisco city supervisors refused to allow a ship to dock in the city's port. The ship was a historic World War II battleship, the USS Iowa. Just as in the JROTC decision, there were no practical considerations which necessitated refusal of the USS Iowa. Supervisor Chris Daly explained the reason for his vote: I am not proud of the history of the United States of America since the 1940s. The decision was intended to be an insult to our Armed Forces. Also, last year, San Francisco passed measure 1, dubbed ``College, Not Combat,'' which was a symbolic measure to ban all military recruiters in the city's public schools. ``College, Not Combat'' was the first local success of the counterrecruitment movement. Examples of other counterrecruitment slogans include ``Don't die for recruiter's lies,'' and my personal favorite, ``An army of none.'' This decision enjoyed the support of many extreme antiwar groups, including ANSWER, Not In Our Name, Ralph Nader's Green Party, American Friends Service Committee, Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, and the International Socialist Organization. These decisions to denigrate the Armed Forces are the latest tactics of the antiwar counterrecruitment movement. But, again, make no mistake about the basis or the purpose of this movement. Ignore all the rhetoric about discrimination in the Armed Forces and ``don't ask, don't tell.'' Forget about arguments that this is simply opposition to the Iraq war, to George Bush, or to some other specific policy. The counterrecruitment movement opposes the military as an institution. Counterrecruitment activists and measure 1 supporter April Owens admit the purpose of her movement, and she is speaking in behalf of measure 1: When soldiers are really hurting because there are no new recruits, then we are getting somewhere. Speaker Pelosi is on record as saying that she was not behind measure 1 100 percent. I think the American people would be interested to know what percentage of her support the measure is enjoying. But at least some political leaders in San Francisco are speaking out about these topics and decisions and this type of attitude toward the American soldiers. Regarding the school board decision--and this took a lot of courage for him to do it, I might add--San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said: This move sends the wrong message. It's important for the city not to be identified with disrespecting the sacrifices of men and women in uniform. Yes, it is--especially now. Do we really need to remind people that men and women are fighting and dying because they heeded the call of their country? Do we need to remind people that families are grieving? One wonders whether these activists understand that the only reason they have the freedoms to dedicate their time and energy to opposing the U.S. Armed Forces is because of the very existence of the U.S. Armed Forces. One wonders whether they have ever realized that the Armed Forces have dedicated far more of their time and efforts to establishing and ensuring the continuation of peace rather than launching wars. And when wars are fought, they are done so at the behest of democratically elected civilian leaders. If they have a problem with any specific policy, they should take it up with the civilians who made the policy, not the soldiers doing their duty and carrying out that policy in the service of their country. They certainly should not take their frustrations out on schoolchildren who enjoy a structured, character-building, afterschool program such as the JROTC program. But they believe the program exists to trick youngsters into joining the military. School board member Dan Kelly says the JROTC is ``basically a branding program, or a recruiting program for the military.'' Well, Mr. Kelly, if that is the case, that the JROTC is a recruiting vehicle, then the JROTC should enjoy the same protections military recruiters receive. This is what I am getting to now. San Francisco's measure 1, which tells all military recruiters to stay away from schools, was only symbolic for a reason. San Francisco banned military recruiters in their schools for over a decade, until the No Child Left Behind Act was passed into law in 2001. Under provisions of No Child Left Behind, schools can only prevent military recruitment if they are willing to forgo their Federal funding. Unfortunately, the JROTC is not currently included in the recruiting program under the act. However, as board member Dan Kelly admits, the JROTC program was banned simply because it was perceived as a recruiting program. Let's make that perception a reality. Let's amend the appropriate laws and give the JROTC the same protection that military recruiters enjoy. The program, as I have illustrated, is clearly a valued program in many communities. It deserves our support. The JROTC program in San Francisco, as well as those in communities all across the nation, deserve our support. Sadly, they need our protection, too. At this time I would like to announce that I will soon be introducing legislation to afford the same protection to the JROTC programs as the other military recruiters enjoy. I look forward to bipartisan support of that program.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last session of the Congress, I introduced a bill, along with 30 other Senators, to prevent the imposition of global taxes on the United States. The bill would withhold 20 percent of our contributions to the United Nations' budget should the organization continue in advancing its global tax goals. There are a lot of things they do. I know this body is divided in support of the United Nations. I, frankly, don't see a lot of good that they do. In fact, many of the things I find offensive all get started in the United Nations. But the fact is, there is an effort to get out from under any type of supervision from any of the member states of the United Nations. The current efforts of the United Nations--and we are talking about organizations which are trying to replace the dues system so that we can no longer threaten to withhold 20 percent of our dues and come up with some type of a global tax independent funding system so they don't have to answer to anyone. The current efforts of the United Nations and other international organizations to develop, advocate, endorse, promote, and publicize proposals to raise revenue by instituting international taxes are unacceptable. Last year, United Nations Ambassador John Bolton summarized the U.S. position in stating that although the U.S. fully supports increased development assistance, ``the U.S. does not accept global aid targets or global taxes.'' My bill is the latest development in a decade-long struggle against the desire of the United Nations to implement a global tax regime. First, to articulate openly the U.N.'s movement toward global taxes was none other than Boutros-Boutros Ghali, and that was in 1996 in a speech he made at Oxford University in which he hopefully embraced the consent of global taxes and authoritarian world government. The then- Secretary General expressed the U.N.'s desire not to ``be under the daily financial will of member states.'' Now, what he is talking about is the United States. This statement warranted and resulted in congressional action, and I cosponsored Senator Dole's bill at that time--this is 1996--to prevent U.N. global taxes, which passed both Houses of Congress and became law. Our efforts were met with continued resistance and arrogance on the part of the United Nations. In that same year, the concept of global taxes was fully debated. That was after we passed our legislation. A little later, the U.N. Development Programme Research Project resulted in a push for the Tobin Tax, which is a tax on international monetary transactions to go directly to the United Nations. This tax would net trillions of dollars annually. The 2001 Zedillo report concluded that ``there is a genuine need to establish, by international consensus, stable and contractual new sources of multilateral finance''--world taxes. Over the next few years, the U.N. pushed for a tax on international arms sales and military expenditures, taxes on international airline tickets, taxes on international trade through an ocean freight tax, a global environmental levy, and all other types of global taxes. The list goes on and on, but here are just the most recent examples of this movement: A 2004 United Nations University study on global taxation; the U.N.'s 2005 book called ``New Sources of Development Finance'' edited by A.B. Atkinson; a September 2005, United Nations ``Millennium Development Goals'' meeting addresses international airline ticket tax; Peter Wahl of the German organization, WEED, says international currency transactions taxes are ``ready,''; and International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, which is an affiliation of the AFL-CIO, supports international taxes. The Clinton, Ford, and Gates Foundations participated in U.N. conferences pushing global taxes. George Soros's Open Society Institute and Oxfam America met at the ``New Rules for Global Finance Coalition.'' The U.N. is fascinated with these global tax schemes. It would be an unprecedented accumulation of power for the United Nations. We cannot concede any ground on this issue. Conceding on even one of these initiatives will only embolden the United Nations to go for more. The same rules that apply to bureaucracies in the United States-- gradual accumulation of more and more power and resources and coercive ability--apply to the United Nations in an even more dramatic manner. The IRS is a model of confidence, moderation, and responsibility when compared to the United Nations. Unfortunately, the United Nations enjoys support from another international bureaucracy which has endorsed global tax efforts. It is the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In addition to its support of U.N. global tax schemes, the OECD, which receives 25 percent of its budget from the United States, has used U.S. taxpayer money in turn to encourage and support higher taxes on U.S. taxpayers. Now, keep in mind, this is something we are supporting, to encourage increasing U.S. taxes. For these reasons, I had the following language included in the Foreign Operations appropriations bill: None of the funds made available in this act may be used to fund activities or projects undertaken by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that are designed to hinder the flow of capital and jobs from high-tax jurisdictions to low-tax jurisdictions, or to infringe on the sovereign right of jurisdictions to determine their own domestic policies. Of course, we know what has happened to the appropriations bills currently. It is very simple and straightforward. If you want to advocate for higher taxes and global taxes on U.S. taxpayers, U.S. taxpayers would not be forced to foot the bill. Let's quickly look at some of the reasons for this language and the case against the OECD. The OECD has endorsed and encouraged higher taxes, new taxes, and global taxes no fewer than 24 times in reports with titles such as ``Toward Global Tax Cooperation'' in which the OECD identifies 35 nations guilty of harmful tax competition. I am quoting there: ``Guilty of harmful tax competition.'' In other words, they want us to have taxes as high as any of the other countries have. They have advocated that the U.S. adopt a costly and bureaucratic 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, new taxes at the state level, and a host of other new and innovative taxes on U.S. citizens. It's not only the recommending of higher taxes which concerns us; the ultimate concern is the movement towards undermining U.S. sovereignty. Ecogroups such as the Friends of the Earth want the OECD to declare that dam building for flood control and electronic power is unacceptable as sustainable energy. In May 2005, the OECD ministers endorsed a proposal at the UN to create a system of global taxes. The OECD has 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 are Paris-based bureaucrats seeking to protect high tax welfare states from the free market. That's 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 hasn't been fair to socialistic welfare states. Well, it is a good thing that they have the OECD and nearly $100 million in U.S. taxpayer money to protect 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. And John Bolton argued that the OECD represents a kind of worldwide centralization of governments and interest groups. Who do you think bears the costs for all this? Mr. Bolton answers and you probably guessed it--the United States. America's proud history of independence was driven in no small part by the desire for sovereignty over taxation powers. In this context, it makes no sense to relegate our sovereignty over tax policy, in any way, to international bureaucrats. It's very simple. U.S. taxpayers are being forced to fund a bunch of international bureaucrats who write, speak, organize, and advocate in support of higher taxes, global taxes, and the gradual erosion of American sovereignty over its domestic fiscal policies. If individual Americans want to give their money to an organization which is dedicated to raising taxes, they can. It is called the Democratic Party. But most Americans would be outraged to learn that they are forced to subsidize these types of activities with their tax dollars. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senate amendment No. 37 that has been offered by the Senator from South Dakota to the legislative and lobbying transparency legislation, S. 1. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which became law this past September 26, 2006, requires that the Office of Management and Budget develop a single, searchable, public Web site that provides information on all types of Federal awards including Federal grants, sub grants, loans, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other forms of financial awards that entities, including nonprofit organizations, receive from the Federal Government. This Web site is to be accessible to the public at no cost and contains information such as the entity receiving the award, the amount, and the purpose. Senate amendment No. 37, that has been offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Thune, builds upon the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act by requiring entities that receive Federal funding to publicly disclose those funds, disclose that entity's political advocacy, and the amount spent on its political advocacy. Under this amendment, political advocacy includes influencing legislation, involvement in political campaigns, litigation with the Federal Government, and supporting other entities that engage in these types of political advocacy. In his remarks upon offering Senate amendment No. 37, the Senator from South Dakota stated that his amendment will shed further light on organizations that receive Federal funding that are at the same time also involved in advocacy on Federal issues. I could not agree more that the transparency required in this amendment is necessary and that this is something the American people would like to see happen. For the past two Congresses, I have been the chairman of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. In that role, I designated grants management at the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, as one of the priority oversight areas of the committee. I began this oversight by conducting a committee hearing where representatives from the EPA, EPA inspector general, the Government Accountability Office, and a private organization called Taxpayers for Common Sense testified to severe deficiencies in grants management at EPA for at least the past 10 years and regardless of Presidential administration. In fact, the EPA inspector general's testimony at that hearing focused on a nonprofit Federal grant recipient that had received close to $5 million over 5 years in violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The EPA has had a particularly bad habit of awarding large grants to special interest and partisan groups and, in many cases, with little oversight. However, this is a problem that can plague all Federal agencies and departments. Since the beginning of this oversight, EPA has taken a number of positive steps, and I would like to focus on one of those positive developments. I suggested in May 2004 that to increase transparency in grant awards, the EPA should develop a publicly accessible, no-cost Web site with information on EPA's grants and recipients. I suggested this Web site cover future grant recipients as well as grants awarded over the past 10 years. I also provided some examples of useful information to include on the Web site such as the grant recipient's name, agency grant number, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number, the type of recipient--governmental entity, nonprofit, eductional institution, foreign recipient, etc.--the grant project location, beginning and ending project dates of grants, the amount of the grant, the total cost of the project or cumulative amount of grants for the particular project, the grant description or purpose, the grant's expected outcome, the approving office or program within the agency, and the agency project officer and awarding officers' contact information. Since that time, EPA has created this new Web site with the most publicly available information ever provided on EPA grants and recipients. The EPA's grant awards database may be easily found on the EPA's Web site and has been available since 2004. I believe that placing this information on the World Wide Web for anyone to access has greatly increased the transparency of the grants process within the EPA and has required EPA to be more accountable for the types of grants, recipients, and oversight of the grants awarded. Likewise, I believe that placing information on the World Wide Web concerning the political, lobbying, and litigation activity of regular recipients of Federal funds provides needed transparency that I believe the American people may be surprised to see and may provide a tool for appropriate Federal agencies to use to ensure that Federal dollars are not being misused for political purposes. In many cases, when the Federal Government awards a grant to a private organization, it is a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization. The Internal Revenue Service has classified these organizations as section 501(c)(3) charitable organizations after that section of the Internal Revenue Code. However, I have delivered remarks concerning the political activities of recipients of Federal funds or their closely affiliated organizations. Some of these 501(c)(3) organizations that regularly receive Federal funds are often closely affiliated with corresponding section 501(c)(4) and 527 organizations and political action committees all highly involved in lobbying and political activities every year and in each election cycle. Although this article is dated, one of the best articles that describes this tangled web of political financing and advocacy was a Washington Post article from September 27, 2004, which I will request to have printed in its entirety at the conclusion of my remarks. This article contains a quote from a former Federal Election Commission official stating: In the wake of the ban on party-raised soft money, evidence is mounting that money is slithering through on other routes as organizations maintain various accounts, tripping over each other, shifting money between 501(c)(3)'s, (c)(4)'s, and 527's. . . . It's big money, and the pendulum has swung too far in their direction. While I understand that Senate amendment No. 37 does not reach into this tangled web of political and lobbying financing to separate Federal funding from private dollars, this amendment does make publicly available on a single Web site information on recipients of Federal awards and a description of the political and lobbying activities in which those organizations have been involved. This kind of disclosure has begun the process of applying transparency and reform to grants management at the EPA and I believe will also direct needed public attention on the political and lobbying activities of organizations that regularly receive taxpayer funding. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Tom Coburn, to proudly introduce legislation to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 301 Commerce Street in Commerce, OK as the ``Mickey Mantle Post Office.'' Mickey Mantle emulates the Oklahoma spirit of hard work, charity, and sportsmanship. He is a shining example of how commitment and dedication can lead to great success. I seek to name the post office in Commerce, Oklahoma, in Mickey Mantle's honor. He is still known to Commerce by the nicknames ``Commerce Comet'' or ``Commerce Kid''. At age 4, Mickey Mantle moved with his family to Commerce where he grew up, having been born in Spavinaw, OK. By his father who was an amateur player and fervent fan, Mickey Mantle was named in honor of Mickey Cochrane, the Hall of Fame catcher from the Detroit Tigers. Signing with the New York Yankees in 1949, Mantle made his Major League Debut in 1951. He played his entire Major League career with the Yankees. He was a twenty-time All Star and named American League MVP three times. Mantle was a part of 12 pennant winners and 7 World Championship clubs. Some of Mantle's records still hold today. He holds the record for most World Series home runs 18, runs batted in 40, runs 42, walks 43, extra-base hits 26, and total bases 123. Mantle announced his retirement on March 1, 1969. In actually retired on Mickey Mantle Day, June 8, 1969. In addition to the retirement of his uniform number 7, Mantle was given a plaque that would hang on the center field wall at Yankee Stadium, near the monuments to Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Miller Huggins. In 1974, as soon as he was eligible, he was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame demonstrating his importance to baseball and community. Sadly, Mickey Mantle's father died of cancer at the age of 39, just as his son was starting his career. Mantle said one of the great heartaches of his life was that he never told his father he loved him. After a bout with liver cancer himself, Mickey Mantle was given a few precious extra weeks of life due to a liver transplant. The baseball great was overwhelmed by the selfless gift of a liver from a stranger; therefore, Mickey became determined to give something back at the end of his life. Thus, in 1995, the year he died, the Mickey Mantle Foundation was established to promote organ and tissue donation, and Mickey Mantle will be remembered for something more than his heroic baseball career. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation as we commemorate an outstanding athlete so that future generations will be as inspired by his example of sportsmanship and charity as we have been.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to establish Medicare Health Savings Account, HSAs. This bill will make HSAs available under Medicare in lieu of Medicare Medical Savings Account, MSAs. I have long been dedicated to quality health care and believe that seniors should have the ability to make their own decisions regarding their health care, so they can receive the health care they need and deserve. As a senior myself, I appreciate how imperative it is that we seniors be provided with a wide array of choices. My desire to see my fellow Oklahomans and all Americans receive the best possible health care is evidenced by my involvement in various health-related issues. I have always been a champion of rural health care providers. In 1997, I was one of the few Republicans to vote against the Balanced Budget Act because of its lack of support for rural hospitals. At that time, I made a commitment to not allow our rural hospitals to be closed and am pleased we finally addressed that important issue in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 by providing great benefits for rural health care providers as well as a voluntary prescription drug benefit to seniors. In 2003, I also co-sponsored the Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act, to protect and preserve access of Medicare beneficiaries to health care in rural regions. In order to assist my State and other States suffering from large reduction in their Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP for Medicaid, I introduced a bill in the 109th Congress to apply a State's FMAP from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal years 2006 through 2014. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent drastic reductions in FMAP while revision of the formula itself is considered. I am a strong advocate of medical liability reform and have consistently been an original cosponsor of the Medical Care Access Protection Act and the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act. These bills protect patients' access to quality and affordable health care by reducing the effects of excessive liability costs. I am committed to this vital reform that would alleviate the burden placed on physicians and patients by excessive medical malpractice lawsuits. I have also worked with officials from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS to expand access to life-saving Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators and many other numerous regulations that would affect my rural State such as the 250 yard-rule for Critical Access Hospitals. As a supporter of safety and medical research, I have co-sponsored legislation to increase the supply of pancreatic islet cells for research and a bill to take the abortion pill RU-486 off the market in the United States. In response to the shortages of flu vaccines experienced in years past, I introduced the Flu Vaccine Incentive Act to help prevent any future shortages in flu vaccines in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. My bill removed suffocating price controls from government purchasing of the flu vaccine while encouraging more companies to enter the market. Also, my bill freed American companies to enter the flu vaccine industry by giving them an investment tax credit towards the construction of flu vaccine production facilities. As a result of my sister's death from cancer and a treatment we learned about not accessible in the United States that might have saved her life, Senator Sam Brownback and I introduced the Access, Compassion, Care and Ethics for Seriously-ill Patients Act, ACCESS, in the 109th Congress. This bill offered a three-tiered approval system for treatments showing efficacy during clinical trials, for use by the seriously ill patient population. Seriously ill patients, who have exhausted all alternatives and are seeking new treatment options, would be offered access to these treatments with the consent of their physician. I was pleased to learn that the Food and Drug Administration has announced a proposal to offer expanded access to drugs to terminally ill patients. My resolution to designate April 8, 2006, as ``National Cushing's Syndrome Awareness Day'' was passed by unanimous consent in the 109th Congress. The intent of this resolution is to raise awareness of Cushing's Syndrome, a debilitating disorder that affects an estimated 10 to 15 people per million. It is an endocrine or hormonal disorder caused by prolonged exposure of the body's tissue to high levels of the hormone cortisol. It was brought to my attention thanks to a staffer with Celiac Disease and an Oklahoma Celiac Support Group that there is a great need to raise awareness of celiac disease; therefore, I worked to get my resolution passed by unanimous consent to designate September 13, 2006 as National Celiac Disease Awareness Day. Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder and a malabsorption disease that affects an estimated 2.2 million Americans. Celiac disease is, essentially, intolerance to gluten, a protein found in wheat, rye, oats and barley, as well as some medicines and vitamins. Additionally, I have consistently co-sponsored yearly resolutions designating a day in October as ``National Mammography Day'' and a week in August as ``National Health Center Week'' to raise awareness regarding both these issues and have supported passage and enactment of numerous health-care-related bills, such as the Rural Health Care Capital Access Act of 2006, which extends the exemption respecting required patient days for critical access hospitals under the federal hospital mortgage insurance program. As the Federal Government invests in improving hospitals and healthcare initiatives, I have fought hard to ensure that Oklahoma gets its fair share. Specifically, over the past 3 years, I have helped to secure $5.2 million in funding for the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, the Oklahoma State Department of Health planning initiative for a rural telemedicine system, the INTEGRIS Healthcare System, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology, St. Anthony's Heart Hospital, the Hillcrest Healthcare System, and the Morton Health Center. As a long supporter of HSAs, I believe all people should have access to them since they provide great flexibility in the health market and allow individuals to have control over their own health care. Medicare MSAs have existed since January 1, 1997, revised in December of 2003, but they have not worked. No insurer whatsoever has yet offered any Medicare MSA under the current law. To fix this problem, my legislation creates a new HSA program under Medicare that incorporates a high deductible health plan and an HSA account while dissolving the existing Medicare MSA. In tandem with my efforts, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service, CMS, are launching an HSA demonstration project that would test allowing health insurance companies to offer Medicare beneficiaries products similar to HSA. This activity points to the Administration's support of HSAs and desire to see all seniors receive the best possible coverage. As the July 13, 2006 edition of The Hill, explains, ``no legislation is pending that would integrate HSAs into the Medicare program . . .'' Thus, my legislation is necessary because real Medicare HSA reform is needed in order for seniors to have true flexibility and freedom of choice in their health care. Under my bill, beneficiaries who choose the HSA option will receive an annual amount that is equal to 95 percent of the annual Medicare Advantage, MA, capitation rate with respect to the individual's MA payment area. These funds provided through the Medicare HSA program can only be used by the beneficiary for the following purposes: as a contribution into an HSA or for payment of high deductible health plan premiums. However, the individual also has the opportunity to deposit personal funds in to the Medicare HSA. My bill also guarantees that seniors be notified of the amount they will receive 90 days before receipt to ensure they have time to determine the best and most appropriate HSA to accommodate needs. The bill also allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deal with fraud appropriately and requires providers to accept payment by individuals enrolled in a Medicare HSA just as they would with an individual enrolled in traditional Medicare. Please join me in supporting this important legislation to give our seniors more choices regarding their health care.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation 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 physical exams without the prior knowledge or consent of their parents. While the Department of Health and Human Services has administered general exam guidelines to agencies, the U.S. Code is not clear about prohibiting them without parental consent. To clarify the Code, my bill will not allow any non-emergency intrusive exam by a Head Start agency without parental consent. This would not include exams such as hearing, vision or scoliosis screenings. This issue was brought to my attention by some of my constituents from Tulsa, OK, who felt their rights were violated when their children were subjected to genital exams and blood tests without their consent. I am pleased to see that the Rutherford Institute has taken an interest in this crucial issue and are representing my constituents. As a father and grandfather, I believe it is vital for parents to be informed about what is happening to their children in the classroom. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for such time as I may consume.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a couple of concerns here. One is a driving concern. After having served on the House Armed Services Committee before and for the last 12 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am deeply distressed that we did not get our MilCon Appropriations bill passed. I don't think a lot of people realize how significant it is that we get it passed for this fiscal year, 2007. The partisan issues that some people are trying to tie up on the floor are nowhere near as important as this issue, and I am talking about some of the other bills. It is true that we need to have the DC appropriations bill, but it is not life-threatening and certainly not going to result in the loss of lives of our fighting troops. Labor-HHS is important but not as important as this bill. Commerce-State- Justice--a lot of those items can be put into a CR. I would have no problem with a continuing resolution. But as far as this bill is concerned, if we don't do it now, there are a lot of items in conjunction with our BRAC process that are not going to happen and have to happen and are life-threatening to our troops. I compliment Senator Hutchison, who was chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction. She tried so hard in the last 2 days of the last session to get this bill through. Quite frankly, it wasn't really a problem in the Senate as much as it was in the other body. We tried very hard. We talked with a number of people and were unable to get that bill done. Over the past few years, the military has sought to reshape itself out of a Cold War footing into a modern, more modular force. It has tried to reconstitute its equipment, while at the same time fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has been forced to come to Congress for supplementals to meet just the bare minimum requirements of fighting the war and rebuilding the military as is so necessary. So we have stretched them every way we can. We have cut into almost every program, essential initiatives such as the Future Combat System. That is a recognition, after the 1990s, when we let our modernization slide and a lot of our military needs, to bring us up so that when we send our kids into battle, we send them with the very best of equipment. If we look at some of our ground equipment, such as our artillery pieces, it is World War II technology. It is the old Paladin where they actually have to swab the breech after every shot. The Future Combat System came up, and there was a recognition that we should have an army, a ground force that is faster, more agile, more transportable, more modern than it is today. Every week that goes by that we don't get this done, it is causing the Future Combat System-- there are about 19 elements of it--to move to the right and delay this from taking place. The fiscal year 2007 Military Construction appropriations bill was not passed into law. The continuing resolution, as currently enacted, does not allow the Department of Defense to proceed with over $17 billion in new construction and BRAC projects authorized by Congress in the 2007 authorization bill. Let me mention what will happen if we don't do this. There are so many things having to do with the BRAC process. I opposed the last BRAC round. We went ahead and had it, and I think that is probably the last we will have for a long period of time. It has a deadline of 2011. If we don't get this bill passed--by the way, I have introduced S. 113. We have a number of cosponsors. Most of the Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee are on it. The 1st Armored Division will have to stay in Germany if we don't get this passed. If that happens, we are not going to be able to have the two modular combat brigade teams we so critically need on the front lines. We are talking about the war that is taking place right now and why we need to get this MILCON appropriations bill passed. The Army National Guard and Reserve lack $1.1 billion to construct and replace aviation support facilities. They cannot function without these facilities. The postponement of construction of 250 new homes at the naval base in Guam and the Marine Corps logistics base in Barstow, CA, are just some of the housing needs that will not be able to be continued. Of course, they will cost more money the longer we put them off. We opened up some serious shortfalls in our UHF--that is, ultra high frequency--satellite communications capabilities. Two of the $6.5 million mobile user objective systems ground control tracking stations were slated for Hawaii and Sigonella, Italy. Without the stations, the already-funded satellites--we have the satellites ready to go--cannot launch until we get this bill passed. We went through months of agonizing discomfort in deciding what are we going to do with the F-22, C-17, C-5, C-9, and C-40 in terms of the new locations. That has all been determined. It has been outlined in BRAC, but we can't do it until we have the hangars to take care of them, to get them into the new areas. What we are talking about are items that directly affect the warfighting effort. The Predator, for example, has the tactical air control program that should be supporting the Army brigade combat teams. I think we all know our ground forces have to have support, either close air support or artillery support on the ground. We can't do the close air support if we don't have the appropriations bill passed. The Predator mission--a lot of people are not aware of this; they think of it as being intelligence-gathering agencies and a communications system targeting and retargeting on the ground. While that is very important and it has to be done, a lot of people don't realize the Predator also has the capability of firing a rocket. So we need to have that program. We cannot have it unless we get this bill passed. The military is going to lose a lot if we don't get this bill passed. When we look at the military construction that is going on in the continental United States and we see the community support--in my State of Oklahoma, we have five major military installations. They are located near major cities. Vance Air Force Base is at Enid, OK. Then we have Altus, Lawton, McAlester, Oklahoma City, and Midwest City. We have always done well in our BRAC process because we have greater community support than most other installations. But when you have a community that has made a commitment toward MILCON predicated on the assumption that we are going to pass our Military Construction appropriations bill and then we don't do it, they could very well renege on their commitment for housing, hospitalization, and childcare. It is far more significant than most people realize. If we don't pass the needed funding, the results will be very serious. I have in front of me a letter signed by Army Secretary Harvey and General Schoomaker: The potential negative effects on operational readiness cannot be overemphasized; the Army's ability to prosecute the Global War on Terrorism and to prepare for future conflicts would be severely hampered. Another letter from Navy Secretary Donald Winter and Marine Corps Commandant GEN James T. Conway and ADM Michael G. Mullen: The lack of construction money ``is precluding our ability to provide modern, government owned or privatized quality housing to our Sailors, Marines and their families at a time when the Global War on Terror is placing enormous stress on our military and our military families.'' I am going to be looking for every opportunity to get this bill up for consideration. Again, I am concerned about all appropriations bills, and a continuing resolution, as far as I am concerned, at least is going to take care of those needs. But the one thing it cannot do is take care of the military construction needs we will have to address. That bill is S. 113. I look forward to it coming up for consideration. We already have, as I mentioned, most members of the Armed Services Committee cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not see anyone else in the Chamber right now. I wish to speak on a totally different subject. Up until I guess today, turnover day, as the Presiding Officer knows, I have chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee for 4 years. I have enjoyed that very much. I will be turning that over now to Senator Barbara Boxer. We will still be working very closely together. One thing that happened a few days ago that I think is worth getting on the record and talking about a little bit, because this is something which is going to come up in our discussions in that committee, is, as you probably noticed, Mr. President, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently took some action to begin formal consideration of whether to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Over the next year, they are going to be working on this issue, making a determination as to whether the listing should take place. So right now we are starting that 1-year period. The question the Service has to answer is this: Is there clear scientific evidence that the current worldwide polar bear population is in trouble and facing possible extinction in the foreseeable future? As the Service reviews the issue over the next year, I am confident they will conclude, as I have, that listing the polar bear is unwarranted at this time. In the proposal, the Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledges that for 7 of the 19 worldwide polar bear populations--this is very significant. There are 19 populations worldwide for the polar bear. For seven of those populations, the Service has no population trend data of any kind. For more than a third of the known populations out there, we don't have any information. The other data suggests that for an additional five polar bear populations, the number of bears is not declining but is stable. Two more of the bear populations showed a reduced number in the past due to overhunting, but these two populations are now increasing because of new hunting restrictions. Other sources of data mentioned in a recent Wall Street Journal piece--just this past Tuesday--suggest that ``there are more polar bears in the world now than there were 40 years ago.'' I have to say there are quite a few more, almost twice the number from 40 years ago. The Service estimates that the polar bear population is 20,000 to 25,000 bears, whereas in the fifties and sixties, the estimates were as low as 5,000 to 10,000 bears, and most of that was due to sport hunting at that time, and most of that has been banned. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey study of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ``may now be near historic highs.'' So if the number of polar bears does not appear to be in decline, then why are we considering listing the species as threatened? Because the Endangered Species Act is broken. It needs to be fixed. We tried to fix it for the past 4 years. We have been unable to reach a consensus. The ESA allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to list the entire range of polar bears as threatened and thereby extend a wide array of regulatory restrictions to them and their habitat despite the dearth of data and a lack of scientific evidence that polar bears are, indeed, in trouble. The law also allows for the Fish and Wildlife Service to justify its proposal on a sample from a single population in western Hudson Bay in Canada where the populations have decreased by 259 polar bears in the last 17 years. Stop and think about this. This is the western Hudson Bay in Canada, 1 of 19 sites. This is the one which is the most severe. The population has decreased by 259 polar bears in the last 17 years; however, the figures that the International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources says that 234 bears have been killed in the last 5 years alone. If you figure that 234 have been killed in the last 5 years, the total in the last 17 years is 259, you have to assume that more than the 259 were actually shot. Ironically, Canada now is liberalizing a lot of their hunting in that area, and it is going to allow more hunting. This is something they need to address. At this point, I would like to say that while I support hunting as a general matter, we need to fully understand its impact on the polar bear population before we blame global warming for changes in bear population. I already said we can document pretty well--scientifically it is documented--that the number of bears has actually increased except in areas where hunting is more prevalent. I think there are a lot of people who want to somehow insert global warming as a crisis in everything and use polar bears for that reason, and we are not going to let that take place. The Fish and Wildlife Service asserts that the reason for the decline in the western Hudson Bay population is climate change-induced ice melting. To make that assertion, they rely on hypothetical climate change computer models showing massive loss of ice and irreparable damages in the polar bear's habitat. The Service then extrapolates that reasoning to the other 18 populations of polar bears. There are 19 populations, 1 of them is in trouble, but they use that as the model, and they take that and apply that same extrapolation to the other 18 populations of polar bears, making the assumption all bears in these populations will eventually decline and go extinct. Again, this conclusion is not based on field data but hypothetical modeling, and that is considered perfectly acceptable scientific evidence under the Endangered Species Act. That is why it should be changed. I don't believe our Federal conservation policy should be dictated by hypothetical computer projections because the stakes of listing a decision under ESA could be extremely high. The listing of the polar bear is no exception. The ESA is the most effective Federal tool to usurp local land use control and undermine private property rights. As landowners and businesses have known for decades, when you want to stop a development project or just about any other activity, find a species on that land to protect and things will slow down and many times they stop. It could be the bearing beetle, the Arkansas shiner, and now it could be the polar bear. This is because section 7 of the ESA requires that any project that involves the Federal Government in any way must meet the approval of the Fish and Wildlife Service before the project can move forward. The Federal Government's involvement in the project can take the form of a Federal grant, an environmental permit, a grazing allotment, a pesticide registration or land development permit or a number of other documents. The law requires that Fish and Wildlife intervene and determine if the project may affect an endangered or threatened species. So in the case of the polar bear listing, oil and gas exploration in Alaska, which accounts for 85 percent of the State's revenue and 25 percent of the Nation's domestic oil production, is immediately called into question. Likewise, the State's shipping, highway construction or fishing activities will also be subject to Federal scrutiny under section 7. Furthermore, because the Fish and Wildlife Service has linked the icefloe habitat concerns of polar bears to global climate change, all kinds of projects around the country could be challenged. Some would say this isn't possible or that I am exaggerating. But if you take the ESA to its logical conclusion, which is certain to be done by environmental special interest groups, any activity that allegedly affects climate change or greenhouse gas emissions, they have to be evaluated and approved by Fish and Wildlife for its effect on the icefloes on which polar bears depend. Thus, this proposal could be the ultimate assault on local land use decisionmaking and suppression of private property rights to date. So it is important that we take the next year to gather information, to make sure it is logical science, and that our decisions are science based. Again, the Wall Street Journal of this past Wednesday--not Tuesday--has an article where they go through and document very well, very succinctly, that we are not having a problem in losing this population. In fact, it is actually growing. So I ask unanimous consent to include the Wall Street Journal editorial in its entirety.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today, as an experienced pilot over age 60, along with my colleagues, Senator Stevens, Senator Lieberman and Senator Feingold, to once again introduce a bill that will help end age discrimination among commercial airline pilots. Our bill will abolish the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) arcane Age 60 Rule a regulation that has unjustly forced the retirement of airline pilots the day they turn 60 for more than 45 years. Our bipartisan bill called the ``Freedom to Fly Act'' would replace the dated FAA rule with a new international standard adopted this past November by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) which allows pilots to fly to 65 as long as the copilot is under 60. Since the adoption of the ICAO standard in November of this year, foreign pilots have been flying and working in U.S. Airspace under this new standard up to 65 years of age a privilege the FAA has not been willing to grant to American pilots flying the same aircraft in the same airspace. This bill may seem familiar; I have introduced similar legislation in the past two Congresses and I am dedicated to ensuring its passage this year. And it has never been more urgent. We cannot continue to allow our FAA to force the retirement of America's most experienced commercial pilots at the ripe young age of 60 while they say to their counterparts flying for foreign flags ``Welcome to our airspace.'' Many of these great American pilots are veterans who have served our country and the flying public for decades. Many of them have suffered wage concessions and lost their pensions as the airline industry has faced hard times and bankruptcies. But these American pilots are not asking for a handout. They are just saying to the FAA; ``Give me the same right you granted our foreign counterparts with the stroke of a pen this November. Let us continue to fly, continue to work, continue to contribute to the tax rolls for an additional 5 years.'' We join them and echo their sentiments to FAA Administrator Blakey. As far as we are concerned, that is the least we can do for America's pilots, who are considered the best and the safest pilots in the world. Most nations have abolished mandatory age 60 retirement rules. Many countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have no upper age limit at all and consider an age-based retirement rule discriminatory. Sadly though, the United States was one of only four member countries of ICAO, along with Pakistan, Colombia, and France, to dissent to the ICAO decision to increase the retirement age to 65 last year. The Age 60 Rule has no basis in science or safety and never has. The Aerospace Medical Association says that ``There is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based upon age alone.'' Similarly, the American Association of Retired Persons, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Seniors Coalition, and the National Institute of Aging of NIH all agree that the Age 60 Rule is simply age discrimination and should end. My colleagues and I agree. When the rule was implemented in 1960 life expectancies were much lower at just over 69 and a half years. Today they are much higher at more than 77 years. The FAA's own data shows that pilots over age 60 are as safe as, and in some cases safer than, their younger counterparts. In the process of adopting the new international standard, ICAO studied more than 3,000 over-60 pilots from 64 nations, totaling at least 15,000 pilot-years of flying experience and found the risk of medical incapacitation ``a risk so low that it can be safely disregarded.'' Furthermore, a recent economic study shows that allowing pilots to fly to age 65 would save almost $1 billion per year in added Social Security, Medicare, and tax payments and delayed Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) payments. I am encouraged by the progress that has been made. In the 109th Congress, the Senate Commerce Committee reported the modified bill with the ICAO standard favorably and the Senate Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Committee included a version of S. 65 in its bill. The FAA recently convened an Aviation Rulemaking Committee to study the issue of forced retirement. We have yet to see that report but it is our understanding the report was persuasive enough that the Administrator is considering a change in the rule now. We are encouraged by that, but we also know that legislation will be needed to direct the FAA to pursue these changes in a timely manner and in a way that will protect companies and their unions from new lawsuits that might arise as a result of the changes. Our bill accomplishes that. Whether the FAA decides to change the rule on its own or not, Congress needs to do the right thing and pass S. 65 to fully ensure that our own American pilots have the same rights and privileges to work at least until age 65 that were accorded to foreign pilots over the age of 60 this fall. I urge the rest of my colleagues to support the Freedom to Fly Act and help us keep America's most experienced pilots in the air.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to establish Medicare Health Savings Account, HSAs. This bill will make HSAs available under Medicare in lieu of Medicare Medical Savings Account, MSAs. I have long been dedicated to quality health care and believe that seniors should have the ability to make their own decisions regarding their health care, so they can receive the health care they need and deserve. As a senior myself, I appreciate how imperative it is that we seniors be provided with a wide array of choices. My desire to see my fellow Oklahomans and all Americans receive the best possible health care is evidenced by my involvement in various health-related issues. I have always been a champion of rural health care providers. In 1997, I was one of the few Republicans to vote against the Balanced Budget Act because of its lack of support for rural hospitals. At that time, I made a commitment to not allow our rural hospitals to be closed and am pleased we finally addressed that important issue in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 by providing great benefits for rural health care providers as well as a voluntary prescription drug benefit to seniors. In 2003, I also co-sponsored the Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act, to protect and preserve access of Medicare beneficiaries to health care in rural regions. In order to assist my State and other States suffering from large reduction in their Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP for Medicaid, I introduced a bill in the 109th Congress to apply a State's FMAP from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal years 2006 through 2014. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent drastic reductions in FMAP while revision of the formula itself is considered. I am a strong advocate of medical liability reform and have consistently been an original cosponsor of the Medical Care Access Protection Act and the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act. These bills protect patients' access to quality and affordable health care by reducing the effects of excessive liability costs. I am committed to this vital reform that would alleviate the burden placed on physicians and patients by excessive medical malpractice lawsuits. I have also worked with officials from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS to expand access to life-saving Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators and many other numerous regulations that would affect my rural State such as the 250 yard-rule for Critical Access Hospitals. As a supporter of safety and medical research, I have co-sponsored legislation to increase the supply of pancreatic islet cells for research and a bill to take the abortion pill RU-486 off the market in the United States. In response to the shortages of flu vaccines experienced in years past, I introduced the Flu Vaccine Incentive Act to help prevent any future shortages in flu vaccines in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. My bill removed suffocating price controls from government purchasing of the flu vaccine while encouraging more companies to enter the market. Also, my bill freed American companies to enter the flu vaccine industry by giving them an investment tax credit towards the construction of flu vaccine production facilities. As a result of my sister's death from cancer and a treatment we learned about not accessible in the United States that might have saved her life, Senator Sam Brownback and I introduced the Access, Compassion, Care and Ethics for Seriously-ill Patients Act, ACCESS, in the 109th Congress. This bill offered a three-tiered approval system for treatments showing efficacy during clinical trials, for use by the seriously ill patient population. Seriously ill patients, who have exhausted all alternatives and are seeking new treatment options, would be offered access to these treatments with the consent of their physician. I was pleased to learn that the Food and Drug Administration has announced a proposal to offer expanded access to drugs to terminally ill patients. My resolution to designate April 8, 2006, as ``National Cushing's Syndrome Awareness Day'' was passed by unanimous consent in the 109th Congress. The intent of this resolution is to raise awareness of Cushing's Syndrome, a debilitating disorder that affects an estimated 10 to 15 people per million. It is an endocrine or hormonal disorder caused by prolonged exposure of the body's tissue to high levels of the hormone cortisol. It was brought to my attention thanks to a staffer with Celiac Disease and an Oklahoma Celiac Support Group that there is a great need to raise awareness of celiac disease; therefore, I worked to get my resolution passed by unanimous consent to designate September 13, 2006 as National Celiac Disease Awareness Day. Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder and a malabsorption disease that affects an estimated 2.2 million Americans. Celiac disease is, essentially, intolerance to gluten, a protein found in wheat, rye, oats and barley, as well as some medicines and vitamins. Additionally, I have consistently co-sponsored yearly resolutions designating a day in October as ``National Mammography Day'' and a week in August as ``National Health Center Week'' to raise awareness regarding both these issues and have supported passage and enactment of numerous health-care-related bills, such as the Rural Health Care Capital Access Act of 2006, which extends the exemption respecting required patient days for critical access hospitals under the federal hospital mortgage insurance program. As the Federal Government invests in improving hospitals and healthcare initiatives, I have fought hard to ensure that Oklahoma gets its fair share. Specifically, over the past 3 years, I have helped to secure $5.2 million in funding for the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, the Oklahoma State Department of Health planning initiative for a rural telemedicine system, the INTEGRIS Healthcare System, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology, St. Anthony's Heart Hospital, the Hillcrest Healthcare System, and the Morton Health Center. As a long supporter of HSAs, I believe all people should have access to them since they provide great flexibility in the health market and allow individuals to have control over their own health care. Medicare MSAs have existed since January 1, 1997, revised in December of 2003, but they have not worked. No insurer whatsoever has yet offered any Medicare MSA under the current law. To fix this problem, my legislation creates a new HSA program under Medicare that incorporates a high deductible health plan and an HSA account while dissolving the existing Medicare MSA. In tandem with my efforts, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service, CMS, are launching an HSA demonstration project that would test allowing health insurance companies to offer Medicare beneficiaries products similar to HSA. This activity points to the Administration's support of HSAs and desire to see all seniors receive the best possible coverage. As the July 13, 2006 edition of The Hill, explains, ``no legislation is pending that would integrate HSAs into the Medicare program . . .'' Thus, my legislation is necessary because real Medicare HSA reform is needed in order for seniors to have true flexibility and freedom of choice in their health care. Under my bill, beneficiaries who choose the HSA option will receive an annual amount that is equal to 95 percent of the annual Medicare Advantage, MA, capitation rate with respect to the individual's MA payment area. These funds provided through the Medicare HSA program can only be used by the beneficiary for the following purposes: as a contribution into an HSA or for payment of high deductible health plan premiums. However, the individual also has the opportunity to deposit personal funds in to the Medicare HSA. My bill also guarantees that seniors be notified of the amount they will receive 90 days before receipt to ensure they have time to determine the best and most appropriate HSA to accommodate needs. The bill also allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deal with fraud appropriately and requires providers to accept payment by individuals enrolled in a Medicare HSA just as they would with an individual enrolled in traditional Medicare. Please join me in supporting this important legislation to give our seniors more choices regarding their health care.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation 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 physical exams without the prior knowledge or consent of their parents. While the Department of Health and Human Services has administered general exam guidelines to agencies, the U.S. Code is not clear about prohibiting them without parental consent. To clarify the Code, my bill will not allow any non-emergency intrusive exam by a Head Start agency without parental consent. This would not include exams such as hearing, vision or scoliosis screenings. This issue was brought to my attention by some of my constituents from Tulsa, OK, who felt their rights were violated when their children were subjected to genital exams and blood tests without their consent. I am pleased to see that the Rutherford Institute has taken an interest in this crucial issue and are representing my constituents. As a father and grandfather, I believe it is vital for parents to be informed about what is happening to their children in the classroom. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important bill.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today, as an experienced pilot over age 60, along with my colleagues, Senator Stevens, Senator Lieberman and Senator Feingold, to once again introduce a bill that will help end age discrimination among commercial airline pilots. Our bill will abolish the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) arcane Age 60 Rule a regulation that has unjustly forced the retirement of airline pilots the day they turn 60 for more than 45 years. Our bipartisan bill called the ``Freedom to Fly Act'' would replace the dated FAA rule with a new international standard adopted this past November by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) which allows pilots to fly to 65 as long as the copilot is under 60. Since the adoption of the ICAO standard in November of this year, foreign pilots have been flying and working in U.S. Airspace under this new standard up to 65 years of age a privilege the FAA has not been willing to grant to American pilots flying the same aircraft in the same airspace. This bill may seem familiar; I have introduced similar legislation in the past two Congresses and I am dedicated to ensuring its passage this year. And it has never been more urgent. We cannot continue to allow our FAA to force the retirement of America's most experienced commercial pilots at the ripe young age of 60 while they say to their counterparts flying for foreign flags ``Welcome to our airspace.'' Many of these great American pilots are veterans who have served our country and the flying public for decades. Many of them have suffered wage concessions and lost their pensions as the airline industry has faced hard times and bankruptcies. But these American pilots are not asking for a handout. They are just saying to the FAA; ``Give me the same right you granted our foreign counterparts with the stroke of a pen this November. Let us continue to fly, continue to work, continue to contribute to the tax rolls for an additional 5 years.'' We join them and echo their sentiments to FAA Administrator Blakey. As far as we are concerned, that is the least we can do for America's pilots, who are considered the best and the safest pilots in the world. Most nations have abolished mandatory age 60 retirement rules. Many countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have no upper age limit at all and consider an age-based retirement rule discriminatory. Sadly though, the United States was one of only four member countries of ICAO, along with Pakistan, Colombia, and France, to dissent to the ICAO decision to increase the retirement age to 65 last year. The Age 60 Rule has no basis in science or safety and never has. The Aerospace Medical Association says that ``There is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based upon age alone.'' Similarly, the American Association of Retired Persons, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Seniors Coalition, and the National Institute of Aging of NIH all agree that the Age 60 Rule is simply age discrimination and should end. My colleagues and I agree. When the rule was implemented in 1960 life expectancies were much lower at just over 69 and a half years. Today they are much higher at more than 77 years. The FAA's own data shows that pilots over age 60 are as safe as, and in some cases safer than, their younger counterparts. In the process of adopting the new international standard, ICAO studied more than 3,000 over-60 pilots from 64 nations, totaling at least 15,000 pilot-years of flying experience and found the risk of medical incapacitation ``a risk so low that it can be safely disregarded.'' Furthermore, a recent economic study shows that allowing pilots to fly to age 65 would save almost $1 billion per year in added Social Security, Medicare, and tax payments and delayed Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) payments. I am encouraged by the progress that has been made. In the 109th Congress, the Senate Commerce Committee reported the modified bill with the ICAO standard favorably and the Senate Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Committee included a version of S. 65 in its bill. The FAA recently convened an Aviation Rulemaking Committee to study the issue of forced retirement. We have yet to see that report but it is our understanding the report was persuasive enough that the Administrator is considering a change in the rule now. We are encouraged by that, but we also know that legislation will be needed to direct the FAA to pursue these changes in a timely manner and in a way that will protect companies and their unions from new lawsuits that might arise as a result of the changes. Our bill accomplishes that. Whether the FAA decides to change the rule on its own or not, Congress needs to do the right thing and pass S. 65 to fully ensure that our own American pilots have the same rights and privileges to work at least until age 65 that were accorded to foreign pilots over the age of 60 this fall. I urge the rest of my colleagues to support the Freedom to Fly Act and help us keep America's most experienced pilots in the air.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Tom Coburn, to proudly introduce legislation to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 301 Commerce Street in Commerce, OK as the ``Mickey Mantle Post Office.'' Mickey Mantle emulates the Oklahoma spirit of hard work, charity, and sportsmanship. He is a shining example of how commitment and dedication can lead to great success. I seek to name the post office in Commerce, Oklahoma, in Mickey Mantle's honor. He is still known to Commerce by the nicknames ``Commerce Comet'' or ``Commerce Kid''. At age 4, Mickey Mantle moved with his family to Commerce where he grew up, having been born in Spavinaw, OK. By his father who was an amateur player and fervent fan, Mickey Mantle was named in honor of Mickey Cochrane, the Hall of Fame catcher from the Detroit Tigers. Signing with the New York Yankees in 1949, Mantle made his Major League Debut in 1951. He played his entire Major League career with the Yankees. He was a twenty-time All Star and named American League MVP three times. Mantle was a part of 12 pennant winners and 7 World Championship clubs. Some of Mantle's records still hold today. He holds the record for most World Series home runs 18, runs batted in 40, runs 42, walks 43, extra-base hits 26, and total bases 123. Mantle announced his retirement on March 1, 1969. In actually retired on Mickey Mantle Day, June 8, 1969. In addition to the retirement of his uniform number 7, Mantle was given a plaque that would hang on the center field wall at Yankee Stadium, near the monuments to Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Miller Huggins. In 1974, as soon as he was eligible, he was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame demonstrating his importance to baseball and community. Sadly, Mickey Mantle's father died of cancer at the age of 39, just as his son was starting his career. Mantle said one of the great heartaches of his life was that he never told his father he loved him. After a bout with liver cancer himself, Mickey Mantle was given a few precious extra weeks of life due to a liver transplant. The baseball great was overwhelmed by the selfless gift of a liver from a stranger; therefore, Mickey became determined to give something back at the end of his life. Thus, in 1995, the year he died, the Mickey Mantle Foundation was established to promote organ and tissue donation, and Mickey Mantle will be remembered for something more than his heroic baseball career. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation as we commemorate an outstanding athlete so that future generations will be as inspired by his example of sportsmanship and charity as we have been.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, our majority leader has been paying tribute to some great people we work with, and I agree with every word he said. However, we have somebody else who needs tribute today. A real American hero died yesterday. That was Jeane Kirkpatrick. It happens I have been close to Jeane Kirkpatrick for a number of years. People do not realize she was born in Duncan, OK, down in the oil patch. She was the daughter of an oil field wildcatter. I knew her way back in the early stages before she was even brought up by Ronald Reagan to take the lofty positions she held. She was Ronald Reagan's foreign policy adviser in his 1980 campaign and the first woman to hold the position of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. When someone was asking me in the media recently what is the one thing you can say she made the greatest contribution in, I said, she is the first one who called people's attention to what the United Nations is doing, the fact that they have gotten involved in things they should not be involved in. She was one of the last stalwarts to hold out for sovereignty at the United Nations in the United States. The Washington Times noted Jeane Kirkpatrick's eyes twinkled at the mention of the August 1984 night at the Republican National Convention in Dallas when she eviscerated the liberal Democrats as the ``blame America first crowd.'' Boy, is she right. Look what has been happening. She was awarded the Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian honor, in May of 1985. She received her second Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Medal and has received more medals than any other person I know in her field. In 1991, the Kennedy School at Harvard University established the Kirkpatrick Chair in International Affairs. She served as senior fellow and director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. She is famous for her Kirkpatrick doctrine which advocates United States support of anti-Communist governments around the world. Along with the Empower America codirectors, Bill Bennett and Jack Kemp, she has been active up to the present time. One of the things we worked on together was the John Bolton nomination. To me, the saddest day is when we found that John Bolton was throwing in the towel. He had been abused enough. The only way to save the United Nations was with John Bolton. She got behind him and pushed him and got him involved. A lot of people say she is too conservative, but she has been recognized and compared to, of all people, former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. A lot of people do not realize this, but Pat Moynihan was also an Oklahoman. The Chicago Tribune said on November 14 of this year, such distinguished ambassadors as Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Republican Jeane Kirkpatrick also were criticized for tough talk on occasion, even when their passion proved to be right on point. In recent years, it was Jeane Kirkpatrick who called my attention to something happening--and I am not blaming anyone in this Senate. A treaty that was called the Law of the Sea Treaty received a 16-to-0 vote from the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. People did not realize that was a treaty that would turn over to the United Nations the jurisdiction of two-thirds of the entire surface of the world and the air above it. I held hearings as a result of Jeane Kirkpatrick calling this to my attention. We were able to stop it when it was ready to be passed in the next week. I would say we lost a real hero, a real American hero, someone who has been fighting Communists and fundamental Islamic terrorists for her entire life. She has made a great mark. I love her dearly and will certainly miss Jeane Kirkpatrick. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the hearing we had 3 days ago in the Environment and Public Works Committee is one of the four hearings we have had on climate change. It is probably the most misunderstood of all issues out there today--and the most alarming to a lot of people. This hearing was totally different. This hearing was about how the media is skewing the results, how the media is hyping the anxiety of this thing and totally ignoring the science. It is kind of interesting. A lot of people are not aware that when you have a hearing, you will have Republicans and Democrats each bringing in experts. We had five experts; two of them were brought in by the Democrats and three by the Republicans. It was interesting because one of the Democrat witnesses, Dr. Daniel Schrag of Harvard, believes that manmade emissions are driving global warming. Let me clarify this because it is not understood by very many people. The issue is not that the world is getting warmer. Yes. It is. It is always either getting warmer or cooling. There is never any time when it is static. So we are going through a warming period. It increased to about 1998, and then it stopped pretty much at that time. But even their witness, who was a believer, said that the Kyoto Protocol is not the right approach to take and agreed it had almost no impact on the climate if all the nations complied. Probably one of the most major breakthroughs that we have had is the recognition by virtually all scientists that the Kyoto Protocol, which would be devastating to the United States, or any country--ask Great Britain. They will tell you. They signed onto the Kyoto Accord. In fact, if you look at some of the countries, such as Canada, 60 scientists who were advisers to the Prime Minister of Canada are saying if we had known back in the late 1990s the science of today, we would never have done that. Now they are petitioning the Prime Minister to get out of the Kyoto Protocol. It was kind of interesting. Al Gore, who really believed this was his ticket to the White House back when he was the Vice President of the United States, went to a guy named Tom Quigley, a scientist, and said we would like to know if all the countries--this is back when they were trying to get us in the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol-- said if all the countries of the developed world were to do this, what effect would that have on the temperature over a 50-year period. He had a neat chart to hold up. He said if all the countries in the developed world, the United States of America and all the other developed nations did this, over 50 years it would reduce the temperature by 6/100ths of 1 degree centigrade, which isn't even measurable. Now all these people agree with that--all of the scientists who used to be on the other side of the issue. One of the witnesses there was a paleoclimate researcher, Bob Carter from Australia, the James Cook University. He has gone back to Australia. Everyone recognizes him as being one of the outstanding--in fact, he has been on quite a few TV shows. He says there is a huge uncertainty in every aspect of climate change. David Deming, a geophysicist, said: Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked [by the media] with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed on this and other environmental issues. That is a significant thing. While we recognize that we are going through a natural period where the climate is getting warmer, it was actually warmer in the 1930s than it is today. It was warmer in the fifteenth century than today. But during this period of time, they are trying to say it is due to man-emitted gases. They are called antigeometric gases, methane, CO2. Now they are all realizing that CO2 has virtually nothing to do with it, and that is why you are seeing so much of the panic in the media. Dan Gainor was one of the only nonscience witnesses. He approached it from an ethical perspective, talking about the one-sided climate coverage, saying it violates the ethical code of the Society of Professional Journalists which urges the media to ``support the open exchange of views. Even views they find repugnant.'' That code calls for reporters to distinguish between advocacy and news reporting which, he says, they have not been doing. One of those individuals who is a strong supporter of human gases causing climate change, Mike Hulme, the director of the UK-based Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, is on the other side of this thing and has now--talking about the media--chastised the media and environmentalists for choosing the ``language of fear and terror'' to scare the public. Hulme noted he has found himself ``increasingly chastised'' by global warming activists because his public statements ``have not satisfied the [activist] thirst for environmental drama and search for exaggerated rhetoric.'' A report in August of 2006 from the UK labor-leaning Institute for Public Policy talked about the way the media is handling it: A quasireligious register of doom, death, heaven and hell using words such as ``catastrophe,'' ``chaos'' and ``havoc.'' The report also compared the media's coverage of global warming to ``the unreality of Hollywood films.'' Another individual who was a supporter at one time, David Bellamy from Britain, has come around talking about this. The one I am going to talk about in January at some length is a man named Claude Allegre, the French geophysicist and a former Socialist Party leader. He is the only one I know who is a member of both the French and the United States Academies of Science. Allegre now says the cause of warming remains unknown and the alarmism ``has become a very lucrative business for some people.'' In short, their motive is money. And he is right, it is about money. One by one, the people, scientists are coming around. This hearing has had more response throughout the Nation. I have lists of newspapers that have editorialized as a result of this. That awakening is taking place, but that is not why I am here today.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am here to work on what should be an area of widespread, bipartisan agreement with the introduction of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2006. Many, many people in both parties profess the need to reduce our Government's spending. When I hear individuals waxing poetic about the need for fiscal discipline, I usually offer a simple, one-sentence amendment to restore some discretionary spending discipline, but you should see my friends on the other side of the aisle run for the hills when someone proposes we actually do something about it. When the moment comes to move from mere words to real action on fiscal discipline, over and over I have confronted nearly united opposition to it on the other side of the aisle. Last year we did make some progress on our shared goal. We actually held last year's non-security discretionary spending down below the rate of inflation. Let me repeat that: We actually held last year's non-security spending, over which we had discretion, down below the rate of inflation. Again, we are faced with the same task. The President agrees that we must hold down spending and has proposed to hold down discretionary spending. The Budget Committee agrees we must hold down spending and has proposed to hold down discretionary spending. The American people agree we must hold down spending. Senator Dorgan has said that we need to provide spending cuts in a significant manner. Senator Feingold has said, ``We also need to continue to cut spending in Federal programs. . . .'' Senator Levin stated how we need to cut spending when he advocated that ``Discretionary spending . . . [be] frozen for 5 years.'' It seems that both parties agree that we must hold down discretionary spending. Well, let's hold down discretionary spending. I will read the one sentence that is really the entirety of this bill. I'm sure everyone in this body is familiar with it now--nearly all of my friends on the other side of the aisle have voted against it twice in the last twelve months, usually at a time when they are promoting fiscal discipline. It says: ``Beginning with fiscal year 2008 and thereafter, all non-defense, non-trost-fund, discretionary spending shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's levels without a two-thirds vote.'' This is simply a cap on discretionary spending. It is very simple, cut and dry, something that can pass. I hope those individuals who have a more complicated approach to this will recognize this is something that is doable. I want to focus briefly on one point in the President's most recent budget proposal. President Bush wisely sent us a budget that encourages long-term fiscal constraint by including several budget process and program oversight reforms, including setting enforceable limits on total spending to stabilize budget growth in the long-term. Simply put, the President proposes that we put in place a process by which we can control discretionary spending. I have been working on a solution to the massive problem of government spending with this simple language for quite some time. I have actually wanted to offer it previously on appropriations bills, but held off. I offered it as an amendment last November and again this year in March. It has been defeated every time I offer it--every single time. It's usually defeated by nearly unanimous opposition on the other side of the aisle. And what's more, they usually vote against it in a debate during which they cry foul of deficits and declare the need for fiscal restraint. It's astounding how much rhetoric we hear about the need to hold down spending and the need for fiscal restraint. I guess for some, it truly is much easier said than done. So, I am offering it again. I will restate the crux of this bill, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2006, one more time before I close: ``Beginning with fiscal year 2008 and thereafter, all non-defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's levels without a two-thirds vote.'' Folks, it's that easy. I ask that you join me in holding down spending. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am here to work on what should be an area of widespread, bipartisan agreement with the introduction of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2006. Many, many people in both parties profess the need to reduce our Government's spending. When I hear individuals waxing poetic about the need for fiscal discipline, I usually offer a simple, one-sentence amendment to restore some discretionary spending discipline, but you should see my friends on the other side of the aisle run for the hills when someone proposes we actually do something about it. When the moment comes to move from mere words to real action on fiscal discipline, over and over I have confronted nearly united opposition to it on the other side of the aisle. Last year we did make some progress on our shared goal. We actually held last year's non-security discretionary spending down below the rate of inflation. Let me repeat that: We actually held last year's non-security spending, over which we had discretion, down below the rate of inflation. Again, we are faced with the same task. The President agrees that we must hold down spending and has proposed to hold down discretionary spending. The Budget Committee agrees we must hold down spending and has proposed to hold down discretionary spending. The American people agree we must hold down spending. Senator Dorgan has said that we need to provide spending cuts in a significant manner. Senator Feingold has said, ``We also need to continue to cut spending in Federal programs. . . .'' Senator Levin stated how we need to cut spending when he advocated that ``Discretionary spending . . . [be] frozen for 5 years.'' It seems that both parties agree that we must hold down discretionary spending. Well, let's hold down discretionary spending. I will read the one sentence that is really the entirety of this bill. I'm sure everyone in this body is familiar with it now--nearly all of my friends on the other side of the aisle have voted against it twice in the last twelve months, usually at a time when they are promoting fiscal discipline. It says: ``Beginning with fiscal year 2008 and thereafter, all non-defense, non-trost-fund, discretionary spending shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's levels without a two-thirds vote.'' This is simply a cap on discretionary spending. It is very simple, cut and dry, something that can pass. I hope those individuals who have a more complicated approach to this will recognize this is something that is doable. I want to focus briefly on one point in the President's most recent budget proposal. President Bush wisely sent us a budget that encourages long-term fiscal constraint by including several budget process and program oversight reforms, including setting enforceable limits on total spending to stabilize budget growth in the long-term. Simply put, the President proposes that we put in place a process by which we can control discretionary spending. I have been working on a solution to the massive problem of government spending with this simple language for quite some time. I have actually wanted to offer it previously on appropriations bills, but held off. I offered it as an amendment last November and again this year in March. It has been defeated every time I offer it--every single time. It's usually defeated by nearly unanimous opposition on the other side of the aisle. And what's more, they usually vote against it in a debate during which they cry foul of deficits and declare the need for fiscal restraint. It's astounding how much rhetoric we hear about the need to hold down spending and the need for fiscal restraint. I guess for some, it truly is much easier said than done. So, I am offering it again. I will restate the crux of this bill, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2006, one more time before I close: ``Beginning with fiscal year 2008 and thereafter, all non-defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's levels without a two-thirds vote.'' Folks, it's that easy. I ask that you join me in holding down spending. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which receives 25 percent of its budget from the U.S., has used U.S. taxpayer money in turn to encourage and support higher taxes on the U.S. taxpayer, in addition to its support of U.N. global tax schemes. The OECD has endorsed and encouraged higher taxes, new taxes, and global taxes no fewer than 24 times in reports with titles such as ``Towards Global Tax Cooperation,'' in which the OECD identifies 35 nations guilty of ``harmful tax competition.'' They have advocated that the U.S. adopt a costly and bureaucratic 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, new taxes at the State level, and a host of other new and innovative taxes on U.S. citizens. It is not only the recommending of higher taxes which concerns us; the ultimate concern is the movement towards undermining U.S. sovereignty. Ecogroups such as the Friends of the Earth want the OECD to declare that dam-building for flood control and electronic power is unacceptable as ``sustainable energy.'' In May, 2005 the OECD ministers endorsed a proposal at the U.N. to create a system of global taxes. The OECD has 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 are Paris-based 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 hasn't been fair to socialistic welfare states. Well, it's a good thing that they have the OECD and nearly $100 million in U.S. taxpayer money to protect 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. And John Bolton argues that the OECD's approach ``represents a kind of worldwide centralization of governments and interest groups.'' Who do you think bears the costs for all this? Mr. Bolton answers and you probably guessed it--the United States. America's proud history of independence was driven in no small part by the desire for sovereignty over taxation powers. In this context, it makes no sense to relegate our sovereignty over tax policy, in any way, to international bureaucrats. It is very simple. U.S. taxpayers are being forced to fund a bunch of international bureaucrats who write, speak, organize, and advocate in support of higher taxes, global taxes, and the gradual erosion of American sovereignty over its domestic fiscal policies. I think that most Americans would be outraged to learn that they are forced to subsidize these types of activities with their tax dollars. I think that they shouldn't have to any longer. That's why I am introducing legislation today to remove the United State's contributions to the OECD. I ask you to join me in doing so, as the following individuals and their respective organizations have joined in helping us to combat un-American policies emanating from the OECD in the past: Andrew F. Quinlan, President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation; Daniel J. Mitchell, Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation; Veronique de Rugy, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; John Berthoud, President, National Taxpayers Union; Grover Norquist, President. Americans for Tax Reform; Tom Giovanetti, President, Institute for Policy Innovation; Karen Kerrigan, President and CEO, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council; Doug Bandow, Vice President of Policy, Citizen Outreach; Roland Boucher, Chairman, United Californians for Tax Reform; Daniel Clifton, Executive Director, American Shareholders Association; Rick Durham, President, Tennessee Tax Revolt, Inc.; Richard Falknor, Executive Vice President, Maryland Taxpayers Association; Kerri Houston, Vice President of Policy, Frontiers of Freedom; David A. Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union; Matt Kibbe, President and CEO, FreedomWorks; Thomas P. Kilgannon, President, Freedom Alliance; Michelle Korsmo, Vice President, Americans for Prosperity Foundation; Charles W. Jarvis, Chairman, USA Next; James L. Martin, President, 60 Plus Association; Chuck Muth, President, Citizen Outreach; Karl Peterjohn, Executive Director, Kansas Taxpayers Network; George Pieler, Senior Fellow, Institute for Policy Innovation; John Pugsley, Chairman, The Sovereign Society; Don Racheter, President, Public Interest Institute; Amy Ridenour, President, The National Center for Public Policy Research; Terrence Scanlon, President, Capital Research Center; Thomas Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; Bill Sizemore, Executive Director, Oregon Taxpayers United; David M. Stanley, Chairman, Iowans for Tax Relief; David M Strom, President, Taxpayers League of Minnesota; Henry L. Thaxton, Director, West Virginians Against Government Waste; Pat Toomey, President, Club for Growth; Lewis K. Uhler, President, National Tax Limitation Committee; and Paul M. Weyrich, National Chairman, Coalitions for America.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which receives 25 percent of its budget from the U.S., has used U.S. taxpayer money in turn to encourage and support higher taxes on the U.S. taxpayer, in addition to its support of U.N. global tax schemes. The OECD has endorsed and encouraged higher taxes, new taxes, and global taxes no fewer than 24 times in reports with titles such as ``Towards Global Tax Cooperation,'' in which the OECD identifies 35 nations guilty of ``harmful tax competition.'' They have advocated that the U.S. adopt a costly and bureaucratic 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, new taxes at the State level, and a host of other new and innovative taxes on U.S. citizens. It is not only the recommending of higher taxes which concerns us; the ultimate concern is the movement towards undermining U.S. sovereignty. Ecogroups such as the Friends of the Earth want the OECD to declare that dam-building for flood control and electronic power is unacceptable as ``sustainable energy.'' In May, 2005 the OECD ministers endorsed a proposal at the U.N. to create a system of global taxes. The OECD has 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 are Paris-based 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 hasn't been fair to socialistic welfare states. Well, it's a good thing that they have the OECD and nearly $100 million in U.S. taxpayer money to protect 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. And John Bolton argues that the OECD's approach ``represents a kind of worldwide centralization of governments and interest groups.'' Who do you think bears the costs for all this? Mr. Bolton answers and you probably guessed it--the United States. America's proud history of independence was driven in no small part by the desire for sovereignty over taxation powers. In this context, it makes no sense to relegate our sovereignty over tax policy, in any way, to international bureaucrats. It is very simple. U.S. taxpayers are being forced to fund a bunch of international bureaucrats who write, speak, organize, and advocate in support of higher taxes, global taxes, and the gradual erosion of American sovereignty over its domestic fiscal policies. I think that most Americans would be outraged to learn that they are forced to subsidize these types of activities with their tax dollars. I think that they shouldn't have to any longer. That's why I am introducing legislation today to remove the United State's contributions to the OECD. I ask you to join me in doing so, as the following individuals and their respective organizations have joined in helping us to combat un-American policies emanating from the OECD in the past: Andrew F. Quinlan, President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation; Daniel J. Mitchell, Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation; Veronique de Rugy, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; John Berthoud, President, National Taxpayers Union; Grover Norquist, President. Americans for Tax Reform; Tom Giovanetti, President, Institute for Policy Innovation; Karen Kerrigan, President and CEO, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council; Doug Bandow, Vice President of Policy, Citizen Outreach; Roland Boucher, Chairman, United Californians for Tax Reform; Daniel Clifton, Executive Director, American Shareholders Association; Rick Durham, President, Tennessee Tax Revolt, Inc.; Richard Falknor, Executive Vice President, Maryland Taxpayers Association; Kerri Houston, Vice President of Policy, Frontiers of Freedom; David A. Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union; Matt Kibbe, President and CEO, FreedomWorks; Thomas P. Kilgannon, President, Freedom Alliance; Michelle Korsmo, Vice President, Americans for Prosperity Foundation; Charles W. Jarvis, Chairman, USA Next; James L. Martin, President, 60 Plus Association; Chuck Muth, President, Citizen Outreach; Karl Peterjohn, Executive Director, Kansas Taxpayers Network; George Pieler, Senior Fellow, Institute for Policy Innovation; John Pugsley, Chairman, The Sovereign Society; Don Racheter, President, Public Interest Institute; Amy Ridenour, President, The National Center for Public Policy Research; Terrence Scanlon, President, Capital Research Center; Thomas Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; Bill Sizemore, Executive Director, Oregon Taxpayers United; David M. Stanley, Chairman, Iowans for Tax Relief; David M Strom, President, Taxpayers League of Minnesota; Henry L. Thaxton, Director, West Virginians Against Government Waste; Pat Toomey, President, Club for Growth; Lewis K. Uhler, President, National Tax Limitation Committee; and Paul M. Weyrich, National Chairman, Coalitions for America.