Floor Statements

Mr. President, during yesterday's discussion of the motion to proceed to the Water Resources Development Act, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer, inserted into the Record a chart that shows which Member or Members requested each project-related provision in the WRDA bill. This chart, of course, was our effort to comply with the intent of S. 1, the Legislative Transparency bill. For some of the WRDA provisions, however, it was in fact a particular Member who secured inclusion of the provision in the bill. Since the chart discloses each request, however, that distinction is not clear. With that in mid, I would like to provide the following list of provisions and the Members who secured them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the chart to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the leader and the chairman of the committee. Let me make one comment which I think is very important. We had such a short period of time to talk before this, and I hope anyone who has any concern over this bill at least will go ahead on the motion to proceed.

Let me make one comment that surprises a lot of people. It is true I used to chair this committee before the Democrats took the majority, and now Senator Boxer is the chairman. Senator Boxer is a very proud liberal Democrat and I am a very proud conservative Republican. I think it is important for people to understand that, because there are areas where we agree. We understand we have a crisis in this country on infrastructure.

I have often said--and I am ranked No. 1 as the most conservative Member of the Senate--I feel we need to spend in areas of national defense and infrastructure, and this bill is the second most important infrastructure bill that is out there. We are far beyond the time we should have had this. It has been some 7 years since we have had an infrastructure bill.

Let me say to my conservative friends, it was misreported that this is going to be a $30.5 billion bill. It is less than half of that. It is less than the House has sent over. I can tell my colleagues this: If we don't pass this--this is not a spending bill; this is a reauthorization bill. This is not an appropriations bill. So if we don't do this, then it will be done without any guidelines. We followed guidelines. Perhaps they are not quite as good as they were a year ago, but still, they are guidelines in terms of what we will consider and what we won't. But if we don't pass this, then we will be doing it without any type of discipline at all. So I think it is very important that we agree to move on to the bill.

I yield my last minute to the Senator from Georgia, who is the ranking member of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. President, I am going to again invite Members to come to the floor. The order is H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act. We have had a chance now to act on a motion to proceed. We are on that right now. I know there are several Members who have said they want to come to the floor with statements and amendments. I join Senator Boxer, the chairman of our committee, in encouraging people to bring their amendments down and give us a chance to look at them.

I have to say, I was a little disappointed that we did not have a unanimous vote on the motion to proceed. Let me again say this, and I say this to my conservative friends, the Water Resources Development Act that is under consideration now is very similar to the one we acted on a year ago. In fact, it started out to be the same thing. I wanted to use the same criteria on the current bill that we used last year. However, on environmental infrastructure projects, there are a lot of people who wanted some of those to be considered. Frankly, I would have preferred not to. But nonetheless, that is now part of the criteria. There is a limited number of those projects.

We have criteria that go along the line of making sure there is local support. We do not have any waivers for local support of these efforts, so the participation has to be there from the local governments to demonstrate clearly these are important projects to be considered.

Speaking as a conservative, let me emphasize there are certain things conservatives believe Government should be doing. The top two in my category are armed services--we have to defend America; that is our function; that is what we are supposed to be doing--and second is infrastructure. Way back in the Eisenhower administration, we started a system of national highways. It has been very successful. But we have a problem in the way we have been funding them with user fees, with a Federal gasoline excise tax. It has worked fairly well. However, we are to the point now where the last bill we passed 2 years ago, the Transportation reauthorization bill, was one where, even though it was a very large bill in terms of spending that amount of money, it did nothing more than maintain what we currently have. That is not adequate.

You might say that has nothing to do with the Water Resources Development Act. It does. Right now, looking into the future, I see nothing but serious problems. We know 10 years from now the traffic on our highway system throughout America is going to double and probably triple in 20 years. If something is not done to increase the road capacity, it is going to be chaotic. The two things that have the most favorable effect on surface transportation are our rail and waterway system. That is what this is all about, our waterway system.

We are going to be talking in a lot more detail about this, but I want to say, particularly to those out there who believe there may be projects they don't like: These projects meet a criteria. If we were not to pass the Water Resources Development Act, if we were to say we are not going to pass it--maybe people are fabricating some reason, they don't like one or two projects that are in there--No. 1, as it is now, those projects have met the criteria, and, No. 2, if we do not pass this bill, we will have no spending discipline on these projects. They will simply go and get appropriations, and they can be things that have nothing to do with meeting important criteria.

Look at this as a criterion bill to reduce spending, runaway spending; to reduce money being spent on things that do not meet the criteria in terms of the Corps of Engineers' reports to make sure they meet environmental and other requirements.

It may surprise a lot of people to know that in my State of Oklahoma, we actually have a navigational waterway. A lot of people are not aware of that. In fact, it was the best kept secret for many years. But we carry grain and oil products and petroleum products back and forth all the way from my city of Tulsa, OK, it is called the Port of Catoosa, down through the Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers and distributed throughout the water system. It is something absolutely necessary. If we did not have that, if we were not able to pass legislation to expand that capacity, then that traffic is going to fall on our highways.

I can assure you right now the same committee considering the water bill now is going to be considering the highway reauthorization, probably in a couple of years. It is going to make it that much more traumatic if we do not get this done.

I will give an example. In the State of Oklahoma, 98 percent of the way we have a 12-foot channel. However, if it is only 2 percent that is a 9-foot channel, that restricts the entire channel. I think we all understand that.

While that is not in this bill--I don't have anything self-serving about this comment because that has already been authorized, that has been authorized for years--it is that type of thing that, if we are to shut down for any reason or dramatically restrict our waterways, all that is going to fall on our highways. It is a serious problem.

I reemphasize to those who are my conservative friends--we have rankings around here. One of the unique things about the Senate and House of Representatives is that if people want to know how their Members are voting, if you are concerned about overtaxation, you have a number of organizations--the National Taxpayers Union, the National Tax Limitation Committee, and others--that rank us as to how we vote on tax increases. If you are concerned about overregulation of small business--I spent 35 years in small business so I know a little bit about overregulation--if you are concerned about that, the National Federation of Independent Businesses ranks all Members, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, as to how they vote on regulatory issues that might inhibit the expansion of small businesses.

The same thing is true with how people vote on defending America. The Center for Security Policy ranks all Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, on how they vote on defense issues, which is a real critical thing that we are dealing with right now.

The same is true in terms of people who are conservatives. The American Conservative Union ranks all Members of the House and Senate. I have to say to my conservative friends, I am, as of

2 weeks ago, again, considered and ranked as the No. 1 most conservative Member of the Senate. I am proud of that. So I don't want anyone to run around saying we are passing a bill that is somehow going out and doing projects that should not be done.

Sure, there are some projects in here that I don't like as well as others. I might not have had the same criteria as someone on the other side of the aisle might. But I have to say this, with the chairman of our committee, Senator Boxer, she and I have worked for a long time on this. She, as I said before, is a proud liberal Democrat. I am a proud conservative Republican. We agree on these things. We know Government has the function of making sure we do certain things. Certainly, the greatest Nation in the world has to have an infrastructure system that will accommodate transportation.

This is a very important part of that. When we deploy units for training out of Oklahoma, we send the heavy equipment via channels.

I have not told this story in a long time, but since I see Senator Boxer, I will tell it. Many years ago when I was in the State Senate, it occurred to me that our navigation way that makes us navigable in the State of Oklahoma was something nobody knew about. They said: We know about the Intercoastal Waterway, we know about the Arkansas River, we know about the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes, but they didn't know anything about the State of Oklahoma and the fact you can get all the way up there with barge traffic into my hometown of Tulsa,

Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks made by the chairman of the committee, Senator Boxer. I do agree. It is very unusual that we agree so much on one bill, and we do on this one. It is important that everyone understands, this bill is actually less than the House bill is. This bill is less than the bill when I was chairman of the committee a year ago. But the most important part is, it offers discipline. When you say you need a chief's report, you are saying a project has to be economically justified, environmentally sound, and technically feasible. Without this bill, there is no discipline. That is what I keep saying to my conservative friends.

One of the Members who has been very helpful was the chairman of the subcommittee--and I was ranking member--out of which this bill emerged, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson. So we can lock in the next two speakers, if there is no objection, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Isakson be recognized for up to 8 minutes, followed by Senator Grassley from Iowa for up to 20 minutes.

I also ask unanimous consent for Senator Feingold to be recognized at noon today for up to 1 hour. Then at 1 o'clock, we will have an opportunity to respond.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Let Mon Lee, a fellow from the U.S. Corps of Engineers, be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the Senate's consideration of the Water Resources Development Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last year I said that this Nation of immigrants requires an official language. An overwhelming majority of the Senate agreed with me on my amendment to that effect on the immigration bill. I am convinced that official English will command another majority should it receive a rollcall vote in this session. That is why today I am introducing S. 1335 to make English the official language of our Nation.

The English language has played a critical role in establishing the unity of this Nation from its beginning. As I have said before, a common means of communication has created one giant market for goods and labor in our Nation, from Maine to California. A resident of Tulsa can seek work in New Hampshire, Oregon, or Georgia without having to learn a second language. A company based in Oklahoma City can readily sell its products from Portland, ME, to Los Angeles.

In Europe, by contrast, a resident of Berlin cannot look for work in Paris or Warsaw without surmounting considerable language barriers. A German company cannot usually sell its product in Madrid, again, in part, because of language barriers. The European Union is an effort to create a U.S.-like common market in Western Europe. Among other things, Europeans are spending billions of euros to try to replicate what we in America have enjoyed for free these past 230 years.

Recognizing that English is necessary for successful business and a growing economy, the Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce recently announced that it is spearheading a multimillion dollar campaign to help about 50,000 of its residents to learn the language. I regret to report that we have spent the last few decades giving away this priceless linguistic unity.

Clinton Executive Order No. 13166 demands that all recipients of Federal funds function in any language anyone speaks at any time, burdening taxpayers with extraneous costs of an enabling policy while providing incentives for immigrants to circumvent learning English and, regretfully, hurt their chances at effective assimilation.

My constituents agree that foreign language ballots deserve no place in an American election. My bill will eliminate these foreign language voting materials and multilingual voting mandates imposed on Oklahoma and other States. Only citizens are allowed to vote in our Nation, and one of the requirements to become a good citizen is to show an understanding of English. Money to provide foreign language ballots would be better spent on such constructive activities as simply teaching people how to speak English.

Not only does my bill repeal foreign language ballots, it is aimed at the entire forest of mandatory multilingualism. My legislation basically recognizes the practical reality of the role of English as our official language and states explicitly that English is our official language and provides English a status in law it has not held before. Making English the official language will clarify that there is no entitlement to receive Federal documents and services in languages other than English and will end the practice of providing translation entitlements at taxpayer expense.

My bill declares that any rights of a person, as well as services or materials in languages other than English, must be authorized or provided by law. It recognizes the decades of unbroken court opinions that civil rights laws protecting against national origin and discrimination do not create rights to government service and materials in languages other than English. While my bill will end federally mandated and funded foreign language entitlement, it certainly still allows for Democratic and Republican activists to offer palm cards and sample ballots in any language they wish--from Cherokee to Chinese--on election day and for individuals to bring along their own translaters to any Federal Government office.

It is important to note that my bill only affects the language spoken by the Government, not the language choices of people speaking among themselves.

Official English is popular even among Hispanics. As I have cited before on the floor of the Senate, in 2006, a Zogby poll found 84 percent of Americans, including 71 percent of Hispanics,

believe that English should be the national language of government operations. According to a 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, a poll of 91 percent of foreign-born Latino immigrants agreed that learning English is essential to succeed in the United States.

Allow me to conclude by remembering the founder of the official English movement, U.S. Senator S.I. Hayakawa. The son of Asian immigrants, S.I. Hayakawa became a professor of English, a college president, and, in 1976, a U.S. Senator. Senator Hayakawa became the leader of the official English effort in this Chamber when he introduced an official English bill on April 27, 1981. Senator Hayakawa used to say ``bilingualism for the individual is fine but not for a country.'' While I never served with Senator Hayakawa, I would like to honor his efforts and continue his important work by offering the S.I. Hayakawa Official English Act of 2007, which is S. 1335.

Let me say, it seems so ridiculous that as we travel around the world, there are some 51 countries that have English as their official language, and yet the United States doesn't. I was recently in Ghana, West Africa. They have English as their official language. We don't have it in the United States.

Zambia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe have English as their official language but not the United States. This is something that should be a no- brainer. Of the 80-some percent of the people polled, up to 91 percent want English as the official language, and yet, for some unknown reason, people seem to be catering to some maybe small, radical group that doesn't want it. I think it is time for the majority of the American people to realize this could very well be the reality.

Let me also say, when I had this amendment on the floor before, there were all kinds of objections that came down that didn't have any credibility at all. One of them that came down said: Well, you have all these flags of the various States that have foreign languages; you would have to do away with State flags. This has nothing to do with that. One came down that said: You would no longer be able to use Spanish on the floor of the Senate. It has nothing to do with that. They said: You would be drowning Hispanics. I said: Explain that to me. They said: Well, we have ``no swimming'' signs in the Potomac where the currents are very strong, so people would go in there and they would drown. This is how desperate people are to find something objectionable about something that 90 percent of the people in America want.

So we are very serious about this. We are going to carry on the works of the good Senator from California and hopefully respond to 90 percent of Americans who want English as an official language.

Mr. President, last year I said that this Nation of immigrants requires an official language. An overwhelming majority of the Senate agreed with me on my amendment to that effect on the immigration bill. I am convinced that official English will command another majority should it receive a rollcall vote in this session. That is why today I am introducing S. 1335 to make English the official language of our Nation.

The English language has played a critical role in establishing the unity of this Nation from its beginning. As I have said before, a common means of communication has created one giant market for goods and labor in our Nation, from Maine to California. A resident of Tulsa can seek work in New Hampshire, Oregon, or Georgia without having to learn a second language. A company based in Oklahoma City can readily sell its products from Portland, ME, to Los Angeles.

In Europe, by contrast, a resident of Berlin cannot look for work in Paris or Warsaw without surmounting considerable language barriers. A German company cannot usually sell its product in Madrid, again, in part, because of language barriers. The European Union is an effort to create a U.S.-like common market in Western Europe. Among other things, Europeans are spending billions of euros to try to replicate what we in America have enjoyed for free these past 230 years.

Recognizing that English is necessary for successful business and a growing economy, the Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce recently announced that it is spearheading a multimillion dollar campaign to help about 50,000 of its residents to learn the language. I regret to report that we have spent the last few decades giving away this priceless linguistic unity.

Clinton Executive Order No. 13166 demands that all recipients of Federal funds function in any language anyone speaks at any time, burdening taxpayers with extraneous costs of an enabling policy while providing incentives for immigrants to circumvent learning English and, regretfully, hurt their chances at effective assimilation.

My constituents agree that foreign language ballots deserve no place in an American election. My bill will eliminate these foreign language voting materials and multilingual voting mandates imposed on Oklahoma and other States. Only citizens are allowed to vote in our Nation, and one of the requirements to become a good citizen is to show an understanding of English. Money to provide foreign language ballots would be better spent on such constructive activities as simply teaching people how to speak English.

Not only does my bill repeal foreign language ballots, it is aimed at the entire forest of mandatory multilingualism. My legislation basically recognizes the practical reality of the role of English as our official language and states explicitly that English is our official language and provides English a status in law it has not held before. Making English the official language will clarify that there is no entitlement to receive Federal documents and services in languages other than English and will end the practice of providing translation entitlements at taxpayer expense.

My bill declares that any rights of a person, as well as services or materials in languages other than English, must be authorized or provided by law. It recognizes the decades of unbroken court opinions that civil rights laws protecting against national origin and discrimination do not create rights to government service and materials in languages other than English. While my bill will end federally mandated and funded foreign language entitlement, it certainly still allows for Democratic and Republican activists to offer palm cards and sample ballots in any language they wish--from Cherokee to Chinese--on election day and for individuals to bring along their own translaters to any Federal Government office.

It is important to note that my bill only affects the language spoken by the Government, not the language choices of people speaking among themselves.

Official English is popular even among Hispanics. As I have cited before on the floor of the Senate, in 2006, a Zogby poll found 84 percent of Americans, including 71 percent of Hispanics,

believe that English should be the national language of government operations. According to a 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, a poll of 91 percent of foreign-born Latino immigrants agreed that learning English is essential to succeed in the United States.

Allow me to conclude by remembering the founder of the official English movement, U.S. Senator S.I. Hayakawa. The son of Asian immigrants, S.I. Hayakawa became a professor of English, a college president, and, in 1976, a U.S. Senator. Senator Hayakawa became the leader of the official English effort in this Chamber when he introduced an official English bill on April 27, 1981. Senator Hayakawa used to say ``bilingualism for the individual is fine but not for a country.'' While I never served with Senator Hayakawa, I would like to honor his efforts and continue his important work by offering the S.I. Hayakawa Official English Act of 2007, which is S. 1335.

Let me say, it seems so ridiculous that as we travel around the world, there are some 51 countries that have English as their official language, and yet the United States doesn't. I was recently in Ghana, West Africa. They have English as their official language. We don't have it in the United States.

Zambia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe have English as their official language but not the United States. This is something that should be a no- brainer. Of the 80-some percent of the people polled, up to 91 percent want English as the official language, and yet, for some unknown reason, people seem to be catering to some maybe small, radical group that doesn't want it. I think it is time for the majority of the American people to realize this could very well be the reality.

Let me also say, when I had this amendment on the floor before, there were all kinds of objections that came down that didn't have any credibility at all. One of them that came down said: Well, you have all these flags of the various States that have foreign languages; you would have to do away with State flags. This has nothing to do with that. One came down that said: You would no longer be able to use Spanish on the floor of the Senate. It has nothing to do with that. They said: You would be drowning Hispanics. I said: Explain that to me. They said: Well, we have ``no swimming'' signs in the Potomac where the currents are very strong, so people would go in there and they would drown. This is how desperate people are to find something objectionable about something that 90 percent of the people in America want.

So we are very serious about this. We are going to carry on the works of the good Senator from California and hopefully respond to 90 percent of Americans who want English as an official language.

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

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

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

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

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his tolerance.

Mr. President, I introduced last year a bill I called the Child Medication Safety Act. We are offering it as an amendment to this underlying bill. It is my anticipation that we will get a vote on it ultimately. This is to protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance or psychotropic drug in order to attend school. The House passed their version of H.R. 1790 by 407 to 12 under suspension of the rules in November of 2005.

Parents today face many challenges when raising their children, one of which is ensuring that their children receive the best education possible. My views on education come from a somewhat unique perspective in that my wife Kay was a teacher at Edison High School. My daughters are both teachers. I can assure my colleagues that I am one of the strongest supporters of quality education. However, it has come to my attention that schools have been acting as physicians or psychologists by strongly suggesting that children with behavioral problems be put immediately on some form of psychotropic drugs. Schools and teachers are not equipped to make these diagnoses and should make it mandatory for the student to continue attending the school. This is clearly beyond their area of expertise. Therefore, I am introducing this legislation to ensure that parents are not required by school personnel to medicate their children.

The Child Medication Safety Act requires, as a condition of receiving funds from the Department of Education, that States develop and implement policies and procedures prohibiting school personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription as a condition of attending school. It should be noted that this bill does not prevent teachers or other school personnel from sharing with parents or guardians classroom-based observations regarding a student's academic performance or regarding the need for evaluation of for special education.

Additionally, this bill calls for a study by the Comptroller General of the United States reviewing: No. 1, the variation among States in the definition of psychotropic medication as used in public education; No. 2, the prescription rates of medication used in public schools to treat children with attention deficit disorders and other such disorders; No. 3, which medications listed under the Controlled Substances Act are being prescribed to such children; and, No. 4, which medications not listed under the Controlled Substances Act are being used to treat these children and their properties and effects. This GAO report is due no later than 1 year after enactment of this act.

I believe it is an extremely important amendment. It protects the rights of our children against improper intrusion regarding health issues by those not qualified. If a parent or guardian believes their child is in need of medication, then they ought to have the right to make that decision and consult with a licensed medical practitioner who is qualified to prescribe an appropriate drug. I am hoping others will join me in support of the amendment. It is a parental rights amendment that should be supported by all.

With that, it is my intention that we will be putting this in line to get a vote. I ask unanimous consent now to return to the previous pending amendment.

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

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

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

I thank the managers of this bill for giving me this time to make this presentation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am here today to recognize and pay tribute to COL Anthony J. ``Lazer'' Lazarski, Chief of the Air Force Senate Liaison, for his 25 years of exceptional service and dedication to the U.S. Air Force and our great country. Colonel Lazarski is a command pilot with over 2,300 flight hours in 12 different types of aircraft, including the RF-4, F-15, F-16, F-111 and F-117. He has supported combat operations around the world, to include the Libya Raid and Operations Desert Storm, Desert Fox, Allied Force, Southern Watch, and Iraqi Freedom. Throughout his military career, he has been recognized by his superiors and subordinates as a leader in the air and on the ground--an Airman with the ability to motivate and lead.

COL Lazer Lazarski grew up in North Arlington, NJ, and watched them build the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center from the basement up. He earned an appointment to the Air Force Academy and graduated in 1982 with military honors. Upon completion of pilot training, he was selected to fly the F-111 and earned the distinction of Top Gun for both his T-38 Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals class and his F-111 Replacement Training Unit class. While flying in Tactical Air Command with the 79th NATO Tigers at RAF Upper Heyford, he was selected as the wing's youngest instructor pilot. Shortly thereafter, he was selected as the youngest United States Air Forces in Europe flight examiner. As a pilot, I can attest to the fact that you only allow your sharpest and most mature pilots to set, evaluate, and enforce the standards for other pilots. I happen to be a flight instructor currently. I can assure you, they are the very best people. This is a major accomplishment he was able to achieve.

Colonel Lazarski later transitioned to the F-117 Stealth Fighter and earned Top Gun in his third aircraft, this time during a Southern Watch deployment over the skies of Iraq. Colonel Lazarski demonstrated he could not only deliver precise weapons on target on time, he could also motivate and lead others. In recognition of his extraordinary leadership, he was named 12th Air Force Flight Commander of the Year, and selected to attend the Naval War College.

After graduating from the Naval War College in 1994, he served 3 years in Naples, Italy at NATO Headquarters, including as the aide-de- camp to two different Commanders, Allied Air Forces in Southern Europe. One of these Commanders was then LTG Mike Ryan, who would later become Air Force Chief of Staff. During his tour, he was one of the first combat troops on the ground in Sarajevo as he helped set up the NATO Air Operations Center.

In 1997, he transitioned to the F-15 Strike Eagle, serving as the 336th Fighter Squadron Assistant Operations Officer and deployed commander from Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, NC. During this tour he also served as Chief of the Command Post and integrated new command and control systems to include hurricane tracking/forecasting systems put to test in 3 years of multiple hurricanes.

In 2001 he graduated No. 1 from his Air War College Class, earning the Wright Brothers Officership Award and Military Outstanding Volunteer Medal. This honor earned him the right to serve the next year at Vance Air Force Base, in my home state of Oklahoma as the Deputy Operations Group Commander.

Due to the superb leadership Colonel Lazarski demonstrated at Vance, he was selected as the Director of Air Combat Command's Commander Action Group--the strategic ``think tank'' for our Air Force's lead combat command. In this position he was given the immense responsibility for developing strategy, doctrine, concepts, tactics and procedures for U.S. air and space power employment.

Colonel Lazarski's next assignment led him back to command, this time in Air Education Training Command as the Commander of the 479th Flying Training Group where he was responsible for training new pilots in the T-6, and new fighter pilots and weapons officers in the T-38. Colonel Lazarski oversaw 115 aircraft averaging 300 sorties a day, and despite five hurricanes in one season, no student ever graduated late under Colonel Lazarski's leadership.

In 2005 at the culmination of an exceptional military career, Colonel Lazarski was reassigned to Capitol Hill as the Chief of the Air Force Senate Liaison Division. Here Colonel Lazarski integrated his remarkable experience and leadership with ceaseless integrity, initiative, and persistence to result in unparalleled effectiveness on behalf of the Air Force and our Nation.

We offer our sincere thanks to Colonel Lazarski, his wife Stephanie, and their son Andrew for their unwavering support of our country and the freedom we hold so dear. We congratulate Colonel Lazarski on the completion of an exemplary active-duty career. Utilizing the theme from one of my favorite books, Message to Garcia, let me close by saying: Message delivered and job well done! Now a new mission awaits you, and I'm honored to have you serve your country again, this time as my Military Legislative Assistant. Congratulations and welcome!

Mr. President, I once again today introduced S. 1269, the ENFORCE Act, because this body has failed to move forward with sound immigration legislation. My bill is a strong step in the right direction to help solve our growing problem of illegal immigration.

I did this already. I did this last year. We had a chance to talk about it, but we never were able to get this up to a vote. I do want to keep this subject moving because people are not talking about this anymore. This bill focuses on securing our borders and empowering our citizens and law enforcement officers to fight the all-time high flood of illegal immigrants. There are around a million illegal aliens infiltrating our borders each year. It also addresses some of the lesser known but equally destructive exploitations of our Nation by some of these illegal immigrants.

I wish to be clear, for some reason--I am not sure why--- I have been honored over the years to speak at nationalization ceremonies. It is one of the emotional things a person can go through. When you see people coming into this country and doing it the way

they are supposed to, they learn the history. Those who have gone through the legal process know more about the history of America than the average person you run into on the street. I am very strongly in favor of legal immigration.

In 1997, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform stated that ``measured, legal immigration has led to create one of the world's greatest multiethnic nations.'' I agree with that statement. I also agree with their statement that when immigrants become ``Americanized,'' they help cultivate a shared commitment to ``liberty, democracy, and equal opportunity'' in our Nation. That is legal immigration. I agree with that.

However, I am quoting now from Roy Beck, executive director of Numbers USA. He stated:

A presence of 8 to 11 million illegal aliens--

I think the figure is now approximately 12 million--

in this country is a sign that this country has lost

control of its borders and the ability to determine who is a

member of this national community. And a country that has

lost that ability increasingly loses its ability to determine

the rules of its society--environmental protections, labor

protection, health protections, safety protections.

Further quoting:

In fact, a country that cannot keep illegal immigration to

a low level quickly ceases to be a real country, or a real

community. Rather than being self-governed, such a country

begins to have its destiny largely determined by citizens of

other countries who manage to move in illegally.

With that being said, I cannot and I will not stand idly by and watch our great Nation collapse under the pressures of uncontrolled illegal immigration. This is a crisis, one that must be addressed aggressively. While I would not belabor the point, I will chronicle some of illegal immigration's specific threats to our Nation's vitality and how this bill will address them.

First and foremost, the issue of border security must be addressed. My bill would help ramp up border security by providing a way for civilians and retired law enforcement officers to assist the Border Patrol in stopping illegal border crossings. Keep in mind, if you are a retired Federal law enforcement officer, they have a mandatory retirement age of 57. There are many of these who would work for expenses. What we are advocating is a three-tiered system where you have the Border Patrol who are skilled the way they are today but have them fortified by this army of retired law enforcement officers and then bring in the third tier which are those which we have watched in the past that have been very effective in adding to the numbers on the border.

It is already working. It is very similar to the National Border Neighborhood Watch. I know in my State of Oklahoma it has been a very effective program. It is more eyes to watch and more talent to arrest, when necessary. A more obscure issue that also warrants reform is the legal status of what has become known as anchor babies.

To better their odds of remaining in the United States, illegal immigrants have taken advantage of a constitutional provision granting automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Unfortunately, by providing citizenship to these ``anchor babies,'' as they are known, our Nation rewards the illegal entry of their parents and facilities the further exploitation of our borders and national resources.

This trend has contributed to the alarming fact that the illegal immigrant population is growing faster than the birthrate of American citizens. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, based on numbers from the National Center of Health Statistics, in 2002, there were about 8.4 million illegal aliens, which represented about 3.3 percent of the total U.S. population. That same year, there were about 383,000 babies born to illegal aliens, which represents about 9.5 percent of all U.S. births in 2002.

This problem continues to grow exponentially and serves as a strong incentive for more aliens to illegally cross into our country in hopes of shortcutting citizenship requirements. Language included in the ENFORCE Act will put an end to this much exploited practice.

Another ``supposed'' obligation we face is the education of illegal aliens. Some States, such as my State of Oklahoma, allow the illegal aliens the advantage of receiving in-State tuition at our State colleges and universities. I believe it is inexcusable to give away State-subsidized educations to those who do not pay taxes. This act will address this problem by making it unlawful for illegal aliens to receive this particular handout.

The ENFORCE Act includes several provisions to halt illegal immigrants' continued exploitation of our tax laws and our Social Security benefits. One of the greatest problems in this area is illegal immigrants' abuse of the individual tax identification number. That is the ITIN program.

Currently, it so closely resembles the Social Security number that many illegal immigrants are able to use it in place of a Social Security card to bypass our tax laws or receive wrongly awarded benefits. The ENFORCE Act will require a change in the physical appearance of this particular document so its identity can no longer be mistaken for that of a Social Security number, and it will also prohibit that document from being used for identification purposes.

Additionally, my bill will require Social Security numbers to expire as soon as a person's permission to be in the United States expires. So it would expire at the same time that permission expires.

It will prohibit illegal immigrants who gain legal status from collecting Social Security benefits for the time they worked illegally in the country.

Finally, the legality of day-labor centers is a topic that must be addressed by any comprehensive immigration reform package. These day- labor centers exist within illegal immigration-friendly ``sanctuary sites'' and not just in San Francisco. Day-labor centers are State- designated and funded sites where illegal aliens congregate and wait for employers to pick them up for a day of illegal work.

One such site was approved in 2005 in Fairfax County, VA, to be paid for by taxpayer dollars. Sanctuary cities such as these enable and encourage unlawful activity by both illegal aliens and the employers who hire them. The ENFORCE Act will outlaw the creation of those particular centers.

Illegal immigrants continue to cause a myriad of problems for our country and for law-abiding citizens such as you and me. Illegal immigrants not only drain our economy through their exploitation of public services and resources, but we must not forget the national security threat posed by would-be terrorists who have entered our country illegally or remain here unlawfully by overstaying their visas.

The Center for Immigration Study says:

Even though illegal aliens make little use of welfare, from

which they are generally barred, the costs of illegal

immigration in terms of government expenditures for

education, criminal justice, and emergency medical care are

significant. Illegal immigration is straining our economy,

jeopardizing our security, and burdening our education and

health care systems.

So this ENFORCE Act will provide solid tools to eliminate illegal immigration and strongly enforce the existing U.S. immigration laws. The seriousness of this crisis warrants that Americans of all political stripes come together to address this problem.

One thing that is not included in this legislation that I think should be included in any kind of reform--and some of my colleagues can remember I had on the floor of the Senate the legislation making English the official language of the United States--and it is interesting that some 88 percent of the American people want this, and some 70 percent of the Hispanic population want this also. It is also interesting that there are 50 countries around the world that have English as their official language, including Ghana in West Africa and some other countries, and yet we do not have it for ourselves. But that is going to be handled separately at a different time.

History shows us that declaring ``immigration bankruptcy'' does not work. We saw that in the amnesty of 1986. Simply granting citizenship to immigrants who are currently in our country illegally is not the answer. We have to enhance our border security, hold those accountable who encourage illegal immigration, and ensure that those who violate our laws by entering our country illegally do not remain here and are not easily welcomed back.

So I am introducing that legislation, and I am going to be bringing it up at the appropriate time.

Mr. President, I once again today introduced S. 1269, the ENFORCE Act, because this body has failed to move forward with sound immigration legislation. My bill is a strong step in the right direction to help solve our growing problem of illegal immigration.

I did this already. I did this last year. We had a chance to talk about it, but we never were able to get this up to a vote. I do want to keep this subject moving because people are not talking about this anymore. This bill focuses on securing our borders and empowering our citizens and law enforcement officers to fight the all-time high flood of illegal immigrants. There are around a million illegal aliens infiltrating our borders each year. It also addresses some of the lesser known but equally destructive exploitations of our Nation by some of these illegal immigrants.

I wish to be clear, for some reason--I am not sure why--- I have been honored over the years to speak at nationalization ceremonies. It is one of the emotional things a person can go through. When you see people coming into this country and doing it the way

they are supposed to, they learn the history. Those who have gone through the legal process know more about the history of America than the average person you run into on the street. I am very strongly in favor of legal immigration.

In 1997, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform stated that ``measured, legal immigration has led to create one of the world's greatest multiethnic nations.'' I agree with that statement. I also agree with their statement that when immigrants become ``Americanized,'' they help cultivate a shared commitment to ``liberty, democracy, and equal opportunity'' in our Nation. That is legal immigration. I agree with that.

However, I am quoting now from Roy Beck, executive director of Numbers USA. He stated:

A presence of 8 to 11 million illegal aliens--

I think the figure is now approximately 12 million--

in this country is a sign that this country has lost

control of its borders and the ability to determine who is a

member of this national community. And a country that has

lost that ability increasingly loses its ability to determine

the rules of its society--environmental protections, labor

protection, health protections, safety protections.

Further quoting:

In fact, a country that cannot keep illegal immigration to

a low level quickly ceases to be a real country, or a real

community. Rather than being self-governed, such a country

begins to have its destiny largely determined by citizens of

other countries who manage to move in illegally.

With that being said, I cannot and I will not stand idly by and watch our great Nation collapse under the pressures of uncontrolled illegal immigration. This is a crisis, one that must be addressed aggressively. While I would not belabor the point, I will chronicle some of illegal immigration's specific threats to our Nation's vitality and how this bill will address them.

First and foremost, the issue of border security must be addressed. My bill would help ramp up border security by providing a way for civilians and retired law enforcement officers to assist the Border Patrol in stopping illegal border crossings. Keep in mind, if you are a retired Federal law enforcement officer, they have a mandatory retirement age of 57. There are many of these who would work for expenses. What we are advocating is a three-tiered system where you have the Border Patrol who are skilled the way they are today but have them fortified by this army of retired law enforcement officers and then bring in the third tier which are those which we have watched in the past that have been very effective in adding to the numbers on the border.

It is already working. It is very similar to the National Border Neighborhood Watch. I know in my State of Oklahoma it has been a very effective program. It is more eyes to watch and more talent to arrest, when necessary. A more obscure issue that also warrants reform is the legal status of what has become known as anchor babies.

To better their odds of remaining in the United States, illegal immigrants have taken advantage of a constitutional provision granting automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Unfortunately, by providing citizenship to these ``anchor babies,'' as they are known, our Nation rewards the illegal entry of their parents and facilities the further exploitation of our borders and national resources.

This trend has contributed to the alarming fact that the illegal immigrant population is growing faster than the birthrate of American citizens. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, based on numbers from the National Center of Health Statistics, in 2002, there were about 8.4 million illegal aliens, which represented about 3.3 percent of the total U.S. population. That same year, there were about 383,000 babies born to illegal aliens, which represents about 9.5 percent of all U.S. births in 2002.

This problem continues to grow exponentially and serves as a strong incentive for more aliens to illegally cross into our country in hopes of shortcutting citizenship requirements. Language included in the ENFORCE Act will put an end to this much exploited practice.

Another ``supposed'' obligation we face is the education of illegal aliens. Some States, such as my State of Oklahoma, allow the illegal aliens the advantage of receiving in-State tuition at our State colleges and universities. I believe it is inexcusable to give away State-subsidized educations to those who do not pay taxes. This act will address this problem by making it unlawful for illegal aliens to receive this particular handout.

The ENFORCE Act includes several provisions to halt illegal immigrants' continued exploitation of our tax laws and our Social Security benefits. One of the greatest problems in this area is illegal immigrants' abuse of the individual tax identification number. That is the ITIN program.

Currently, it so closely resembles the Social Security number that many illegal immigrants are able to use it in place of a Social Security card to bypass our tax laws or receive wrongly awarded benefits. The ENFORCE Act will require a change in the physical appearance of this particular document so its identity can no longer be mistaken for that of a Social Security number, and it will also prohibit that document from being used for identification purposes.

Additionally, my bill will require Social Security numbers to expire as soon as a person's permission to be in the United States expires. So it would expire at the same time that permission expires.

It will prohibit illegal immigrants who gain legal status from collecting Social Security benefits for the time they worked illegally in the country.

Finally, the legality of day-labor centers is a topic that must be addressed by any comprehensive immigration reform package. These day- labor centers exist within illegal immigration-friendly ``sanctuary sites'' and not just in San Francisco. Day-labor centers are State- designated and funded sites where illegal aliens congregate and wait for employers to pick them up for a day of illegal work.

One such site was approved in 2005 in Fairfax County, VA, to be paid for by taxpayer dollars. Sanctuary cities such as these enable and encourage unlawful activity by both illegal aliens and the employers who hire them. The ENFORCE Act will outlaw the creation of those particular centers.

Illegal immigrants continue to cause a myriad of problems for our country and for law-abiding citizens such as you and me. Illegal immigrants not only drain our economy through their exploitation of public services and resources, but we must not forget the national security threat posed by would-be terrorists who have entered our country illegally or remain here unlawfully by overstaying their visas.

The Center for Immigration Study says:

Even though illegal aliens make little use of welfare, from

which they are generally barred, the costs of illegal

immigration in terms of government expenditures for

education, criminal justice, and emergency medical care are

significant. Illegal immigration is straining our economy,

jeopardizing our security, and burdening our education and

health care systems.

So this ENFORCE Act will provide solid tools to eliminate illegal immigration and strongly enforce the existing U.S. immigration laws. The seriousness of this crisis warrants that Americans of all political stripes come together to address this problem.

One thing that is not included in this legislation that I think should be included in any kind of reform--and some of my colleagues can remember I had on the floor of the Senate the legislation making English the official language of the United States--and it is interesting that some 88 percent of the American people want this, and some 70 percent of the Hispanic population want this also. It is also interesting that there are 50 countries around the world that have English as their official language, including Ghana in West Africa and some other countries, and yet we do not have it for ourselves. But that is going to be handled separately at a different time.

History shows us that declaring ``immigration bankruptcy'' does not work. We saw that in the amnesty of 1986. Simply granting citizenship to immigrants who are currently in our country illegally is not the answer. We have to enhance our border security, hold those accountable who encourage illegal immigration, and ensure that those who violate our laws by entering our country illegally do not remain here and are not easily welcomed back.

So I am introducing that legislation, and I am going to be bringing it up at the appropriate time.

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

Briefly, what is the order right now?

Today I have submitted amendments to S. 1082 requiring parental consent for intrusive physical exams administered under the Head Start Program. Young children attending Head Start Programs should not be subjected to these intrusive types of physical exams. We had an incident in my town of Tulsa, OK, where we felt that their rights, children's rights, were violated. They were subjected to different types of intrusive examinations. I will be bringing this up at an appropriate time.

Secondly, briefly, as I see the manager of the bill is here, we will be introducing an amendment No. 988, having to do with protecting children from parents being coerced into administering a controlled substance or psychotropic drug in order to attend school.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, it is very difficult for me to believe some of the things I am actually hearing right now. In fact, I don't believe them after General Petraeus has made such a fine presentation to us. There are a few things in the closed session that we cannot talk about, but I have taken those out. The things we can talk about--in answer to a question, you said: Can you talk about some of the positive things that have happened?

He is talking about Anbar. I am now quoting: Anbar has gone from being assessed as being lost to a situation that now is quite heartening because of the decision by a number of Sunni Arab tribes to join the fight against al-Qaida; the reduction of sectarian murders in Baghdad, that is down by approximately a third; progress in Anbar is almost something that is breathtaking--the killing of the security

Amir of al-Qaida in eastern Anbar Province; the detention of the Khazali network; we have picked up the Shabani network head in Iraq. That is the explosively-formed projectile element in Iraq that gets them from others in Iraq, these are the explosively-formed projectiles.

It goes on and on. He talks about the progress in Ramadi.

My only wish is that so many of those who are detractors would have had the opportunity and had taken the opportunity to go and spend the time in the area of operations, in the whole area out there. But I can recall so many things that people just are not aware of here.

I remember being in Tikrit. Tikrit is where they had the Iraqi security forces building that was blown up. Forty of them were either-- these are Iraqi security trainees--40 either were killed or were injured so that they would not be able to go back to the fields. You know, the families--you do not hear about this--of all 40 of these supplied the one who had died with another member of the family. In other words, they have this commitment that is so strong.

I asked the general yesterday, I said: Are you still getting the family support that I witnessed when I was over there?

He said: It is even stronger now. They are lined up and talking about it.

The Iraqi security forces in Fallujah--now, that was a great experience that I had, having the honor of being there during two of their elections. The Iraqi security forces go out and vote the day before the rest of the public votes for two reasons: one, so they can provide security for the public when they vote, and the second reason is that they go out there knowing that is the risky time. They are willing to risk their lives, and several of them in the Fallujah area died just in the process of voting.

I remember sitting down with the general--his name is General Mahdi-- and he was one, I have to say--he was the brigade commander for Saddam Hussein. He hated Americans. He was the one who said--when they came in there after the fall of Saddam Hussein--he was still the brigade commander for the Iraqis until the marines came to Fallujah and started training with the Iraqi security forces. He made the statement--he said: We became so close to the marines--this is the general who had been Saddam Hussein's brigade commander. He said: We became so close to the marines that when they rotated out, we got together and we all cried.

We went from there on up, flew in a Black Hawk, and the easiest way to get around there is to fly low and fast over the Triangle, only to see the little kids down there waving American flags. I just wonder, if something like this is passed and we are telling all of those kids down there and we are telling the Iraqi security forces that are doing so well right now in their advanced training, that they are now on the point of these invasions that are taking place, the defenses that are taking place all throughout Iraq, that we are saying that we are the cut-and-run guys, we built up your hopes, we now see an improved Iraq, we see hospitals are opened, we see manufacturers that are making clothing, we see girls who are going to school when this has never happened in the history of Iraq, we have seen all of this progress, but we are going to dump on you now.

So I just hope that we can stand back from the politics and do the right thing and get a good resolution--defeat this bill, get it vetoed, get a good resolution so we can finish what we started and give General Petraeus a chance to finish what he has started so successfully.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, it is going to be my intention in just a moment to bring up and ask for the immediate consideration of my amendment, No. 955.

We are working on a modification to make sure those on the Finance Committee will find it to be acceptable. I have discussed this with the leadership and the minority. However, it will take a minute to get the language up.

Essentially, what the amendment will say is, notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no Federal funds shall be provided to any organization or entity that advocates against tax competition or U.S. tax competitiveness.

Now, I cannot think of anything that would be more significant in a competitiveness bill than to have this language. There are several organizations, one of which is called the OECD, which is the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. This organization actually was transformed back in 1961 after the Marshall Plan came into effect, and they have been, over a period of time, advocating increases in taxes for the United States. In fact, over the past fairly short period of time, 24 different times they have advocated increases in U.S. taxes. One was--I will just list them here--a value-added tax, a 40-cent increase in the gas tax, a carbon tax, a fertilizer tax, ending the deductibility of State and local taxes in the calculation of Federal taxes, new taxes at the State level, and a host of other new and innovative taxes on U.S. citizens.

They also have advocated for a period of time a global taxation scheme. It is very difficult to find anyone in this country who would say this is in our best interest.

Now, in this particular organization there are some things they do that I have found have been helpful. So the modifications I am making will list three things that will not be considered under this act to be anticompetitive. That is the language I am waiting for right now, which we should have in the next couple of minutes.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I have already stated what this amendment does. It does try to get some sense into some of these organizations advocating noncompetitiveness or anticompetitiveness for the United States. One such organization is called the OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This organization I have already talked about, but one of the things they advocate is high taxes for the United States. In order to make sure we can still use this organization for a function that seems to be desirable by the tax committee, I will read the modification. The amendment currently reads:

Notwithstanding any other provision of the Law; no federal

funds shall be provided to any organization or entity that

advocates against tax competition or United States tax

competitiveness.

This is the modification:

Provided, however, that advocating for effective tax

information exchange, advocating for effective transfer

pricing, and advocating for income tax treaties is not

considered to be advocating against the competition of United

States tax competitiveness.

I think we have taken care of that need.

With that, I ask that we get into the mix here so we can get a vote on this or else agreement.

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

Mr. President, what the Senator from New Mexico is suggesting is exactly what I have in mind. I have an amendment I will be calling up at an appropriate time that is mutually agreeable. It does affect the taxation end. I have talked to Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley. I believe they are going to be favorable toward it.

There are not many one-sentence amendments. That is what this one is. Let me read it to you and tell you why I am offering it. Then I will wait until tomorrow and hopefully get in the mix.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law; no federal

funds shall be provided to any organization or entity that

advocates against tax competition or United States tax

competitiveness.

Let me just give you an example. After World War II, there was an effort to implement the Marshall Plan. When that was done, in 1961, an organization was formed that was called the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This is an international organization which advocates tax increases for the United States specifically to make us less competitive. They have stated explicitly that low-tax policies ``unfairly erode the tax bases of other countries and distort the location of capital and services.''

What we have here is a Paris-based bunch of bureaucrats seeking to protect high-tax welfare states from the free market. That is why the OECD goes on to say that free market tax competition ``may hamper the application of progressive tax rates and the achievement of redistributive goals.'' Clearly, free market tax competition makes it harder to implement socialistic welfare states. The free market, evidently, has not been fair to socialistic welfare states. Well, it is a good thing they have the OECD and nearly $100 million in U.S. taxpayer money to aid them.

Noted economist Walter Williams clearly sees the direction in which this is headed when he says that ``the bottom line agenda for the OECD is to establish a tax cartel where nations get together and collude on taxes.''

Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill seconded that when he said that he was ``troubled by the underlying premise that low tax rates are somehow suspect and by the notion that any country . . . should interfere in any other country's'' tax policy.

So the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has issued a report entitled ``Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue,'' which establishes a new international body, the Forum on Harmful Tax Practices, to implement the measures outlined in the report. The OECD has endorsed and encouraged higher taxes, new taxes, and global taxes no fewer than 24 times. They have advocated a value- added tax, a 40-cent increase in the gas tax, a carbon tax, a fertilizer tax, ending the deductibility of State and local taxes from Federal taxes, and new taxes at the State level.

So I believe this is something we will have a chance to debate, and I would think it actually would be accepted. Again, all it is going to be is just one sentence. It reads:

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law; no federal

funds shall be provided to any organization or entity that

advocates against tax competition or United States tax

competitiveness.

I cannot think of any more appropriate bill to have this on than this bill we have before us currently.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from Ohio, who has stepped aside for me.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Alternative Fuel Standard Act. The bill that I am introducing today reflects the President's draft legislation to which he referred in his State of the Union.

Although I may have some questions with the particulars of the President's plan, he and I share the common goal of increasing domestic energy security without compromising environmental quality.

As the committee of principal jurisdiction, the Committee on Environment and Public Works has a long history of moving fuels legislation. While chairman, I successfully discharged legislation that served as the historic fuels title to the comprehensive energy bill. That renewable fuels plan was the product of years of hearings, negotiation, and debate. The President's initiative deserves the same amount of attention.

According to a Labor Department report this month, most of the country's inflation can be directly attributed to higher gas prices. The USDA's Economic Research Service concluded that high gas prices will increase food costs in 2007; the Service noted that the food consumer price index increased at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in 2006 and will increase 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent.

The Energy Information Administration's April 2007 Outlook noted that the higher prices are due to continued international tensions, the conversion to summer blends, and unanticipated refinery problems.

AAA found that the average national price for gasoline is $2.87 up from $2.55 just a month earlier. Yet those national high prices seem low compared to California. AAA of Northern California noted that the average price for gasoline is $3.41 in Oakland, $3.53 in San Francisco, and averages $3.34 statewide.

The bottom line--supply source instability and inadequate domestic infrastructure have and will continue to contribute to high prices and inflation unless Congress does something about it. The President's ambitious proposal seeks to alleviate those concerns by sourcing new supply domestically.

The proposal that I am introducing would amend the Clean Air Act's existing renewable fuels standard by diversifying the types of qualifying fuels and increasing the volumes. Qualifying alternative fuels will be expanded to include fuels derived from gas and coal, and hydrogen, among others.

Cellulosic biomass ethanol is a promising technology that could significantly increase fuel supplies without compromising the food and feed prices. I am proud to say that some of the foremost research in the field is being done in my own State of Oklahoma, including a team at the Noble Foundation. Their work is engineering high energy and perennial crops that can be grown across the country.

Similarly, coal-to-liquids fuels could be the greatest domestic energy resource of all time. I have been promoting the technology for years, particularly for defense aircraft, but now is the time to expand this super clean fuel for use across America.

The plan would replace the current RFS by requiring 10 billion gallons of alternative fuel to be used in 2010 and increasing to 35 billion gallons by 2018. The bill similarly builds upon the current RFS by requiring EPA to incorporate the newer qualifying fuels into the credit trading system.

I have been seeking to increase U.S. energy security for years. I am glad that the President has stepped up and taken this issue head-on. The proposal deserves careful and proper consideration. The American people require as much. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve U.S. domestic energy security while fully considering public health and welfare.