Floor Statements

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. President, I rise in support of the chemical security provisions included in the DHS appropriations conference bill. I have worked on this issue since 2002 and have always supported reasonable chemical security legislation that provides DHS with the authority it needs to protect chemical facilities from terrorists without overreaching. I believe this compromise language achieves that balance.

I am pleased that this language specifically excludes water utilities from coverage and focuses the efforts of DHS on private chemical companies. The Nation's drinking water and wastewater systems are arms of local government, not for profit industries. We in Congress recognized the fundamental difference between the for profit private sector and local government entities when we passed the Unfunded Mandates Act. To have included water utilities in this language would have imposed an enormous unfunded mandate on our local partners in violation of that act.

Many here in Washington assume that local governments need to be forced to protect their citizens. As a former mayor, I can tell you that is simply not true. Local water utilities have been making investments in security consistently since 9/11 and continue to do so. I have offered a bill on wastewater facility security that provides tools, incentives, and rewards, not mandates, for local governments to continue to upgrade security. My legislation passed the Environment and Public Works last Congress with a bipartisan vote and again this Congress by voice vote. However, this week, for the second straight Congress, when I tried to bring the measure before the full Senate, the minority objected even to its consideration. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are holding this legislation up because it does not impose needless mandates and does not include extraneous environmental provisions.

For these same reasons, many will rise in opposition to the chemical security compromise language included in the conference report. They will argue that the bill needs to allow the Federal Government to tell companies how to manufacture their products by requiring facilities to switch the chemicals they use or change their operating practices. This concept, known as ``inherently safer technology,'' is not, nor has it ever been, about security. IST is an environmental concept that dates back more than a decade when the extremist environmental community were seeking bans on chlorine--the chemical that is used to purify our Nation's water. It was only after 9/11 that they decided to play upon the fears of the Nation and repackage IST as a panacea to all of our security problems.

I find it very interesting that those arguing most vehemently for IST in security legislation are not security experts but, rather, environmental groups. This only underscores the fact that IST is not a security measure; it is a backdoor attempt at increasing the regulation of chemicals operating under the guise of security.

The legislation before us does not include these extraneous environmental mandates but instead properly focuses efforts on security. The language explicitly clarifies that the new regulatory authorities given to the Department of Homeland Security do not include any authorities to regulate the manufacture, distribution, use, sale, treatment or disposal of chemicals. These authorities have been properly provided to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies and departments under numerous environmental and workplace safety laws, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and a host of others.

I believe the conference language achieves what those of us who have been working on this issue for years have been trying to do--it provides strong authorities to DHS to reasonably regulate private sector entities without being hijacked by extraneous concepts that have no place in the security debate.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize the title transfer of the McGee Creek Reservoir dam and its associated facilities, which are located approximately 20 miles southeast of Atoka, OK.

My bill transfers title from the Bureau of Reclamation to the McGee Creek Authority.

The McGee Creek Authority is a trust of the State of Oklahoma. This Oklahoma entity was established to develop, finance, operate, and maintain the water supply in the McGee Creek Reservoir. Thus, the primary purpose is to provide a dependable ``municipal and industrial'' water supply for Oklahoma City, the City of Atoka, Atoka County, and the area represented by the Southern Oklahoma Development Trust. The McGee Creek Authority currently operates the dam and associated facilities.

This title transfer under this bill will allow Oklahoma City to make the necessary capital improvements and upgrades needed to assure the continued efficient operation of the Reservoir.

This bill is responsible legislation that will end requests for federal funds and will protect the federal government from legal liabilities that could be incurred in their operation.

This legislation is the result of cooperation and coordination between Oklahoma City, the McGee Creek Authority, and the Bureau of Reclamation. I thank the Bureau of Reclamation for their drafting service in preparing the legislation, as well as of course the Senate Legislative Counsel. This legislation was requested by Mayor Mick Cornett of Oklahoma City, and I am happy to assist in this worthy cause.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the letter of request from Mayor Cornett.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the bill.

President, I rise today, along with my colleague, Tom Coburn, to proudly introduce the Child Medication Safety Act, a bill to protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance or psychotropic drug in order to attend a school. The text of my bill exactly matches the text of H.R. 1790, which passed the House on November 16, 2006 by a vote of 407 to 12.

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

The Child Medication Safety Act requires, as a condition of receiving funds from the Department of Education, that States develop and implement polices and procedures prohibiting school personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription as a condition of attending the school. It should be noted that this bill does not prevent teachers or other school personnel from sharing with parents or guardians classroom-based observations regarding a student's academic performance or regarding the need for evaluation for special education. Additionally, this bill calls for a study by the Comptroller General of the United States reviewing: 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 disorder 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. This GAO report is due no later than 1 year after the enactment of this Act.

I believe this is an extremely important bill that protects the rights of our children against improper intrusion regarding health issues by those not qualified. If a parent or guardian believes their child is in need of medication, then they have the right to make that decision and consult with a licensed medical practitioner who is qualified to prescribe an appropriate drug. Please join us in support of this legislation that protects the freedoms of our children. We also ask that you work with us to secure passage of the Child Medication Safety Act before the end of the 109th Congress as it has already passed the House by a huge margin.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize the title transfer of the McGee Creek Reservoir dam and its associated facilities, which are located approximately 20 miles southeast of Atoka, OK.

My bill transfers title from the Bureau of Reclamation to the McGee Creek Authority.

The McGee Creek Authority is a trust of the State of Oklahoma. This Oklahoma entity was established to develop, finance, operate, and maintain the water supply in the McGee Creek Reservoir. Thus, the primary purpose is to provide a dependable ``municipal and industrial'' water supply for Oklahoma City, the City of Atoka, Atoka County, and the area represented by the Southern Oklahoma Development Trust. The McGee Creek Authority currently operates the dam and associated facilities.

This title transfer under this bill will allow Oklahoma City to make the necessary capital improvements and upgrades needed to assure the continued efficient operation of the Reservoir.

This bill is responsible legislation that will end requests for federal funds and will protect the federal government from legal liabilities that could be incurred in their operation.

This legislation is the result of cooperation and coordination between Oklahoma City, the McGee Creek Authority, and the Bureau of Reclamation. I thank the Bureau of Reclamation for their drafting service in preparing the legislation, as well as of course the Senate Legislative Counsel. This legislation was requested by Mayor Mick Cornett of Oklahoma City, and I am happy to assist in this worthy cause.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the letter of request from Mayor Cornett.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the bill.

President, I rise today, along with my colleague, Tom Coburn, to proudly introduce the Child Medication Safety Act, a bill to protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance or psychotropic drug in order to attend a school. The text of my bill exactly matches the text of H.R. 1790, which passed the House on November 16, 2006 by a vote of 407 to 12.

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

The Child Medication Safety Act requires, as a condition of receiving funds from the Department of Education, that States develop and implement polices and procedures prohibiting school personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription as a condition of attending the school. It should be noted that this bill does not prevent teachers or other school personnel from sharing with parents or guardians classroom-based observations regarding a student's academic performance or regarding the need for evaluation for special education. Additionally, this bill calls for a study by the Comptroller General of the United States reviewing: 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 disorder 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. This GAO report is due no later than 1 year after the enactment of this Act.

I believe this is an extremely important bill that protects the rights of our children against improper intrusion regarding health issues by those not qualified. If a parent or guardian believes their child is in need of medication, then they have the right to make that decision and consult with a licensed medical practitioner who is qualified to prescribe an appropriate drug. Please join us in support of this legislation that protects the freedoms of our children. We also ask that you work with us to secure passage of the Child Medication Safety Act before the end of the 109th Congress as it has already passed the House by a huge margin.

Mr. President, every year in the United States, over one million firefighters working with approximately thirty thousand fire departments risk their lives to protect our Nation. Nearly seventy-five percent of those firefighters are volunteers; they put their lives on the line and get almost nothing in return. Volunteer and paid firefighters alike are often forgotten until tragedy strikes and they valiantly come to the rescue. I think that it is regrettable that many of us fail to recognize the sacrifice these brave men and women make every day.

Therefore, today I submit a resolution to establish the first annual National Firefighter Appreciation Day on October 10, 2006.

National Firefighter Appreciation Day will be a day for all Americans to take time to appreciate the firefighters in their communities. National Firefighter Appreciation Day will fall on the second Tuesday in October, during Fire Prevention Week, which has been held over the week of October ninth since 1922. I seek to have this day annually celebrated on the second Tuesday in October for many years to come.

Firefighters are often the first responders at the scene of a disaster. Their rigorous training and determination equip them to put out fires, provide first aid, and stabilize volatile situations. In their long shifts at the fire station, these strong men and women are prepared for disaster, large or small.

Firefighters also provide life safety education, installing fire alarms and distributing information on fire prevention, working to prevent disasters before they occur. One notable time that firefighters and fire marshals engage with the community is when they educate children about ways to prevent fires during Fire Prevention Week. Now, these children will have a reminder on National Firefighter Appreciation Day to stop and thank the firefighters who protect them when the blazes get out of control.

In my State of Oklahoma we know the pain of dealing with loss from a terrorist attack and the importance of firefighters in the aftermath. In 1995, when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, 168 people lost their lives. Firefighters and everyday citizens bravely responded to this horrendous act. They accomplished the task of bringing out all victims from the building without loss of life or significant injury to the firefighters and rescue personnel. According to Oklahoma City National Memorial Museum, seventy-five fire departments across Oklahoma participated in the rescue recovery for fifteen days and fifteen hours. In addition, seven states were represented with the FEMA emergency personnel that aided in recovery. Sadly, ten of the firefighters that came to help were from New York City and later died honorably in the September 11th attacks. The entire world watched while every available resource of the city, state, and federal government was mobilized to respond to the attack at the Murrah building.

Most of us are aware of firefighters' efforts in such major disasters. However, we often do not hear about their seemingly smaller acts of heroism. For example, two years ago firefighters in Oklahoma City dove into an ice covered lake to save an eight-year-old boy who had fallen through the ice. The boy had been treading water and holding onto the ice on the edge of the pond for 15 minutes before he was saved by the firefighters. Had he not been rescued by those men, this young boy would have probably died.

In a similar incident a few years before, firefighters responded to a sighting of two young brothers swept downstream in the waterway in Oklahoma City. The rescuers had to take into account a number of factors, including a very rapid current and the physical condition of the boys, to rescue them from the water. Everyday, firefighters protect the public and save lives.

Probably the most notable firefighter response of our time occurred in New York City after the September 11th terrorist attacks. In the midst of a tragic situation, New York City firefighters rushed into the World Trade Center buildings to rescue those left inside. When the buildings collapsed,

they worked day and night to search for people in the rubble. In the end, 346 firefighters and emergency personnel lost their lives.

The heroism and bravery shown by the firefighters and rescue workers in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks led Connor Gehraty, the son of a New York City firefighter who perished in the rescue efforts after September 11th, to circulate via e-mail the idea of establishing a day to honor firefighters.

Connor has noted that there is substantial remembrance of events such as the Oklahoma City bombing and 9-11. Connor emphasizes that firefighters deserve their own distinct day to be honored for the full panoply of their service. I agree.

Connor has worked diligently for five years to try to accomplish his goal. My office was able to get in touch with him using Facebook, a networking website, and inform him of the plans to make his idea a reality with this resolution. He is very supportive of this legislation.

The Oklahoma State Firefighters Association was also helpful with suggestions in the drafting of this legislation. The Oklahoma State Firefighters Association (OSFA) has 14,000 members consisting of paid (union and non-union), volunteer, and retired firefighters. In addition to providing support, services, and events for firefighters in Oklahoma, the OSFA oversees the Oklahoma Firefighters Museum and the Oklahoma Fallen and Living Firefighters Memorial. I am pleased with the dedication of this organization and the positive role it plays in the lives of Oklahoma's firefighters. I appreciate their suggestions and support of this resolution.

The OSFA is one of many organizations of firefighters in Oklahoma and around the country that impress me. Just last week, a group of fire marshals came all the way up from Oklahoma to visit my DC office. That visit spurred me to move forward with this resolution.

I pledge to ensure that as we celebrate the first annual National Firefighter Appreciation Day and many more in years to come, the hardworking and courageous individuals that make up groups such as these will be honored in a distinct way that is long overdue.

In light of the heroism and inspirational example of firefighters, please join me in naming the second Tuesday of October National Firefighter Appreciation Day.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar 625, S. 2781, and I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be, for the third time, passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I wanted to call the Senate's attention to the fact we do have wastewater legislation that has passed both the House and the Senate, in the House by a vote of 413 to 2. It is something which is desperately needed. We need to attend to that as soon as possible.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.