Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the issue of national security. Safety and security of the American people must be our Government's top priority, and we must not lose sight of the threat that faces our Nation. As we approach the anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001, I wish to remind all Americans that these were acts of war against the United States. Since then, the United States and our coalition partners have fought back. Despite what some might say, we have seen many successes. We have dismantled al-Qaida's terrorist network in Afghanistan and helped democracy rise in its place. We are working with our allies to secure a united, stable, and democratic Iraq. We have led an international campaign against terrorist financing, freezing over $1.5 billion in terrorist assets in the United States alone. Since September 11, there have been no terrorist attacks or acts on American soil. Our intelligence system has prevented 15 major terrorist plots that we know of and likely many others that are undisclosed. We have convicted over 261 defendants in terrorism-related cases and charged more than 180 others. While we are continually working to make America safer, we still face serious threats from our enemies both at home and abroad. To win the war against the Islamic fascists, we need an effective intelligence system that is lawful but also provides us with the necessary information to prevent attacks before they occur. Only last month we were once again reminded that there are people out there who want to kill us and what we stand for. Fortunately, with the help of our British allies, we were able to prevent the terrorists from killing innocent civilians. These threats are real, this war is real, and the outcome will be determined by the action of our Congress and our people, and it will determine the future of our Nation. This war is unlike any other war we have ever fought. It is both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas. This war of ideology is not an easy one and requires an advancement of freedom. I know it is often difficult to turn on the news and hear reports from Iraq and Afghanistan and question what type of effective democracy we have in place. Have we so quickly forgotten the image 9 months ago of Iraqis waving their blue fingers in the air after they had voted in the first free elections in their nation's history? Have we forgotten the images of women and children sitting in classrooms in Afghanistan, free to learn without the fear of persecution or execution? These are images I will never forget. They are images of democracy at work. Just this morning we saw democracy at work when coalition forces in Iraq handed over control of the Iraqi armed forces to the Iraqi Government. Effective democracies do take time and hard work. They cannot be created overnight, but in the end they combat the ideology of Islamic fascists. These terrorists recognize this and because of it are willing to kill innocent people to stop the spread of freedom. I urge my colleagues not to let them succeed in their efforts and to join me in maintaining a united front against these terrorist nations and the terrorists across the world as we press ahead with important national security legislation in the coming weeks. While we may disagree about different policies in our war against these terrorists, we must not lose sight of what is at stake for our country. We owe it to future generations--my 35 grandkids, 4 great- grandkids, 9 children, and their spouses--we owe it to all Americans because the cost of failure is too great. I, for one, will not back down from the challenges and look forward to working with my colleagues on this matter. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Ms. Galelyn McElroy from Prospect, KY, who has been selected to participate in the inaugural year of the American Civic Education Teacher Awards. This program is designed to promote recognition and respect for teachers of civic education across the United States. The American Civic Education Teacher Awards are a part of the Alliance for Representative Democracy which is designed to educate Americans about the relationship between the government and the American people it serves. This program helps individuals better understand the way the government works and how it relates to them personally in their individual lives. Ms. McElroy teaches senior legal and government services, U.S. history, and world civilization at Central High in Prospect, KY, and has been providing educational leadership in the classroom there for 13 years. She has gone above and beyond the curriculum expectations by establishing out of school mentoring experiences for her students at local law firms and legal study programs through the University of Louisville. She motivates them to think about the future by providing them with real-world experiences that partner with their civic education studies. I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in thanking Ms. McElroy for her commitment to making Kentucky a better place through educational excellence and for providing her students the motivation to succeed in life. I know I can speak for all Kentuckians when I say congratulations and thank you for everything that you do. Teachers like Ms. McElroy are an inspiration and a true example of leadership in our State.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I express my interest in continuing to work on reform of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. National security is our priority, but it is vital that we not let overreaction from the Dubai Ports World controversy result in hasty legislation that will choke off foreign direct investment, or ``in- sourcing,'' which is a key contributor to the U.S. economy. In my own State, 87,000 people, or 6 percent of the entire State workforce, are employed by in-sourcing companies. These are good jobs, most frequently in manufacturing, paying 34 percent higher wages on average. It is understandable that everyone involved with the CFIUS process today is very cautious. Consequently, there are more CFIUS filings. CFIUS is taking extra measures to ensure that every transaction is strenuously scrutinized. Moreover, CFIUS is frequently requiring security commitments from parties with regard to transactions that they would not have given a second thought before. Without a doubt, some of this is good--the CFIUS process needs to be thorough. But extreme caution, when mixed with amendments to the Exon- Florio statute proposed by S. 3549, may result in substantial bureaucratic friction and delay for the foreign investments that pose no national security risk. I am concerned that, in the post-Dubai Ports World environment, overburdened CFIUS agencies could be tempted to regularly seek to extend the initial 30-day review to a 60-day period for reasons unrelated to any issues presented by the transaction under review. This temptation could be even greater given the case-by-case, detailed notifications to Congress that the bill would require CFIUS personnel to provide at every stage of regulatory proceedings. Ultimately, these delays could clog up the CFIUS process, penalize foreign investors, and chill foreign investment, without actually contributing to improved national security. I also raised this issue during Banking Committee hearings on S. 3549, which passed the Senate last week. Chairman Shelby pledged to work to address these concerns during markup of the legislation. I look forward to working with him to do so as the bill proceeds to conference.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly about the nomination of Dr. Frederic Mishkin to be a Federal Reserve Governor and why I voted against him. I do not think Professor Mishkin is the right choice for the Federal Reserve. I am not convinced that he will be an independent voice. I met with Professor Mishkin a few weeks ago and found Professor Mishkin to be a pleasant and intelligent man. I do not question his integrity or his qualifications for the job. He has spent his entire career studying and writing about monetary policy and economics. And his passion is evident. To me, the question is not about Professor Mishkin's qualifications but about the kind of Fed we need. I do not hold Professor Mishkin's long friendship with Chairman Bernanke against him, nor do I think he will have problems speaking his mind to the chairman when they disagree. My concern is that those disagreements will be few and far between, and that the chairman hand picked him for that reason. More than that, I am afraid the Fed has too many people with the same background. Many Fed members have spent a great deal of time studying central bank actions, but too few have experience dealing with the real-world consequences of those actions. Even Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke recently agreed that having people with different backgrounds on the Fed is healthy, and he stated his support for the next nominee to come from the financial services industry. However, Professor Mishkin will only continue the trend toward an ivory-tower, academic Fed. Because of that, I voted ``no''.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I support this law and recognize its valuable contributions to our society. Since its inception in 1965, the Voting Rights Act has successfully helped protect the right to vote for millions of U.S. citizens. This right, as outlined in the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, is fundamental to our Country's foundation. It is the lifeblood of our democracy. The very legitimacy of our government is dependent on the access all Americans have to the electoral process. We must ensure that when citizens choose to go to the polls that they do not face obstacles created to disenfranchise them. Every U.S. citizen, regardless of race or gender, should have opportunity to cast their vote without fear of discrimination. This has not always been the case. Our Nation's history can provide examples where the person's right to vote has been impeded whether it be through literacy tests or poll taxes. This is unacceptable and is a powerful reminder of the hardships this Nation has experienced. The Voting Rights Act has provided protection to minority communities that may fall victim to some of those impediments, or even worse, to threats or intimidation during the electoral process. I believe the Voting Rights Act was a good idea and necessary in 1965. I also believe we have come a long way since 1965 and would like to recognize the many changes and progress made all across the Country. I firmly believe this progress will only continue to grow. I come from a State that is committed to civil rights, and I believe that our Forefathers said it best that we are one Nation, undivided, with liberty and justice for all. I look forward to seeing this commitment to justice renewed today as we reauthorize the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. President, I am confident that the Voting Rights Act will be reauthorized today and urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I congratulate the Owensboro Catholic Elementary sixth grade Future Problem Solving Team of Owensboro, KY. The Future Problem Solving Team recently earned the State championship in their division, placing first out of about 50 teams. They went on to compete at the international conference in Colorado and placed 22nd out of 55 teams. The Future Problem Solving Program is a nationally recognized, award- winning program that seeks to increase awareness for the future and encourage creativity in students of all ages. Over 50,000 students participate in the competitive components associated with future problem solving and community problem solving. Of these, less than 3 percent earn an invitation to the prestigious international event. I congratulate the Owensboro Catholic Elementary sixth grade Future Problem Solving Team for their achievement. The administrators, teachers, parents, and students of this team are an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky. I look forward to all that the Future Problem Solving Team accomplishes in the future.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I come to the Senate today to speak on the three bills related to stem cell research. One of these bills is wrong, but I believe that the other two are worthy pieces of legislation. Stem cell research is a controversial issue in the medical, scientific, and religious communities, as well as in Congress. I am not opposed to stem cell research; however, I am 100 percent opposed to embryonic stem cell research. This is why I oppose H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. This bill would remove all current protections against the destructive use of embryos for harvesting stem cells. I firmly believe it is wrong to take these sources of life and destroy them, even if it is for a benign purpose such as medical research. Current Federal policy on stem cell research developed out of a compromise between proponents of research and those who endeavor to protect life at its earliest stages, brokered by President Bush. This is the first administration to allow Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Today's policy allows Federal funds to be used for embryonic stem cell lines that were in existence prior to August 9, 2001. As an opponent of the destruction of human embryos, I believed the Bush administration's decision to allow the embryonic stem cell research was misguided. H.R. 810 goes even further than the current policy. It cancels the protections of the 2001 cutoff for research by allowing research of all embryonic stem cells created from in vitro fertilization treatments. This legislation would move us in the wrong direction on this issue. Some have said that these excess embryos which would be used for research would be destroyed anyway. However, I do not think this makes ethical sense. Just because these budding lives will not survive does not mean that we should ghoulishly conduct experiments on them. I believe there is a disconnect between what many Americans believe about this issue and what the facts are. For one, we are debating the use of Federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. We are not debating the legality of embryonic stem cell research. Any company or organization that wants to conduct or fund embryonic stem cell research may do so. I just do not think taxpayers should be forced to pay for it. Also, there are different kinds of stem cells. Adult stem cells, such as those derived from cord blood tissue, do not require the destruction of a human embryo. Why walk down such a dangerous ethical path when there is no need to do so? These adult stem cells have proven very effective in combating several serious conditions, such as diabetes and spinal cord injuries, among others. This leads me to another point. We have seen the benefits that come from adult stem cell research. However, we have yet to see any tangible benefits from any embryonic stem cell research. Many scientists agree that these kinds of stem cells might--I say ``might''--be able to help fight disease someday, but it has not happened yet. We are talking about ending human life when no lives have been saved yet. Who knows how many human embryos we will have to destroy before any tangible progress is made. That being said, I am pleased to see that the Senate is considering S. 2754, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. This bill could very well remove the most contentious issues of this debate. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning that they could potentially have a wide variety of uses. It is this quality that drives the supporters of embryonic stem cell research to their position. However, great strides have been made in deriving pluripotent stem cells from sources that do not destroy embryos. S. 2754 would authorize Federal funding to conduct research on the creation of nonembryonic pluripotent stem cells. If successful, we would be able to end this debate by funding a morally acceptable replacement for research involving human embryo destruction. I urge the Senate to adopt this measure. The final bill the Senate is debating on the subject is S. 3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. I fully support passage of this legislation. This bill would ban research from fetal farms where human embryos are implanted in nonhuman uteruses. It would also ban embryos from human pregnancies created specifically for research. Most people would find these requirements to be self-evident. However, some groups have said this is unnecessary because research already follows ethical guidelines that forbid this. That may be the case, but I believe we should take these ethical guidelines and give them the force of law to prevent the possibility of such gruesome methods ever being used by researchers. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill. I do not like to see people with medical conditions suffer. However, I believe many advocates of embryonic stem cell research are playing on the hopes and griefs of many people whose lives are touched by illness. We are at an ethical crossroads with this issue. We must stay true to our values of respecting life. It seems foolish to stubbornly barrel ahead with Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research when, with a small bit of patience, we can put aside the moral and ethical concerns and proceed down a path we can all agree upon. In closing, I firmly believe we cannot create life and then destroy it in order to save another life. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and to support S. 2754 and S. 3504. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate three Kentucky organizations: Pendleton County Education Foundation in Falmouth; Healthy Schools Inc. in Louisville; and Paducah Park Services. These three organizations have recently been named Champions for Healthy Kids winners. Champions for Healthy Kids is a long-term grants program designed to instill good nutrition and fitness habits among our youth. The program calls on community groups to champion the health of our young people by developing innovative fitness and nutrition programs that can have a lifelong impact. I congratulate Pendleton County Education Foundation, Healthy Schools Inc., and Paducah Park Services for their achievements. Everyone involved in these organizations are an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky. I look forward to all that these organizations accomplish in the future.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I would like to explain my opposition to amendment No. 4548 to the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill. This amendment would prohibit the U.S. Customs and Border Protection from preventing an individual not in the business of importing prescription drugs from importing an FDA-approved prescription drug. I oppose allowing uninspected pharmaceuticals to be imported into the country. I understand some prescription drugs are expensive, and many Americans struggle to afford their medications. That is why Congress passed a bill in 2003 to create a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. The drug program has greatly reduced the amount seniors spend on prescription drugs. This Medicare prescription drug bill also includes several provisions aimed at reducing the cost of pharmaceuticals, specifically by getting generic drugs to the market faster. These are important changes aimed at reducing costs for everyone. I have concerns about the safety of bringing prescription drugs into the United States from other countries without meeting the safety criteria currently in law. Under the current system, Americans can feel secure when they purchase pharmaceuticals in this country. They know the pills they are taking are safe and effective and that they have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which uses some of the highest approval standards in the world. Congress should not put the safety of our pharmaceutical supply in the hands of a foreign government which may not recognize counterfeit or expired medicines or may not have the same safety standards that we do. The last thing we want to do is to undermine the integrity of our drug supply. In fact, in December of 2005, a Food and Drug Administration operation found that nearly half of the imported drugs FDA intercepted from four selected countries were shipped to fill orders that consumers believed they were placing with ``Canadian'' pharmacies. Of the drugs being promoted as ``Canadian,'' based on accompanying documentation, 85 percent actually came from 27 countries around the globe. A number of these products also were found to be counterfeit. I believe this amendment will put our Nation's drug supply at risk and it is not even necessary. As this year goes on, more and more seniors are getting excellent and affordable coverage under the new prescription drug plan that we passed in 2003, which means allowing potentially unsafe drugs into our country is an unnecessary risk that we do not need to take.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to provide for relief from duties on the import of certain parts of motor vehicles. It is my intention that this duty suspension bill will be considered for inclusion in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, MTB, that the Senate Finance Committee is expected to consider this year. As the Members of the Senate are aware, Congress on occasion passes a bill, known as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill or MTB, as a vehicle for enacting pending noncontroversial duty suspensions. The rules for the inclusion of a duty suspension in the MTB are straight forward. First and foremost, in order to be included in the MTB, a bill must be noncontroversial. A bill will be controversial if it is objected to by a domestic producer of the product for which the duty reduction is being sought. Secondly, the cost for each bill must amount to less than $500,000 of lost revenue per year. As my colleagues are aware, the MTB provides an opportunity to temporarily eliminate or reduce duties on narrowly defined products that are imported into the United States because there is not available domestic source for the products. These duty suspensions reduce input costs for U.S. businesses and thus ultimately increase the competitiveness of their products. I have been approached by a number of manufacturers in Kentucky that use imported inputs while making their products. These manufacturers have represented to me that, to their knowledge, there currently exists no American-made source for these inputs. In an effort to assist these Kentucky manufacturers, I have introduced in the past month a number of these duty suspension bills so that the items they address will be able to be considered for inclusion in the MTB prepared by the Senate Finance Committee. My intention in introducing these bills is to begin the process of public comment and technical analysis by the International Trade Commission, ITC, on the items addressed by the bills. During this review, the ITC will determine which of these bills are necessary and meet the selection criteria. My support for a duty suspension for the items is contingent on a determination by the ITC analysts that the items in question are proper candidates for inclusion in the noncontroversial MTB. I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Baucus and my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee as the process for assembling a final MTB package continues.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to provide for relief from duties on the import of certain parts of motor vehicles. It is my intention that this duty suspension bill will be considered for inclusion in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, MTB, that the Senate Finance Committee is expected to consider this year. As the Members of the Senate are aware, Congress on occasion passes a bill, known as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill or MTB, as a vehicle for enacting pending noncontroversial duty suspensions. The rules for the inclusion of a duty suspension in the MTB are straight forward. First and foremost, in order to be included in the MTB, a bill must be noncontroversial. A bill will be controversial if it is objected to by a domestic producer of the product for which the duty reduction is being sought. Secondly, the cost for each bill must amount to less than $500,000 of lost revenue per year. As my colleagues are aware, the MTB provides an opportunity to temporarily eliminate or reduce duties on narrowly defined products that are imported into the United States because there is not available domestic source for the products. These duty suspensions reduce input costs for U.S. businesses and thus ultimately increase the competitiveness of their products. I have been approached by a number of manufacturers in Kentucky that use imported inputs while making their products. These manufacturers have represented to me that, to their knowledge, there currently exists no American-made source for these inputs. In an effort to assist these Kentucky manufacturers, I have introduced in the past month a number of these duty suspension bills so that the items they address will be able to be considered for inclusion in the MTB prepared by the Senate Finance Committee. My intention in introducing these bills is to begin the process of public comment and technical analysis by the International Trade Commission, ITC, on the items addressed by the bills. During this review, the ITC will determine which of these bills are necessary and meet the selection criteria. My support for a duty suspension for the items is contingent on a determination by the ITC analysts that the items in question are proper candidates for inclusion in the noncontroversial MTB. I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Baucus and my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee as the process for assembling a final MTB package continues.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Thank you.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 12, the flag protection constitutional amendment. It is fitting for the Senate to address this issue on the eve of the Nation's most celebrated national holiday, the Fourth of July. For over 200 years, from the time of the Revolutionary War to this very moment, the American flag has served as the most unifying and visible sign of our great Nation. It is a symbol that knows no particular political affiliation or ideology. It is a symbol that has many different meanings for many different people. And, most importantly, it is a symbol of our Nation's greatest freedom that so many men and women in our Armed Forces have and continue to sacrifice to protect. I believe it is an insult to those sacrifices to stand idly by while the flag is desecrated. It is time to show the same honor to our flag that we do to those who have sacrificed to protect it. I believe we owe it to our Old Glory, and that is why I am here today to speak in support of the constitutional amendment to protect our flag. This amendment is necessary to restore protections for the flag that the Supreme Court wiped away in 1989, ruling in Texas v. Johnson. In that 5-to-4 ruling, the Court set aside longstanding national and State laws that protected our flag and recognized and honored its place in American society. Congress quickly acted in response to that ruling through the passage of the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Supreme Court, however, was also quick to act. In another 5-to-4 decision, in 1990, the Court again found that flag protections were inconsistent with their view of the rights protected by the first amendment. But the Court is once again out of touch with America. Its view that flag burning should be protected is not shared by many Americans. In fact, the vast majority of Americans think just the opposite. Nationwide, over 70 percent of Americans think it is important for us to pass a law to protect the flag. And in my State, that number is even higher--87 percent think that it is important that we act now to protect the flag. It is time that we turn this issue back to the people. The Constitution provides an amending process for a reason. The bar to enact a constitutional amendment is high, requiring a two-thirds vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Likewise, the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the States. But in the rare instance when those super-majorities can be assembled, the Framers gave us away to change the Constitution and for the people's voice to be heard. That is just what we should and must do. Since the Supreme Court's rulings, the House of Representatives passed a flag protection amendment five times--most recently last year. The Senate has also taken up the issue, but unfortunately failed to get the necessary 67 votes. By all accounts, this time the Senate is within one vote of adopting the amendment and sending it to the States for ratification. I have no doubt that should the Senate pass this resolution it would be ratified by the States. While this issue is currently being debated at the national level, States have been quick to show their overwhelming support for such a resolution. Since 1989, all 50 States have enacted resolutions asking Congress to pass a flag protection amendment. Mr. President, we owe it to Old Glory to protect each and everyone of it stars and stripes. Two weeks ago, I had the honor of introducing a man who fought to rescue Old Glory from would-be flag-burners. Rick Monday, a former center fielder for the Chicago Cubs and a Marine Corps Reservist, rescued the American flag from being burnt by two protestors during a 1976 baseball game between the Cubs and the Dodgers. Monday was playing center field for the Cubs that day, when suddenly in the 4th inning two protesters ran onto the outfield grass carrying the American flag. These two individuals then proceeded to spread the flag on the ground, dousing it with lighter fluid and pulling out matches to light it on fire. But before they could act, Monday dashed from his position swiping the flag right out from under their noses to the sound of thunderous cheers from the crowd. Following Monday's patriotic actions those in attendance that day burst into a chorus of God Bless America. Whether you are a player or a fan, we all have our favorite memories from America's past time, but few of those moments compare to Monday's act of patriotism. It is arguably one of the greatest moments the game has ever seen. In fact, the Baseball Hall of Fame recognized it as one of the 100 Classic Moments in the history of baseball. Monday, a true American Patriot, fought to stop what he knew was wrong in 1976 and is still wrong today. Some may argue that burning the flag is a form of speech. I do not agree with those people. In the 1989 flag burning case Texas v. Johnson, late Chief Justice William Rehnquist said it well in his dissent when he said that flag burning is more like a grunt or roar designed to antagonize others than it is a form of speech. Well, Mr. President, it is time that this body acted to protect Old Glory from those who wish to indulge in its desecration. We owe it to our past, present and future generations. And ultimately, we owe it to the brave men and women who sacrifice so much to protect us at home and abroad. Each and everyone of us should recognize what a privilege it is to live under the Stars and Stripes. And like Monday, we should do everything we can to protect and honor our flag. After all, what it represents is the very reason our troops are putting their lives on the line right now in the war on terror. When you disrespect the flag you are disrespecting our men and women in uniform. Mr. President, on the eve our Nation's most important national holiday, the Fourth of July, I urge my colleagues to protect our Nation's great flag. I believe it is our duty as public servants to protect one of our Nation's greatest symbols of freedom--Old Glory. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING. But there is time allocated presently.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to just clarify the unanimous consent request so that Members who are on the floor are not excluded from the debate that is going on.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Beverly McDavid, a teacher from Elliott County High School in Sandy Hook, KY, who is a recipient of the 2006 Disney Teacher Award. Ms. McDavid is being recognized for her commitment to middle school science education. Her ability to inspire her students with creative thinking and innovative teaching methods has resulted in her achieving this prestigious honor. The Disney Teacher Awards celebrate teachers that enlighten the lives of children by using creativity in the classroom to encourage them to achieve more then they ever thought possible. Award winners are chosen by their peers, which consist of leading educational associations from around the United States and former Disney Teacher Honorees. Ms. McDavid brings a unique educational experience to her classroom by encouraging free thinking from her students. She also uses various educational strategies to reach out to the diverse learning needs of her students and encourages them to succeed. Her relentless dedication has proven her a deserving recipient of this outstanding award. I congratulate Ms. McDavid on being a recipient of the Disney Teacher Award. Her love of teaching and devotion to her students make her an example to all the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Dr. John Strosnider of Pikeville, KY, for his induction as the 110th president of the American Osteopathic Association, AOA. His steadfast support reinforces his organization's honorable goal of promoting osteopathic medicine, ensuring quality education and training programs, and preserving basic osteopathic principles. Dr. Strosnider will lead 56,000 osteopathic physicians and the AOA, an association organized to advance the philosophy and practice of osteopathic medicine by promoting excellence in education, research and the delivery of quality and cost-effective healthcare in a distinct, unified profession. Dr. Strosnider has been a member of the AOA since 1971 and has served on the board of trustees since 1992. During this time he has served on the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure and the Get Healthy Kentucky Board. In addition to his leadership roles with the AOA, Dr. Strosnider has served as a member of the Association of Osteopathic Medical Directors and Educators; the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine; the Medical Review Consultants Board of Directors; and the Kentucky Osteopathic Medical Association, KOMA, and was a past president of the Missouri Association of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons, MAOPS. Throughout his career, Dr. Strosnider has received numerous honors including the 2005 KOMA Physician of the Year Award and the 1993 MAOPS Medallion Award. In September of 1996 Dr. Strosnider was appointed as the founding dean of the Pikeville College School of Osteopathic Medicine. The Pikeville College is the 19th college of osteopathic medicine in the United States. Its objective is to improve the delivery of healthcare to the people in the underserved areas of Appalachia. I have been very impressed with the progress the college has made in expanding access to healthcare in eastern Kentucky. I thank Dr. Strosnider for his dedication and commitment to osteopathy and congratulate him on his new position. His devotion to medicine serves as an example to all citizens of the Commonwealth.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Thank you, Mr. President. I will not require 15 minutes, but I do have some things to say about the nominee. I just want to speak for a few minutes to explain why I am going to vote no on the nomination of Donald Kohn to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. I am going to vote against Dr. Kohn because I do not think he has been an independent voice at the Fed. Since he joined the Fed in 2002 as a member, he has agreed with all of the interest rate decisions that Chairman Bernanke and former Chairman Greenspan advanced. And because of recent statements, some as recently as Friday, I am convinced he is not going to speak up against yet another decision to hike interest rates when the Fed open market committee meets at the end of this month. Interest rate and inflation fears caused by statements from the Fed members have put our stock markets into free fall. Ever since the last Fed hike, stock values have been plummeting. A lot of value has been destroyed. Even counting a few good days last week, most of the major indexes are, at best, flat for 2006, despite a great runup in the first 4 months of the year. Individual investors and pension funds have lost billions of dollars, investors' confidence is shaken, and for what? Inflation data is at worst mixed. I certainly do not believe it is out of control. Oil and commodity prices have fallen significantly lately. Consumer spending is still strong. Former Fed Chairman Greenspan said recently that the economy has been able to handle the high gasoline prices. And even Chairman Bernanke admitted last week that the signs of inflation have weakened. But the Fed keeps raising interest rates, and its members keep talking like another rate increase is coming, even after the June meeting. Inflation indicators talked about by Fed members look at what has been, not what is coming. And interest rate increases take time to impact the economy. But the Fed has not taken a break in raising rates for over 2 years--2 years. The Fed has a bad record of overshooting, and I am afraid they will overshoot this time if they have not already done so. We all know that interest rate hikes will slow the economy. I just hope that it won't kill it. We need the Fed to stop the madness. I am not convinced that Dr. Kohn will be a voice to stop the madness sooner rather than later. Because I am not convinced Dr. Kohn will be the right voice at the Fed or an independent voice as Vice Chairman, I will vote no. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the vote occurs on Dr. Kohn's nomination, the Record reflect that I voted no. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. It is on the nomination of the Federal Reserve vice- chairmanship.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today in strong favor of abolishing one of the most unjustified taxes we have in America today: the death tax. Americans should not have to talk to their undertaker and their tax man on the same day. Small businesses and family farms should not be forced to close down in order to pay the Government money because a loved one has passed away. Unfortunately, I see this happening when I travel back to Kentucky every week. We are not looking out for our economy or our very own people when we charge them for inheriting the American dream. The mom and pop diner on the corner of our town squares and third- generation farms in our rural areas are being unduly burdened by a repressive Tax Code. In fact, many are forced to close their doors or sell out, just so they can afford what the Government says they owe. America's prosperity was created by our entrepreneurial spirit, but today it is estimated that 70 percent of all businesses never make it past the first generation, while 87 percent do not make it to the third generation, and only 1 percent make it to the fourth generation. Why? One of the big reasons is the burden of the death tax. We call this tax the death tax not only because of the time that it strikes often unsuspecting families but also because it kills American businesses and jobs. The ridiculous complexities of the death tax actually favor individuals whose tax lawyers and accountants plan for years to shield money from estate taxation. The real people who are affected by the estate tax are often small businesses and farms, when death catches them unprepared. The estate tax is equal to an unfair double tax on savings and investment. In short, it is a tax on the American dream, the dream that if you work hard and save money you can leave your children with the opportunity to live a happier and more prosperous life than you yourself did. Estate taxes give taxpayers an incentive to save less and spend more. We all know that is not what we need in today's economy. The Commerce Department reported recently that Americans' personal savings fell into negative territory at minus \1/2\ percent last year. We ought to be doing all we can to encourage savings, not to penalize people for it. We should give grandparents and parents an incentive to leave their children with the fruits of their lifelong labors. It is time for the Senate to wake up and realize the death tax, which raises only a very small portion of our revenue, is ready for its own death. Poll after poll has shown us that this is what the American people want us to do. Please, let us join the House of Representatives in repealing this unneeded, burdensome tax. Distinguished colleagues, I urge you to join me in supporting the repeal of the death tax today. The time for talk is over. Today is the time to take an action that can really make a difference. This is the only way we can ensure that our fellow citizens experience the American dream, not the American nightmare. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of cloture. I yield the floor. I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coal-to- Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2006. Last month, I chaired an Energy Committee hearing on this promising technology that can turn coal into diesel fuel. Working with industry and the scientific community, I have put together a comprehensive piece of legislation with the goal of providing the right combination of incentives to create a backbone of coal-to-liquids infrastructure in the United States. The first step is for the Department of Energy to help with planning these large-scale coal-to-liquids plants. This legislation will create a loan program where the private sector can obtain a loan of up to $20 million, matched dollar-for-dollar by non-federal money, to pay for the significant costs of planning, permitting and engineering a coal-to- liquid facility. This program will have minimal cost to the taxpayers as these loans will be repaid, within 5 years, after a planned plant is financed. The federal government will also provide loan guarantees for coal-to-liquids facilities by expanding the program authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It is not enough to simply help engineer plants or provide a loan guarantee--there must be an economic motivation for investors to put up the $1 to $2 billion it costs to build a large-scale coal-to-liquids plant. To that end, this bill will create a separate investment tax credit for coal-to-liquids technology. It will also extend the fuel tax credit for coal-to-liquids fuels until 2020. The combination of these incentives will be the one-two punch needed to jumpstart investment in this marketplace. This package of incentives is essential to developing a domestic coal-to-liquid fuels market. With this domestically produced fuel from coal, we can bring down gas prices and be closer to energy independence. And these two goals, which are essential to our national security, bring me to the last part of this legislation. The Department of Defense consumes large amounts of fuel--for our airplanes, ships and tanks--and nearly all of it is based on petroleum and too much of it comes from the Middle East. It is time we ensure that our military has a safe, domestic source of transportation fuel. My legislation will authorize funding for the continued testing and evaluation of coal-to-liquid fuels by the military. It includes authorization to engage in long-term contracts with producers to ensure a stable, domestic fuel for our armed forces. This bill also authorizes the Department of Energy and Department of Defense to evaluate coal-to-liquids fuels for storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and allows the government to turn to this domestic source of fuel for filling the reserve. With this legislation America can take a huge step toward energy independence. My bill will foster a domestic marketplace for coal-to- liquids fuels, bring down gasoline costs and provide our military with a secure, domestic fuel source. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coal-to- Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2006. Last month, I chaired an Energy Committee hearing on this promising technology that can turn coal into diesel fuel. Working with industry and the scientific community, I have put together a comprehensive piece of legislation with the goal of providing the right combination of incentives to create a backbone of coal-to-liquids infrastructure in the United States. The first step is for the Department of Energy to help with planning these large-scale coal-to-liquids plants. This legislation will create a loan program where the private sector can obtain a loan of up to $20 million, matched dollar-for-dollar by non-federal money, to pay for the significant costs of planning, permitting and engineering a coal-to- liquid facility. This program will have minimal cost to the taxpayers as these loans will be repaid, within 5 years, after a planned plant is financed. The federal government will also provide loan guarantees for coal-to-liquids facilities by expanding the program authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It is not enough to simply help engineer plants or provide a loan guarantee--there must be an economic motivation for investors to put up the $1 to $2 billion it costs to build a large-scale coal-to-liquids plant. To that end, this bill will create a separate investment tax credit for coal-to-liquids technology. It will also extend the fuel tax credit for coal-to-liquids fuels until 2020. The combination of these incentives will be the one-two punch needed to jumpstart investment in this marketplace. This package of incentives is essential to developing a domestic coal-to-liquid fuels market. With this domestically produced fuel from coal, we can bring down gas prices and be closer to energy independence. And these two goals, which are essential to our national security, bring me to the last part of this legislation. The Department of Defense consumes large amounts of fuel--for our airplanes, ships and tanks--and nearly all of it is based on petroleum and too much of it comes from the Middle East. It is time we ensure that our military has a safe, domestic source of transportation fuel. My legislation will authorize funding for the continued testing and evaluation of coal-to-liquid fuels by the military. It includes authorization to engage in long-term contracts with producers to ensure a stable, domestic fuel for our armed forces. This bill also authorizes the Department of Energy and Department of Defense to evaluate coal-to-liquids fuels for storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and allows the government to turn to this domestic source of fuel for filling the reserve. With this legislation America can take a huge step toward energy independence. My bill will foster a domestic marketplace for coal-to- liquids fuels, bring down gasoline costs and provide our military with a secure, domestic fuel source. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a number of bills to provide for relief from duties. It is my intention that some or all of these duty suspension bills will eventually be included in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, MTB, that the Senate Finance Committee is expected to consider this year. As the members of the Senate are aware, Congress on occasion passes a bill, known as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill or MTB, as a vehicle for enacting pending non-controversial duty suspensions. The rules for the inclusion of a duty suspension in the MTB are straight forward. First and foremost, in order to be included in the MTB, a bill must be non- controversial. A bill will be controversial if it is objected to by a domestic producer of the product for which the duty reduction is being sought. Secondly, the cost for each bill must amount to less than $500,000 of lost revenue per year. As my colleagues are aware, the MTB provides an opportunity to temporarily eliminate or reduce duties on narrowly defined products that are imported into the United States because there is not available domestic source for the products. These duty suspensions reduce input costs for U.S. businesses and thus ultimately increase the competitiveness of their products. I have been approached by a number of manufacturers in Kentucky that use imported inputs while making their products. These manufacturers have represented to me that, to their knowledge, there currently exists no American-made source for these inputs. In an effort to assist these Kentucky manufacturers, I am introducing these duty suspension bills so that the items they address will be able to be considered for inclusion in the MTB prepared by the Senate Finance Committee. My intention in introducing these bills is to begin the process of public comment and technical analysis by the International Trade Commission (ITC) on the items addressed by the bills. During this review, the ITC will determine which of these bills are necessary and meet the selection criteria. My support for a duty suspension for the items is contingent on a determination by the ITC analysts that the items in question are proper candidates for inclusion in the non- controversial MTB. I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Baucus and my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee as the process for assembling a final MTB package continues.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to speak about why I will vote against the immigration reform bill now before the Senate. This is the worst piece of legislation that I have seen in my 20 years in Congress. It grants amnesty to 11 million or more illegal immigrants. It puts American workers at risk. It does little to enforce our immigration laws in the interior of the country, and worst of all, it does not even secure our border. It ignores the will of the majority of the American people. I cannot vote for such a dangerous bill. In 1986, the year before I first joined the House of Representatives, Congress passed the immigration reform bill that got us into the situation we are in now. Ed Meese, who was President Reagan's Attorney General at the time, called it what it was--an amnesty for 3 million illegal aliens. Unfortunately, after that amnesty little attention was paid to securing our borders and interior enforcement, and the illegal immigrant population grew to over 11 million. The 1986 amnesty was a signal to illegal immigrants that if they came here and kept their heads down, eventually they would have their crimes forgiven. The amnesty told them there was no reason to wait in line, no reason to follow our laws, just sneak into the United States, do not get caught, and eventually Congress would make them a citizen. Well, that is exactly what happened. Earlier this week, former Attorney General Meese pointed out that Congress did not learn the lesson of 1986 and we are poised to repeat that mistake by passing a new amnesty. I suspect that 20 years from now a future Congress will talk about yet another amnesty. A few weeks ago I came to the floor to talk about what kind of immigration reform I support. I support, first and foremost, securing our borders. If we cannot control our borders, we might as well give up on stopping the next terrorist attack. I support strong enforcement of our immigration laws inside the country. That means punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants. We must provide employers the tools they need to make sure workers are legal and hold them responsible when they turn a blind eye to who they are hiring. I support an immigration reform bill that protects American workers. That means a temporary worker program for when we need more workers, such as in our current rapidly expanding economy. But any worker program must make sure Americans are not being denied jobs in favor of cheap foreign labor. If there is a real need we should fill it, but foreign labor should never be a substitute for American workers. Finally, I support continuing our long tradition of welcoming new immigrants to America. Within reasonable limits, we should continue to welcome people from around the world who want to become Americans. We should not lock the doors to new immigrants, but anyone who wants to become an American must learn our language and assimilate into our society. Because this bill does not follow those principles, I will not support it. The bill will not secure our border. It ties the hands of law enforcement inside the country to catch illegal immigrants. It is an amnesty for illegal immigrants that not only puts them ahead of the millions who are already waiting in line, but in some ways it also treats them better than American workers. Finally, the bill does not protect American jobs, instead it encourages businesses to use cheap foreign labor. I have heard a lot of talk the last few weeks from my colleagues supporting this bill that say we must choose from either blanket amnesty or mass deportation. That is wrong. If we passed a real border security bill with tough interior enforcement, the illegal population would shrink through attrition; in other words, the illegal immigrants would deport themselves. After we secure our borders, we can put in place a temporary worker program that protects American workers. But that is not the path the Senate will choose today. I hope my colleagues in the House of Representatives will stay strong with their bill when we get to conference. The other body passed a strong bill that would make this country safer. That bill is not an amnesty bill. It will make sure we get our border under control before opening the door to millions of temporary workers. Again, Mr. President, I cannot support this bill. It is the worst legislation I have ever had to vote on, and I will vote against it when the roll is called. I put securing our borders ahead of amnesty, and I am confident the American people do too.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate St. Elizabeth Medical Center of northern Kentucky. St. Elizabeth has been named as a magnet hospital by the American Nurses Credentialing Center. Designation as a magnet hospital by this organization is an extremely prestigious honor, so much so that some have called it the Nobel Prize of hospital nursing. Fewer than 200 providers have received this recognition. This puts St. Elizabeth in the company of only 3 percent of U.S. hospitals. Just as the award it has received indicates, St. Elizabeth acts as a magnet for nursing. It offers the exceptional quality of nursing care and attracts and retains the most talented nurses. Not only is this good news for St. Elizabeth, but it is good news for the community-- they know that if they go to this facility, they will be receiving some of the best care in the country. I am extremely excited that northern Kentucky is receiving the nursing care that it deserves. I congratulate St. Elizabeth Medical Center on this achievement. Everyone involved with this institution is an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky. I look forward to all that St. Elizabeth accomplishes in the future.