Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I thank the Senator. Cloture Motion

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be listed as a cosponsor of the bipartisan Gramm-Miller substitute and rise to speak in favor of that amendment.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I believe the proposal of Senator Gramm and Senator Miller represents our best hope of passing legislation this year to put a new Homeland Security Department in place. The Gramm-Miller substitute addresses the legitimate policy concerns of many Senators on both sides of the aisle while also giving the President the flexibility and the authority he needs to put together and run a Homeland Security Department that fulfills its primary mission--defending our people and our Nation. This amendment is a good, bipartisan compromise. It contains a number of provisions from the original bill reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. It also contains the bulk of what the President has asked. As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about what I see as the strengths of this proposal as well as the weaknesses of the Democratic proposal and why it is imperative that we pass Gramm-Miller now. One of the most important things this bipartisan amendment does not do is, it does not take away important Presidential national security authority when this country is in the middle of a war. Going back to the markup of the homeland security bill in committee, many of us argued that the President needs to have the maximum flexibility to effectively administer a Homeland Security Department. We are fighting a new type of war. The Department is going to have to be nimble. Officials there are going to have to be able to react to events at home and abroad on a moment's notice. The President must have the ability to make decisions and move resources around to fight an enemy that has spread throughout the world and could attack us from any point. Every President since Jimmy Carter has had more discretion in running agencies that were involved in national security. For instance, over the past 30 years, every single President, Republican or Democrat, has been able to declare, and actually has declared, that some civil servants are exempt from collective bargaining rules that apply to other agencies. The Democratic bill would change that when it comes to homeland security. Let me be clear: The employees at the new Department are going to have a very important job to do. They deserve our respect and our support. But to go as far as to give the President less authority over them and to put more bureaucratic rules into place is to distract from the reason we are debating this legislation in the first place. We need to make sure these employees have the resources to do the job. We need to make sure the President has the same ability. To give him less authority is the exact opposite of what we need to do. In short, that means the Democratic proposal would actually give the President less flexibility than he already has under current law. That is crazy. There is no reason to have this debate if we are only going to talk about making it harder, not easier, for the President to lead us in the war on terrorism. This debate is supposed to be about crafting rules and building a new Department to help fight the war on terrorism. It is not supposed to be a debate about rolling back the clock to an outdated way of thinking about labor and management relationships. I have said throughout this debate that if the choice comes down to national security versus more redtape and rules, national security must win every time. Instead, what the Gramm-Miller proposal would do is give the President necessary management and personnel flexibility to allow him to integrate the pieces of many standing agencies into a new Homeland Security Department. This is going to be an awesome task we are undertaking. We are talking about taking bits and pieces from literally dozens of current agencies and quickly fitting them together into an effective unit called the Department of Homeland Security. That job is going to be an even harder one if we continue to focus on old rules and redtape instead of how to fashion a new and flexible agency to fight a war in the 21st century. Another reason to support Gramm-Miller and to oppose the Democratic bill or any substitute for it is the forward-thinking parts of the bipartisan bill when it comes to civil service and personnel issues. For instance, Gramm-Miller gives the President flexibility when it comes to management decisions relating to hiring, evaluating, and compensating. Democratic opponents look at this and see the glass is half empty. They claim it is a pretext for cracking down on workers. I see the glass as half full and view these reforms as a way for the President and the others to reward those employees who do a good job and provide the flexibility to hire the best and brightest for this new Department. After all, we are talking about defending our Nation and our people. Employees who do a good job as part of that should be rewarded. Those who do not should either be disciplined or fired. At the same time, Gramm-Miller also retains whistleblower protection and a full range of employee benefits and protections. I understand it might not be everything the Government unions want, but it is still a very good deal. Gramm-Miller is also on the right track when it gives the President extra authority to transfer funding and responsibilities to the Homeland Security Department. Right now his hands are often tied by redtape, but if we were to have another 9/11 disaster, if we were to see another attack, the President would need more authority to act quickly when it comes to moving around funds and responsibilities to make sure we respond as rapidly as possible. I know some of my colleagues worry about this new authority. They think we are going too fast and that Congress would be giving away some of its constitutional authority. I totally disagree. Gramm-Miller specifically says that as to the biggest changes, the President would ask Congress for permission by submitting a resolution to the House and to the Senate and that we would have 90 days to act. That is the type of consultation with which I am comfortable. Obviously, we have to respect the separation of powers as well as Congress's power of the purse and our powers to declare what role they are going to play. We can do this while at the same time giving the President more tools to effectively administer the Federal bureaucracy. My friends on the other side of the aisle who oppose Gramm-Miller have also thrown out a couple of other red herrings when it comes to labor and personnel issues. They have tried to fall back on the notion that the proposal would undercut the Davis-Bacon rules covering prevailing wage on Government construction projects. But the fact is that Gramm-Miller is neutral on this issue and explicitly does not address it. They also try to make the claim that supporters of Gramm-Miller are using it as some devious way to undercut, in a broad manner, rights under the Federal Labor Relations Act. Again, this just is not true. The President does have the right under Gramm-Miller to exempt applications of the rules on a limited basis but only--but only--if national security is involved. That sounds reasonable, and I believe most of the American people, if given a choice between tying the President's hands with labor negotiations or giving him the ability to act for national security, would give him the benefit of the doubt. When you get beyond the debate about broad policies and personnel issues, Gramm-Miller also makes sense when it comes to the nuts and bolts of making changes to specific departments and agencies. For example, when reorganizing the Customs Service under the new Homeland Security Department, the Democratic bill would provide for the transfer of Customs to the Homeland Security Department but at the same time also requires it to be maintained as a distinct entity within the Border and Transportation Security Directorate. That also makes no sense. Customs cannot be in two places at one time. It is either a part of homeland security or it is not. There is no other way I can see how it can function effectively by splitting its resources and focusing among two agencies. The only reason I can see that the Democratic bill does it this way is to protect turf, but all this would do is to protect the same old stovepipe system and personnel we have now, but under different names. If anything, moving Customs into two different agencies might make things worse. Instead, Gramm-Miller would transfer Customs to homeland security and reserve at Treasury the limited right to issue regulations covering some of the Customs' revenue functions. That seems like a much more sensible and workable solution to me. I know it might not be popular in the bureaucracy, and there might be some at Treasury and Customs who are resisting this change, but if it is a choice between keeping the status quo or some sort of warped version of it to save the bureaucratic face to protect turf, then I have no problem in upsetting the applecart and supporting a new streamlined approach to Government. Another example of what I am talking about is how the competing proposal deals with FEMA. The Democratic bill moves FEMA to a new Department as a ``distinct entity'' that cannot be reorganized or merged. The Gramm-Miller bill simply moves FEMA to the Homeland Security Department. I do not even understand what the Democrat bill is trying to do here. It claims to move FEMA to Homeland and to give the Secretary some authority over it. But at the same time it says that FEMA cannot be reorganized or improved. This is a distinction without a difference. Either FEMA is part of Homeland or it isn't. Either the new Secretary has the authority over FEMA and the ability to put its resources to work or he doesn't. The Democrat bill tries to tiptoe around the issue so that it does not step on toes. But when it comes to war and fighting terrorists, it is time to step boldly. Instead of talking about shades of gray and playing word games, we need to start looking at the world in black and white and acting boldly. In other areas, Senator Gramm and Senator Miller have gone out of their way to adopt workable sections of the Democrat bill and to compromise. For instance, Gramm-Miller adopts the Democrat bill's language when it comes to Freedom of Information Act issues and the law enforcement powers of inspector agents. These might seem small, but especially with FOIA I know that many of my colleagues were worried about accountability of the new Department, and I appreciate the bipartisan efforts to reach across the aisle from Senator Gramm and Senator Miller. Gramm-Miller also borrows from the Democrat bill when it comes to provisions covering Federal workforce improvement and adopting reforms worked out in the Governmental Affairs Committees by Senator Voinovich and Senator Akaka. It accepts all of the Democrat proposal when it comes to emergency procurement authority. On the subject of Administration of the Centers for Disease Control, it also accepts all of the Democrat proposal. Gramm-Miller proposes effective immigration reforms by adopting the Democrat bill's proposal to create an Immigration Affairs directorate within the new Department and to transfer the Immigration and Naturalization Service to it. Senator Gramm and Senator Miller also accept, with only minor changes, the Democrat's proposal to modify the Coast Guard's mission and reforms the rules that cover how we issue visas. In short, Gramm-Miller has tried to take the best and most acceptable parts of the Democrat bill while also maintaining the flexibility and some of management proposals that the President says he needs. For instance, the President's plan provides for unified intelligence analysis and infrastructure protection in one organization. This would have a single agency responsible for providing both threat assessments and vulnerability analysis. Nowhere in the Government does this currently take place. This plan would fill that gap. As the current Joint Intelligence Committee hearings have shown the last several days, our intelligence community needs some work. Most importantly, information about what is going on in this country needs the most work, and information about what our own weaknesses are is largely nonexistent. This amendment would allow these two types of analysis to come together and provide the most accurate information about what we need to do as a Nation to protect ourselves domestically. This flexibility and reform is not part of the Democrat bill. We have been at loggerheads on this legislation for almost 4 weeks now. I think we know it is getting down to crunch time and it is time to compromise. That is what Gramm-Miller does. No one is going to get everything of what they want and the time before adjournment is shrinking rapidly. I think it is time to move beyond confrontation and toward a workable compromise that will allow us to put an effective Homeland Security Department into place now. I know that some Members think we are moving too fast and they want to spend more time debating the bill. I think that is the wrong way to look at this situation. Obviously, we have to get things right in building the new Department. But at the same time, we all know that if we can come up short we come back and fix things down the road. I do not think anyone seriously doubts that if we pass a bill that needs to be tweaked down the road that the Congress is going to drag its feet on such an important national security issue. We owe it to ourselves and the American people to finish work on this bill. We have been debating it for close to a month. Before that, it was subject to some public debate during the August recess and during the Government Affairs Committee markup in July. We have had over 15 hearings on this bill. We are not reinventing the wheel. We have had a good debate. I think we have a good handle on this bill and now it is time to vote. If we are worried about making mistakes or not passing a perfect bill we will be here until doomsday--literally. This is a complicated issue. There are bound to be mistakes. But I think we are on the verge of getting much of it right, and on many levels we will not know for sure how to make the Department work until we get it up and running and see where the shortcomings are. So let's get started. The people who will staff this new Department are already out there, trying their best to protect America. They are dedicated public servants who make many sacrifices to serve this Nation and their fellow citizens, but right now they are spread throughout the Government. It is time to bring them together and to harness their collective talents for the national good. There is an old phrase that says one should either leads, follow, or get out of the way. Right now we are doing none of those things. We in Congress need to start leading The President has been pretty clear about what he needs to administer the new Department. He has told us what he can accept and what he has to veto. The House has acted, and now I think a bipartisan majority in the Senate ought to be ready to act. We can continue talking or try to pass a political bill that the President will send right back to us. Instead, we should adopt Gramm-Miller. It is a good starting point--a solid, consensus bill. It borrows the ideas from competing bills, and as the only bipartisan bill it offers common sense solutions when it comes to building the Department of Homeland Security. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, it is with great pride and honor that I rise today amongst my fellow colleagues to honor one of America's finest citizens, Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. When I look at Strom's career and all that he has accomplished throughout his life, I often find myself wondering how one man could possibly do so much in just one lifetime. Strom Thurmond truly deserves the title of Renaissance man. He has been a farmer, a teacher, a lawyer, a judge, an author, a Governor, a war veteran, a major general in the U.S. Army Reserves, a State senator, a U.S. Senator, a Democrat, a Dixiecrat, a Republican, a husband and a father. Since 1954, when he ran and won a seat in the Senate as a write-in candidate, Strom Thurmond has worked tirelessly and selflessly for the people of South Carolina and the citizens of this great Nation, casting more than 15,000 votes in his time in the Senate. I now ask that my fellow members of the Senate join me in thanking and honoring our good friend and colleague for all that he has done throughout his life and throughout his tenure in the Senate. His brilliance, leadership and unmatched wit will be sorely missed by this legislative body and by the entire Nation. But we will always hold on to the many memories and stories he left behind.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President I was necessarily absent for the vote in executive session on September 9, 2002. Therefore, I did not formally vote on the nomination of Kenneth A. Marra, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida. Had I been present for that vote, I would have voted ``yea'' to confirm Mr. Marra for this position.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Mr. Richard H. Jett of Campton, KY. This weekend, Mr. Jett will be honored as Kentucky's Outstanding Older Worker for 2002 at an awards ceremony hosted by Experience Works. Mr. Jett's life is an example of selfless devotion to community improvement. He was an educator, high school principal and superintendent of schools in Kentucky until his retirement in 1982. However, Mr. Jett's idea of retirement is certainly not traditional. Currently, the city of Campton, KY, has the privilege of calling Mr. Jett its mayor. Along with community development, the improvement and beautification of Campton is always in the forefront of his mind. One will often find Mr. Jett sweeping sidewalks or tending to the landscape, showing his pride for Campton and Kentucky. As in all areas of his life, Mr. Jett leads by example, never resting on his laurels. Aside from his service in the public sector, Mr. Jett operates a tour company, he organized the East Kentucky Talent Project to help young musicians, and he has taught square dancing, western dancing and clogging for the past 40 years at the Natural Bridge State Park. His active lifestyle does not show signs of slowing, even after being diagnosed with cancer in 1998, and undergoing knee replacement surgery. At a time when civic pride is not only desirable, but essential, Mr. Jett's life is an example of how we should treat our city, state, nation and fellow citizens: with upmost respect, compassion and dedication. He is truly an American Hero to the lives he touches daily. Please join me in honoring the distinguished career of Mr. Richard H. Jett.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of those in New York, at the Pentagon, and in the skies over Pennsylvania who lost their lives 1 year ago today. None of us in the Senate will ever forget the events of that terrible morning, nor will we ever forget the courage and compassion displayed by Americans everywhere in response to the attacks. Today, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families, and all of those who risked their lives to save others on that awful day. The despicable acts that we witnessed were meant to create havoc and to test our resolve as Americans. America passed that test. We are stronger and more united as a Nation today than we ever were. Despite the fact that our buildings were damaged, America's foundations remain unshaken. And despite the fact that 3,000 of our friends, relatives, and neighbors were murdered, America's sense of community is stronger than ever. This morning, many of us took part in a memorial service across the river at the newly restored Pentagon. One year ago today, that building was on fire. One of its five sides essentially lay in ruin. Last September, I visited the Pentagon just days after the attack. It was a terrible scene of devastation. But today we saw a building that has been completely rebuilt. The Pentagon, both on the inside and on the outside, is better than before. The offices within are busy now with the activity of military men and women who are hard at work in the war against terror. The Pentagon, today, stands as a reminder of the American spirit and a warning to those who want to terrorize us: America will triumph, and those who want nothing less than to destroy our way of life will fail. They will fail because of the American spirit. They will fail because of our faith in freedom and democracy. They will fail because of the strength and character of the American people. I believe Americans have emerged from the attacks even stronger and more dedicated to our beliefs and to our Nation. But we cannot let our guard down again. We cannot forget that evil is lying in wait for another opportunity to attack. So far, we have been able to anticipate, with intelligence, any future attacks. But we know the enemy will try again. It has been said many times--but it bears repeating--it might not seem that we are at war, but we are at war. It is a different kind of a struggle than we have ever fought before. On the surface, it might not seem like World War II, Korea, Vietnam, or any other conflict of the past. Make no mistake about it, danger still lurks, and we must remain vigilant. Americans have made many sacrifices, big and small, over the last year. They gave blood and contributed to relief efforts. They became more vigilant in their communities. They volunteered to help those in need. We have come a long way since the attacks a year ago, and I could not be prouder of our people. In that time, I believe we have found new national unity, not only from the heroism of firefighters, police, and our military, but also from the everyday efforts of regular everyday Americans. I am proud of the way we in Congress responded to the attacks. By putting aside politics and working together with President Bush for the greater good, we have shown that, while we all wear political labels as Republicans and Democrats, we are Americans first. The President has done a superb job leading our country in the war on terror, and we in Congress have done our best to provide him with the resources necessary to persecute and win that war. Much has been done, but we must continue to remain focused on the task at hand--protecting our homeland. And that job continues tomorrow in the Senate. We will finish it, and we will finish it successfully. People often ask me how things have changed in Washington since 9/11. Some things on the surface certainly have changed. There are more concrete barriers, roadblocks, and security precautions, but looking beneath the surface, I think the better question to ask is, What did 9/ 11 reveal about us? It showed that we are still a good and compassionate Nation and people. It showed that, under the worst of circumstances, we will come to the aid not only of our friends and neighbors, but to complete strangers. It showed that America is still the greatest nation on Earth, and it showed that, in the war on terror, we will prevail. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. My congratulations to the Senator from Indiana and the delegation from Norway. We are privileged to have them here.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I have the privilege and honor of rising today to recognize Ms. Earleen Allen Francis of Clinton, KY. Last month, Ms. Francis was presented with a certificate of honor for her military service as an Army Nurse during WWII by the Kentucky Department of Veteran Affairs. Ms. Francis, now 91 years young, is among fewer than 20 survivors of the group of about 60 Army and Navy nurses captured by Japanese forces after the fall of Corregidor, a small fortified island in the Philippines. In 1942, Japanese troops advanced on the Bataan peninsula. The Army and Navy nurses stationed at Bataan were evacuated to Corregidor as a safety precaution. However, shortly after being moved, Japanese troops stormed the small island and captured 20 of the 85 nurses, including Earleen Allen Francis. For three long and grueling years, Earleen and the 19 other nurses were starved and locked up by their captors. Their freedoms were stripped from them in the blink of an eye. In many ways, Earleen never quite recovered from this horrific time period in her life. Ms. Francis' story has been told in books and on television and she was even honored by President Reagan in 1983 for her service to America. It is important that her story continues to be told. I believe it is vital that we as a nation never forget about heroes like Earleen Allen Francis. Sometimes, we are forced to fight and die for our freedom and the continuation of our unique way of life. Ms. Francis personally sacrificed a large portion of her life to ensure that future generations of Americans are able to enjoy the freedoms she had stripped away from her for 3 years. Now more than ever, we must learn from the sacrifices others have made. Terrorist states and organizations around the globe are striving to take the word freedom out of America's vocabulary. These terrorists view the world in simple terms of black and white; Islam is on the good side, and the infidels--America, Israel, and the entire Western World-- are on the bad side. Freedom and democracy don't always come easy. We sometimes have to fight for what we believe in and stand for. I ask that my fellow Senators join me in honoring Earleen Allen Francis for her sacrifice and commitment to America--the land of the free.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I honor and congratulate the Home of the Innoncents Pediatric Convalescent Center, PCC, in Louisville, KY. The PCC was recently recognized with the 2002 National Organization on Disability Award from the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, AAHSA. AAHSA is a national association representing mission-driven, not-for-profit health care and senior housing providers. The PCC is truly a unique and special place for disabled children throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky. In fact, according to the PCC, the center is Kentucky's only center of excellence for children's long- term nursing needs. The PCC has served residents from 81 of the 120 counties in the Commonwealth of Kentucky as well as from the neighboring states of Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. The PCC not only provides patients with medical care, but also offers their children an array of educational, social, and physical opportunities. The staff, ranging from speech therapists to dietitians, works around the clock, 365 days a year to ensure that children's needs are tended to on a daily basis. They deserve special recognition for their hard work, indomitable spirit and pro-active approach to pediatric health care. I ask that my fellow Senators join me in honoring all involved with the Pediatric Convalescent Center. President Bush named September a month of Service and the PCC embodies this credo. Special children need special care. At PCC, special is the only kind of care people know.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to take this opportunity, along with my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnelll, to speak in support of this resolution honoring the Valley Sports American Little League Baseball Team from Louisville, Kentucky for winning the 2002 Little League Baseball World Series. This is the first time in the 56-year history of the Little League World Series that a team from Kentucky has won the championship. And all of us throughout the commonwealth are very proud of these young men and their coaches. In fact, this team made it through their entire playoff run without losing a single game--24 games and 24 wins. As someone who played and managed professional baseball for over a quarter-century, I can tell my colleagues just how difficult it is to win 24 games in a row at any level of the sport. Over the last month, when major league players were bickering with owners about salaries and revenue-sharing and drug-testing, the little leaguers showed the best of what baseball and our young people have to offer. They played with grit, determination and great skill. They displayed spectacular sportsmanship along with giving us some of the finest baseball you will ever see. The young men from Valley Sports played America's national pastime as it is meant to be played. I take this opportunity to congratulate all of these young men--Aaron Alvey, Justin Elkins, Ethan Henry, Alex Hornback, Wes Jenkins, Casey Jordan, Shane Logsdon, Blaine Madden, Zach Osborne, Jake Remines, Josh Robinson and Wes Walden--along with their manager and coaches--Troy Osborne, Keith Elkins and Dan Roach--for this remarkable achievement. Their heart and determination are models for us all. In my mind, they are all true all stars.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mr. John Nowak of Fairview, KY. Mr. Nowak, who operates a farm outside of Hopkinsville, KY, has recently garnered national praise for his innovative and effective farming techniques. Hay samples produced by Mr. Nowak earned the Best Pure Alfalfa, Best Alalfa with Grass and Best of Show awards during the American Forage and Grassland Council held in Minneapolis earlier this month. These hay samples underwent a rigorous laboratory analysis for relative feed value, protein fiber and mineral content as a part of the criterion. As every farmer in Kentucky knows first hand, the high level of humidity combined with irregular rainfall and nighttime dew can create a very taxing and unfriendly farming environment. Oftentimes, these factors result in an unproductive and unprofitable season, but this has not been the case for Mr. Nowak. Mr. Nowak, through hard work and inventive thinking, has been able to successfully overcome these unpredictable and intrusive obstacles. He has truly become a pioneer for commercial hay production in Kentucky and the entire United States. John Nowak's practices have also been noticed by such noted agriculturists as Dr. Garry Lacefield, a University of Kentucky extension forage specialist at Princeton's Agriculture Research and Education Center. He is one of Nowak's most adamant supporters. Dr. Lacefield plans on working closely with Mr. Nowak in the future to further improve the sellability and commercial marketing of hay. In a capitalistic society such as the one we have in the United States of America, innovation and ingenuity play such vital and important roles in our economic success. I applaud Mr. Nowak's entrepreneurial spirit and urge him to continue to find better and more improved ways of production.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about the Graham-Smith amendment. The Senate has been debating a prescription drug benefit for Medicare for the past two and a half weeks. In fact, Congress has been working on the issue for years now. Now our colleagues in the House have passed a proposal. The Senate needs to do the same. All along I have supported the efforts of the Tripartisan group and their efforts to write a common sense Medicare prescription drug proposal. I voted for their bill because I think it targets relief in a fiscally responsible manner to those seniors who need it the most. Unfortunately, I cannot support the Graham-Smith amendment. While we all agree that seniors need help with their prescription drug costs, this amendment falls short for several reasons. First of all, this amendment creates an ``all or nothing'' program for many seniors. Seniors below 200 percent of poverty, which is $17,720 for singles and $23,880 for married couples, will basically have all of their prescription drug costs paid for, with only a $2 or $5 co-pay for drugs. However, folks who make over 200 percent of poverty, even if it is only by a small fraction, basically don't get a real benefit until catastrophic coverage kicks in at $3,300. Writing this steep of an income cliff into the law isn't fair. We can do better. The difference between having an income of $17,720 and $17,721 shouldn't costs seniors $3,300 in prescription drug costs. In Kentucky, there are almost 240,000 seniors who have incomes above this threshold. Under Graham-Smith, they basically get nothing. Second, this amendment doesn't give us enough bang for our buck. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this amendment will cost $390 billion, which is a heck of a lot of money. However, even if we pass it, we still aren't offering a real benefit to all seniors, like we did with the Tripartisan amendment. The Tripartisan proposal would have cost $370 billion, and all seniors could have had catastrophic coverage starting at $3,700, along with substantial help with their prescription drug costs below that. Even the Hagel Amendment, with a price tag of $295 billion, limited out of pocket expenses for folks below 200 percent of poverty at $1,500. I just don't understand why we would want to pay an additional $20 billion or $95 billion more for a Medicare prescription drug plan that offers fewer benefits. This means that the Graham-Smith proposal shortchanges not only seniors, but the American taxpayer as well. America's seniors need our help, and the Senate needs to pass a prescription drug bill. But because the Senate Democrat leadership insisted on bypassing the usual committee process and proceeding straight to the Senate floor with the debate, we have been struggling with a legislative free-for-all that, in the end, could lead to nothing passing at all. When I made my first floor statement on this issue, I warned against this sort of procedural gimmickry and its possible consequences. So far we have voted on three prescription drug proposals, and only two have earned more than 50 votes, let alone the 60 that are needed under the budget rules. If the committee process had been allowed to work its will, I think there is a much better chance that we could pass a serious proposal to provide meaningful relief to seniors. I can't support Graham-Smith. It's a day late, more than a few dollars too short and fails to provide real help to seniors who need it most. I think there is still a chance, a small one, to pass a real bill. But the door is about to close on our seniors yet again. I hope we don't let them down.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today among my colleagues to congratulate Ms. Marsha Van Hook of Somerset, KY. On July 16th, Marsha Van Hook was the proud recipient of the Ted Jaskulski National Public Policy Award. This award is presented annually to an individual who has contributed to public policy efforts on behalf of people with developmental disabilities. Ms. Van Hook was nominated by the 26 members of the Kentucky Developmental Disabilities Council, KDDC, for her advocacy efforts related to disabilities. In keeping with the goals and values of the KDDC, Marsha Van Hook has tirelessly and selflessly worked to ensure that children and young adults throughout the Commonwealth suffering from developmental disabilities have the right to an education, the opportunity to work and support themselves, and the access to affordable health care and transportation in their respective communities. Specifically, Ms. Van Hook's strong advocacy and involvement at the local and state level has brought a heightened sense of awareness to local communities across Kentucky concerning people with developmental disabilities and the dilemmas they face on a daily basis. She has been the eloquent voice of reason for advocacy and has also been an instrumental force in getting legislation passed regarding transportation needs for the disabled. This most recent accolade is not the first time Ms. Van Hook has been duly recognized for positive influence on society. Both the Kentucky State Senate and House as well as many disability groups throughout the Commonwealth have presented her with awards. Currently, Marsha Van Hook is employed by the Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC, where she is actively involved with their ``Partners in Advocacy'' training program. This program offers training and support to individuals and their families in developing and expanding much needed advocacy skills. She also participates in several commissions and committees at both the state and local level. I ask that my fellow members of the Senate join me in congratulating Ms. Marsha Van Hook for this prestigious and noteworthy award and thank her for all that she has done and is doing to advance the cause of children and adults suffering from developmental disabilities.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I proudly rise today to celebrate a truly remarkable milestone in the American automobile industry. Today, Toyota Motor North America will produce its 10 millionth North American-built vehicle. This notable achievement will take place at the Toyota production facility located in Georgetown KY. I am extremely pleased that the more than 8,000 employees at the Georgetown facility will have the unique and historical opportunity to produce the 10 millionth Toyota to say Made in America. On a personal note, I myself bought a Camry last November, born and bred at the Georgetown facility in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Today, Toyota's dedicated team members annually build over 900,000 Avalons, Camrys, Corollas, Sequoias, Seinnas, Tacomas, and Tundras in the United States; in fiscal year 2001, Toyota sold nearly 2 million vehicles in North America. This means that nearly all of the cars sold in America are made here as well. Nothing gives me more pride than to see a product stamped with made in the U.S.A. especially when that means made in Kentucky. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky began production in Georgetown in 1988. Today, the Georgetown production facility is Toyota's largest production plant in all of North America due largely to their selfless and committed workforce. With two vehicle production lines and a powertrain engine and axle facility, more than 8,000 team members build around 500,000 vehicles and nearly 400,000 engines each and every year. Kentucky's skilled production team has been the key to the facility's extraordinary success, and I can personally vouch for the quality of Kentucky craftsmanship. To celebrate their many accomplishments, Toyota is donating 20 Sienna minivans in communities where facilities are located. In Georgetown, minivans will be donated to the Salvation Army and Senior Citizens of Georgetown/Scott County. Also, Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America has announced a $1 million gift to the children of Toyota's manufacturing team members through a college scholarship fund. I would like to congratulate everyone involved with Toyota for reaching such a prestigious mark in the auto industry. Specifically, I would like to thank the employees in Georgetown for all that they do for Toyota and the local business community. These hard-working men and women deserve praise for their dedication and commitment to excellence. They represent the spirit of capitalism and embody the American working man and woman.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a truly amazing and admirable individual, Mrs. Rosella French Porterfield. This Saturday, the Elsmere Park Board will be rededicating the Rosella French Porterfield Park to honor the retired educator, who played such a vital part in the successful integration of the Erlanger-Elsmere Independent School System. A bronze plaque depicting Mrs. Porterfield holding the hands of a young Debbie Onkst of Erlanger, a white student who later followed in Mrs. Porterfield's footsteps as a librarian for the school system, and Elsmere Mayor Bill Bradford, northern Kentucky's first African-American Mayor, will be unveiled. Looking back on Rosella Porterfields' life and her many accomplishments, I am impressed the positive strides one African- American woman was able to make in a nearly all-white community during the 1950s. But once you hear people talk of Rosella, you understand the simple fact that amazing people can do amazing things. A Daviess County native, Rosella received a graduate degree during a time when African-American women did not accomplish such things due to institutional and personal biases. Her first job as an educator was at Barnes Temple Church on Elsmere's Fox Street. After 7 years at Barnes Temple, Rosella moved to Wilkins Heights School in Elsmere, where she successfully transformed the one depleted school library into a place that fostered and encouraged educational excellence. But even as hard as Rosella worked, the segregated school system constantly worked to her disadvantage. In 1955, 1 year after the U.S. Supreme Court abolished segregated schools, Rosella Porterfield approached Superintendent Edgar Arnett. She told him the time was right to bring white and black together in an educational atmosphere. She firmly believed that if the kids could be brought together in an effort to achieve common goals, they could learn to live together in peace and harmony. Mr. Arnett listened to Rosella and promptly took her proposal to the school board. In turn, the school board unanimously approved a phased-in integration starting in the lower grades. Erlanger-Elsmere schools integrated in what Time magazine recognized as a very smooth and peaceful manner, a very uncommon phenomenon at the time. The schools were not forced to action by any outside factors such as government officials or military personnel. It was a voluntary and rational approach to a community's educational needs. This happened largely because of the efforts of individuals like Rosella Porterfield. I kindly ask that my fellow colleagues join me in paying tribute to Mrs. Porterfield for her vision, persistence, and patience. When I think of Rosella's actions and the effect she had on her community, I recall the words of Winston Churchill, who said, in reference to the heroic efforts of Great Britain's RAF, ``Never have so many owed so much to so few.''

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to talk for a few minutes about adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare Program. Over the next few weeks, the Senate will debate one of the most important issues we will consider this year whether to provide a medicare prescription drug benefit to seniors. But I am afraid that if we do not get our act together and start really working together it will all be a huge waste of time. I think we can all agree that something needs to be done. The cost of drugs is going up and up. It is the fastest rising medical expense that seniors and many other Americans face. And it is clear that medicare now is not set up to deal with this problem. Medicare is still basically a 1965 program that is struggling to keep up with health care in the year 2002. Health care has changed dramatically in the last three and a half decades. When Medicare was first set up, prescription drug costs were low. People were more concerned about being able to afford hospital stays. Now because of medical advances and the amazing things we can do with these medicines, the relative costs of hospital stays are less important. But the cost of prescriptions are rising. However, the medicare fee structure is not flexible enough to adapt to this change. It must change. In a perfect world, we would be debating a broader Medicare reform bill now along with a prescription drug benefit. It would be the most effective way to go, and it is something I hope we can address before too long. But for today, we are talking about a drug benefit. We are all for it. The question is: How do we set it up and how do we pay for it? Before I get into the substance of this issue, I think we need to first talk about process. The Senate is built on procedure. Here we still follow precedents and rules that were handed down over two centuries ago. It is important, and it makes a big difference when it comes to passing legislation. In the case of the bill before us today, that process has not worked very well. In fact, it hasn't worked at all. I hope we have a long, thorough debate to make sure that members have time to closely examine the base bill. After all, it doesn't even have a committee report attached to it to allow Members and staff to fully examine and assess what is in the legislation. It was rushed through the help committee and to the floor for this debate because the committee of jurisdiction--the finance committee-- couldn't agree on its own Medicare proposal. Finance has had problems because this is a tricky, complicated issue. And the only way the majority could start today's debate was by bringing up the generic bill instead. In my book, that is putting the cart before the horse. This is too important an issue not to get right. We have to be careful. Procedurally, we got off on the wrong foot, and while it might not seem that important on the surface, little twists and turns like this can make a difference when it comes to the fine print of the legislation. We all know this is going to end up really being a debate about a prescription drug benefit. Generics are part of that, and I have no objection to considering this issue in the Senate. That is why we are here--to legislate and make the tough calls. But when the bill before us today is brought to the floor in such a backwards way it makes me nervous. The fact is that we are doing the body a disservice by not letting the finance committee finish its work. They have the most expertise in this area. They have been wrestling with this the longest. I sure hope the majority does not try to rush them, and the full Senate, anymore into writing a bad bill. This is a pattern we have seen before, and the results have been bad. Virtually the same thing happened with the energy bill. In that case, the majority leadership didn't like how things were going in the energy committee, so they brought their own separate bill to the floor and bypassed the committee. In the end we passed legislation, but I know that it was not as good a bill as we could have passed if the committee of jurisdiction had been able to finish working its will. We have seen this happen again and again--on the farm bill, the economic stimulus bill, the railroad retirement bill, and the patients' bill of rights. In each case, we passed something. But we as a body didn't do our best work. It is just as important to get things right than to get them done fast. In the case of Medicare and prescription drugs, the majority is pushing us and pushing aside the only bipartisan prescription drug bill. That should tell you something. And it can make a big difference when it comes to the substance. We all know that many older Americans are faced with making some tough choices when deciding how to pay for their prescription drugs. We have all heard of the sacrifices seniors make to afford their prescription drugs. Some cut their pills in half to make their medication last longer or cut back on their grocery purchases to have enough money left over for another month's supply of their medication. Many seniors can't get their doctor's prescriptions filled because they simply cannot afford them. These are decisions that no American living in the year 2002 should have to make, and we in Congress have a moral obligation to pass a prescription drug bill this year, and get it to the President to sign. I support the tripartisan plan that has been put together by several members of the Finance Committee. In a nutshell, this proposal establishes a new voluntary prescription drug benefit in the Medicare Program, along with making some changes to the Medicare+Choice program to make it more competitive. Monthly premiums are relatively low--$24. There is an affordable deductible of $250 per year. Those who need the most help--those seniors living 150 percent below poverty receive extra assistance with costs. And there is extra protection when out-of-pocket costs skyrocket too high. It is a sensible proposal that means real relief to all seniors. It is these seniors who benefit the most from this bill, and we have a responsibility to help them today--not tomorrow or the day after. But now. Because of the way this issue is being handled on the Senate floor, we could very easily end up at the end of this prescription drug debate with no bill at all. Because it has been rushed to the floor--because the Finance Committee is still working on a number of competing proposals--there is no real consensus about what to pass. This could mean that no one bill gets a majority of the votes and nothing passes. If that happens, we'll be back exactly where we started--with no relief for American seniors. Congress can pass a prescription drug bill this year, and we can start helping seniors with their prescription costs in the near future. We have been talking about it for years. Now we have a chance to do it. But it is going to take real dedication by all Members of this Chamber to actually pass a bill. And it is going to take more respect for the process, for the time and chance to make thoughtful, deliberative decisions. Personally, I hope we don't succumb to playing politics with what is literally a life or death issue for many older Americans. While the process we are working under looks like it has been set up to fail, I still think and hope we can come up with some sort of proposal. Madam President, I thank you for the time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Kentucky's leading citizens, Mr. Ward F. Correll. On the 27th day of this month, Mr. Correll will be presented with the 2002 Kentuckian Award by the A.B. ``Happy'' Chandler Foundation for his commitment to family, God, country, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Fellow recipients of this award include such greats as University of Kentucky basketball announcer Cawood Ledford and country music legend Loretta Lynn. Born to a poverty-stricken family in Wayne County, KY, Ward Correll grew up as 1 of 13 children. As you can surely imagine, basic living necessities were quite scarce at times. After graduating from high school, Ward decided to hitchhike, with only $2.67 in his pockets, to Detroit, where he would begin what would become a memorable journey. While living in Detroit, Ward Correll mowed lawns to make ends meet until he could find a more permanent and stable job opportunity. But before this could happen, our Nation went to war in Korea. Throughout the war, Ward served his country in the U.S. Army as part of an intelligence unit. After his time in the service came to an end, Ward packed up his bags and headed back to his old Kentucky home. Once back in Kentucky, he met his future bride-to-be and soulmate, Regina Tarter. After discovering the woman of his dreams, Ward decided it was time to begin his life as a businessman. Ward let the words from the prayer by GEN Douglas MacArthur be his compass-``Lord, give me a son who will not let his wishbone take the place of his backbone.'' With a lot of hard work, a little luck, and the occasional helping hand, Ward Correll turned that $2.67 into a business empire. Today, his many business enterprises include Cumberland Shell Oil, Inc. and Trade and Wind and Trade Way shopping centers in Somerset and Monticello. He is one of the top 10 jobbers in the Nation for Shell Oil. Furthermore, he is a major stockholder in First Southern National Banks, where his son Jesse is the CEO. You often hear people talk about living the American dream. Ward Correll skipped the talking part and moved straight to the living. Besides his unwavering dedication to country and capitalism, Ward Correll has exemplified what it means to be a good Christian. He tithed the first penny he ever made as a child and has continued this practice even to this very day. He firmly believes God has blessed him financially and that he has a moral obligation to those less fortunate individuals whose pockets are as shallow as his once were. Throughout his lifetime, Ward Correll has assisted the needy, providing them with clothes, shoes, dishes and flatware--items that he and his family once struggled to possess. Mr. President, I ask now that my fellow colleagues join me in praising Mr. Ward F. Correll for all that he has accomplished with his life. He is a devoted father and husband, a veteran and patriot, and a truly righteous man. He has worked tirelessly to make Kentucky and the United States of America a better place for us all to live. He is a tribute to the American spirit. Finally, I would like to share with you, Mr. President, and my fellow Senators Mr. Correll's recipe for success. ``Apply the wisdom of what wise people have taught you during childhood to all you do; seek the advice of wise people, especially those who have experienced failure and picked themselves up to become successful again; always do more than what you are paid to do; empower yourself to be positive and say every day `I feel happy, healthy and terrific and I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.' ''

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today among my colleagues to pay tribute to Susy Aparicio of Lexington, Kentucky. Last week, in what will surely be a giant step for Lexington's Latino community, Mrs. Aparicio officially opened Biblioteca Hispana to the public. Susy Aparicio, a native of Ecuador, and her husband, a native of Bolivia, met while they were both students at the University of Kentucky in the late 1970s. After a short stint in Bolivia, Susy and her husband returned to Lexington. Throughout their time living in Kentucky, they have taken notice of the severe deficiency of books, magazines and newspapers available in Spanish. The public library offers a few options, but transportation and language issues serve as unavoidable obstacles to many Spanish-speaking residents. Although both Susy and her husband understand the importance of their children learning and mastering the English language, they still prefer that their children and their children's children grow up with access to resources published in their native language. For nearly two decades, Mrs. Aparicio has dreamed of opening a library where the Hispanic community could have easy access to various reading materials in Spanish. This dream has now become a reality. Using a grant from the Partners for Youth Foundation, Susy organized a collection of about 400 books and audio and videotapes, mostly geared towards children. Eventually, Susy would like to obtain more funding to expand the library to include more adult-oriented books and offer storytelling, tutorial and family-literacy programs. She hopes this project will provide an adequate gateway for the Latino community to revel in its rich culture. America is a diverse land full of differences in opinion, prayer and language. While I firmly believe that to succeed in America one must fully embrace the English language, at the same time the new arrivals to America should be sure to remember and celebrate their traditional roots. Diversity has always been and will remain to be one of this nation's greatest strengths. Mrs. Aparicio has worked extremely hard for the Hispanic community in Lexington, and in the end, Biblioteca Hispana will be a place where future generations can take their children to learn about their ancestry and where they came from.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I was proud to support the recent passage of S. 2514, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003. This bill continues to strengthen our military and is vital to the war on terrorism. This is the most important bill we have debated in the Senate all year. The threats against us are real and I am pleased the Senate acted swiftly in passing this strong defense package. This bill authorizes $393.4 billion for national defense. That is $43 billion above the 2002 level, and the largest defense spending increase in over 20 years. We are in this war against terrorism for the long haul and our increased military funding is justified. We now have troops on the ground in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and many other places we could not have foreseen before September 11. Depending on what happens as we fight this war, we may have to deploy our troops elsewhere to contain and battle threats against our Nation and freedoms. This bill focuses on five objectives for our national defense. First, it improves the compensation and quality of life for our soldiers, retirees and their families. For the fourth year in a row this bill includes a 4.1 percent across the board pay raise for all military personnel, with a targeted pay raise between 5.5 and 6.5 percent for mid-career personnel. A new assignment incentive pay of up to $1,500 per month is authorized to encourage personnel to volunteer for hard-to-fill positions and assignments. The bill rewards our retirees and disabled veterans. The bill authorizes concurrent receipt of retired military pay and veterans' disability compensation for all disabled military retirees eligible for non-disability retirement. For our troops with families, this bill increases the housing allowance, with the goal of eliminating average out-of-pocket housing expenses by 2005. And on our installations, $640 million is being added above the budget request to improve and replace facilities. This will help improve the housing, dining and recreation facilities for our trainees and troops. These quality of life issues boost the morale of our troops, and send a strong signal that we in congress and across the Nation appreciate their defense of America and her freedoms. Secondly, this bill also contains those necessary readiness funds to allow the services to conduct the full range of their assigned missions. We have added $126 million for firing range enhancements so that we can properly and effectively train our troops to fight and win. And to show that defense is a top priority for our Nation, this bill authorizes the administration's $10 billion request to cover the operating costs of the ongoing war on terrorism for next year. After speaking with various military leaders and hearing their testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, we heard how important the issue of readiness is for every branch of the military today. This bill addresses this important issue by funding the most pressing shortfalls. Third, in this bill we also address the goal of improving efficiency and increasing savings with DOD programs and operations. These savings will allow us to redirect and focus on high-priority programs within the DOD. Some of these provisions include $400 million in anticipated savings by deferring spending on financial systems that would not be consistent with those financial management systems available and used by non- government entities. Soon we will have a system to better keep track of valuable DOD and service funds. This brings not only savings, but accountability to the DOD and the services. Although the DOD's mission is more unique than any other Federal department, it is not immune to wasteful and duplicative spending which we often see in other Federal departments. Furthermore, this bill holds a provision requiring the DOD to establish new internal controls to address repeat problems with the abuse of credit cards we have seen for the purchase of non-essential and questionable travel spending by military and civilian personnel. And with the $393.4 billion we are authorizing in this bill, it is imperative now more than ever that we have a real sense of accountability for oversight reasons and for the sake of making sure we are giving the taxpayers the biggest bang for the buck. After all, this bill spends more than $1 billion a day on national defense activities. For that price, the taxpayers should get their money's worth. Fourth, this bill also helps our military meet more non-traditional threats. We increased funding for fighting these threats to help secure our nuclear weapons and materials at Department of Energy facilities, and defend against chemical and biological weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Finally, our Senate Armed Services Committee wanted to be sure that our military always stay on the cutting edge of new technologies and strategies to meet the threats of the 21st century. Promoting and embracing transformation of our forces is not easy. But it is essential. This bill helps us to promote a new mind set for the future. I know it is tough to wean ourselves off of some of the legacy systems and structures in place in our armed forces. And I know that some in our armed forces are skeptical about change. But we have to begin to think differently. The world is changing, and not necessarily for the better. Our military has to keep up with that change. While I did vote for this bill in the Senate Armed Services Committee, I did not agree with the fact that it originally slashed missile defense spending by just over $800 million. This drastically altered President Bush's national security strategy and made our Nation and allies more vulnerable to a possible missile attack. But thankfully we found a way on the Senate floor during the bill's consideration to move just over $800 million back to President Bush's missile defense priorities to protect America. I was proud to cosponsor an amendment which fulfilled this obligation by using expected DOD inflationary savings and adjustments. This offset was responsible because it did not cut any other valuable DOD programs needed to strengthen our military. And I was pleased that this was a bipartisan effort by the Senate with the amendment's unanimous acceptance. But, thankfully this amendment was accepted. Without it, this vital bill was jeopardized. After all, Secretary Rumsfeld, in a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee wrote, ``if the missile defense provisions in the Senate Armed Services Committee's version of the bill were to be adopted by Congress, I would recommend to the President that he veto the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act.'' So, its inclusion helped pave the way to an optimistic path to President Bush's desk. Finally, we have had a very intense debate about the Crusader Artillery System. I would like to note that while I supported the compromise Levin amendment last week over the Crusader program, I remain concerned about our ability to effectively support our troops with adequate fire support. Right now we are vastly under-gunned in artillery by some nations. Our own artillery systems could not even meet our needs during the Gulf war more than a decade ago. And those systems have not significantly changed since then. The possibility of shifting funds from Crusader to other indirect fire weapons concerns me in that we are again delaying when we will actually deploy sufficient fire support to protect our armed forces. The DOD hopes to speed up the deployment of these new technologies so they would be available around the same time Crusader will be. I am concerned about our ability to meet this time line. Throwing money at a program does not necessarily mean you can magically speed up its development. Some things just take time, and Crusader is a lot farther along in the development process than many of these other technologies. I will be watching this process closely to ensure that effective indirect fire support capability reaches our troops quickly. Overall, this is a solid bill. The sooner we get this bill to President Bush, then the better chance we have at providing our military with the essential training and strength resources to fight terrorism or anything else that seeks to destroy America, our people and our freedoms. Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. President, I wish to clarify my comments concerning my amendment to authorize, with an offset, $1,000,000 for research, development, test, and evaluation, defense-wide, for analysis and assessment of efforts to counter possible agroterrorist attacks. The amendment was adopted June 26 by voice vote. I stated then that the $1,000,000 was destined for the In-House Laboratory Independent Research (PE 0601103D8Z) account. In fact, the funds will be applied to the Chemical and Biological Defense Program (PE 0601384BP) account. The intent of the amendment, however, remains the same. It is still my hope that universities with established expertise in the agricultural sciences can conduct studies and exercises that lead to better coordination between Federal, State, and local authorities as they attempt to detect, deter, and respond to large scale coordinated attacks on U.S. agriculture. I envision universities assisting the Department of Defense in determining what role--if any--our military or defense agencies play in countering agroterrorism. I thank my colleagues for supporting amendment No. 4138.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I stand among my colleagues today to honor and congratulate Carl Wicklund or Kenton County, KY on being named the 2002 recipient of the Warren H. Proudfoot Award for Outstanding School Board Member. The Proudfoot Award is named after the late Dr. Warren H. Proudfoot, a longtime member of the Rowan County Board of Education and past president of the Kentucky School Board Association. Created in 1992, the award recognizes a past or present member of a school board for distinguished leadership and community service. Mr. Wicklund received this year's award due primarily to his work in establishing a special class in conjunction with the Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce to allow students considering a career in manufacturing a first-hand look at the industry by visiting area businesses and observing their day-to-day operational procedures. Mr. Wicklund's hard work and selfless acts deserve our recognition. In order for Kentucky to improve upon itself socially, economically and technologically, education must be a top priority for kids, parents and board members. Only when all three of these groups are working together can we ensure that our youth are receiving the proper educational attention. Carl Wicklund has personally gone above and beyond the call of duty to create more and better opportunities for Kentucky's youth. I applaud him for his hard work and dedication and congratulate him on receiving this prestigious award.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a truly exceptional member of the Kentucky nursing community. Mrs. Anna Michelle Miles (Missy) of Covington, Kentucky was recently nominated for the Florence Nightingale Award by two of her superiors for her selfless devotion to her co-workers, community, and patients. The Florence Nightingale Award, presented by the University of Cincinnati Medical Center, honors excellence in the delivery of direct patient care. During her lifetime, Florence Nightingale reformed and basically created the modern profession of nursing, establishing an educational system where women could properly learn about medicine and patient care. During the Crimean War, she bravely and selflessly volunteered her services for the front line. Her request was granted and along with 38 nurses, she was able to greatly reduce the mortality rate among the sick and wounded. Her combination of medicinal knowledge and compassion is what this award is founded upon. Nurse Miles and the seven other nominees for this year's award represent the best of what nursing has to offer. They place patient care as their top priority and always know how to cheer a patient up by making them smile or just simply listening to them. They may not always have a physical cure for a patient's particular condition, but they will continually work to ensure that each and every patient is cared for in a loving and compassionate manner. In terms of what Nurse Miles has done for her patients and fellow co- workers, I do not believe any award or statement could properly honor her. While a nurse at St. Elizabeth Medical North in Covington, KY, Nurse Miles has been an invaluable and irreplaceable resource. She helped start the Sunshine Fund in the ER in an effort to bring about a positive and warm atmosphere for doctors, nurses, families, and patients. She regularly volunteers to cover other floors when they are low on staffing and picks up extra shifts whenever she has the opportunity. As a social worker once wrote about Nurse Miles, ``My personal feeling is that Missy treats all her patients with dignity and respect. She is a true nurse in all the roles she fulfills.'' She has also been very active in aiding those less fortunate individuals residing in the Covington community; collecting food for the shelters and food kitchens as well buying hats and gloves with her own money to distribute to children for those long, cold nights. Her patients adore and co-workers cannot imagine life without her. I kindly ask that my fellow colleagues join me in thanking Anna Michelle Miles for her endless love and enduring commitment to her patients. She is a tribute to the memory of Florence Nightingale.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make the adoption tax credit permanent. Last year, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. This act contains many and much needed tax relief provisions for the American people. However, because of procedural rules in the Senate, this new law sunsets and expires after December 31, 2010. The legislation I introduce today makes permanent a tax provision in that law, that being the adoption tax credit. If we do not pass this extension, and the adoption tax credit sunsets, then this tax credit will be cut overnight from a maximum of $10,000 to $5,000. Families who adopt special needs children will no longer receive a flat $10,000 credit, and instead, they will be limited to a maximum of $6,000. As well, families claiming the credit may be pushed into the AMT, Alternative Minimum Tax. And the income caps will fall from $150,000 to $75,000 so that fewer families will be eligible for the credit. There are over 500,000 kids in publicly funded foster care right now waiting to be adopted. And there are even more in the private system. Let's help them find loving homes. Let's make it easier for families to adopt, not throw up barriers. If the adoption tax credit is cut to the prior law level of $5,000, many families will not be able to afford adoptions. And therefore less children will be welcomed into what they want the most, a real family. And adoptions are not cheap. Some licensed private adoption agencies charge fees ranging anywhere from $4,000 to $30,000. Earlier this month, on June 4, the House of Representatives passed this permanent extension of the adoption tax credit by a vote of 391 yeas to 1 nay. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate recognize the importance of moving on any legislation to permanently extend this tax credit, whether it be the House's bill we consider or this bill I am introducing today. Those kids without parents, and those parents without kids deserve to see this adoption tax credit set into law for good. We owe it to them all.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make the adoption tax credit permanent. Last year, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. This act contains many and much needed tax relief provisions for the American people. However, because of procedural rules in the Senate, this new law sunsets and expires after December 31, 2010. The legislation I introduce today makes permanent a tax provision in that law, that being the adoption tax credit. If we do not pass this extension, and the adoption tax credit sunsets, then this tax credit will be cut overnight from a maximum of $10,000 to $5,000. Families who adopt special needs children will no longer receive a flat $10,000 credit, and instead, they will be limited to a maximum of $6,000. As well, families claiming the credit may be pushed into the AMT, Alternative Minimum Tax. And the income caps will fall from $150,000 to $75,000 so that fewer families will be eligible for the credit. There are over 500,000 kids in publicly funded foster care right now waiting to be adopted. And there are even more in the private system. Let's help them find loving homes. Let's make it easier for families to adopt, not throw up barriers. If the adoption tax credit is cut to the prior law level of $5,000, many families will not be able to afford adoptions. And therefore less children will be welcomed into what they want the most, a real family. And adoptions are not cheap. Some licensed private adoption agencies charge fees ranging anywhere from $4,000 to $30,000. Earlier this month, on June 4, the House of Representatives passed this permanent extension of the adoption tax credit by a vote of 391 yeas to 1 nay. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate recognize the importance of moving on any legislation to permanently extend this tax credit, whether it be the House's bill we consider or this bill I am introducing today. Those kids without parents, and those parents without kids deserve to see this adoption tax credit set into law for good. We owe it to them all.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I rise today to pay a proper tribute to Nanz & Kraft Florists of Louisville, KY. For over 150 years, Nanz & Kraft has served Kentuckians, providing them with beautiful and memorable floral arrangements for birthdays, anniversaries, funerals, hospital visits and various other occasions. Nanz & Kraft is the single largest florist shop in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and one of the biggest in the entire United States. In 1850, the year Zachary Taylor died and Millard Fillmore became president of the United States, Henry Nanz decided to open a quaint little flower shop on Fourth Street in downtown Louisville. He cultivated his flowers on a one-acre suburban plot and in a 12' x 20' green house. In 1870, with business thriving, Henry Nanz packed his bags and moved the company to 30 acres of land in the St. Matthews area owned by a Mr. Charles Neuner. In 1872, Mr. Neuner made the decision to join the profitable company. For the next 82 years, the business was known as Nanz & Neuner. When in 1900 Nanz & Neuner celebrated their 50th anniversary, the St. Matthews site contained an astounding 60 greenhouses, a 15-acre nursery, and ten acres devoted to roses and other flowers, including Field Grown Roses, the company's specialty. In 1954, Nanz & Neuner officially became Nanz & Kraft, changing names but retaining the same formula for success. Today, Nanz & Kraft's main store is a 20,000 square foot building. There are three branch stores, and the business has about 125 employees, half full-time and the rest part-time. They are open every day of the year except Christmas and make more than 200 deliveries a day. Whether it be a birthday or a first date, Kentuckians can count on Nanz & Neuner to brighten up the occasion. I ask that my fellow colleagues join me in thanking all the men and women who have worked so hard over the last 152 years to make Nanz & Kraft one of the most profitable and well-respected floral businesses in the United States. Nanz & Kraft truly is a tribute to the American capitalist spirit. They have served the Commonwealth in three different centuries now, through a Civil and two World Wars, and through 21 different presidents, and I would just like to pass along my thanks and admiration.