Elizabeth Dole

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, today I recognize Louisburg College, one of North Carolina's fine institutions of higher learning, on the occasion of its celebration of 220 years. Louisburg College is the oldest chartered 2-year, church-related, coeducational college in the Nation and can trace its roots back to the early years of the town of Louisburg, NC. The town was founded in 1779, during the Revolutionary War, and was named in honor of King Louis XVI of France. The college in existence today has evolved from three earlier institutions, Franklin Male Academy, Louisburg Female Academy, and Louisburg Female College. Franklin Male Academy was founded on December 4, 1786, when Senator Henry Hill of Franklin County introduced ``An Act to Erect and Establish an Academy in the County of Franklin.'' The bill was enacted into law on January 6, 1787, thereby providing Franklin Academy with its first charter. Franklin Male Academy opened on January 1, 1805, and, under the able direction of Yale graduate, Matthew Dickinson, prospered in its early years and soon had an enrollment of 90 students. In 1814, a counterpart to the Franklin Male Academy was established when the State legislature ratified an act chartering the Louisburg Female Academy. The third stage of the evolution of Louisburg College began in January 1855, when the State legislature authorized the transfer of property by the trustees of Louisburg Female Academy to the directors of Louisburg Female College Company. A four-story, fifty-room brick Greek revival building for the female college was constructed in 1857 on the west campus where the female academy building formerly stood. Old Main is still in use today as the administrative building of Louisburg College. At the beginning of the 20th century, the institution became known as Louisburg College, and the college was officially linked to the Methodist Church. Washington Duke, a Durham philanthropist, had acquired ownership of the college property in the 1890s; after his death in the early 1900s, his son Benjamin N. Duke presented the property to the North Carolina Conference of the Methodist Church. Louisburg College became coeducational in 1931, and student enrollment immediately increased. In 1952, Louisburg College was accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. Building on its rich history, Louisburg College today enrolls around 750 students, 90 percent of whom go on to 4-year colleges and universities after graduation. This impressive accomplishment is achieved through a dedicated faculty who devote themselves to teaching, advising, and individual assistance to ensure that each student is academically prepared to meet the requirements of major 4-year colleges and universities. The college also holds the distinction as North Carolina's only residential junior college providing a unique educational experience and filling a niche for those college freshmen and sophomores who desire to further their education in a collegiate atmosphere. Louisburg College has made a significant impact on the intellectual life and development of countless North Carolinians over the past four centuries, an accomplishment that indeed deserves commendation by the U.S. Senate.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, it is with great honor that I rise today in order to recognize the heroism of Marine PFC C. Stuart Upchurch, Sr., and Marine Cpl Richard E. Vana. The Battle of Okinawa, fought on the Japanese island of Okinawa, was the largest amphibious assault during the Pacific Campaigns of World War II. The battle lasted from late March through June 1945, and was the last major campaign of the War in the Pacific. The battle has been referred to as the ``Typhoon of Steel'' in English, and tetsu no ame-- ``Rain of Steel''--in Japanese. These nicknames refer to the ferocity of the fighting, the intensity of gunfire, and sheer numbers of Allied ships and armored vehicles that assaulted the island. More ships were used, troops put ashore, supplies transported, bombs dropped, and naval guns fired against shore targets than any other operation in the Pacific. There were over 72,000 United States casualties at Okinawa, of which 12,513 were killed or missing. In the last days of the Battle for Okinawa, PFC C. Stuart Upchurch, Sr., and Cpl Richard E. Vana were marines assigned to the 2nd Squad, 3rd Platoon, Baker Company, 4th Regiment, 6th Marine Division. On or about June 1, 1945, Baker Company came under heavy Japanese mortar fire. Corporal Vana and Private First Class Upchurch were on the way back to their unit, having filled in at Charlie Company's defensive line the night before. With no foxhole of their own, Vana and Upchurch jumped into the first position they could find, sharing the foxhole with a new lieutenant and another marine. When a nearby foxhole was struck by enemy mortar fire, a marine manning the position could be heard crying for help. Under the onslaught of constant enemy fire, and with complete disregard for their own well being, Vana and Upchurch ran up the hill to assist the marines. Inside the foxhole that took a direct hit, they found ``Red'' and Richey, cousins from the Boston area. ``Red'' had been fatally wounded and Richey was seriously injured. Richey was suffering from a life threatening arterial wound to the upper thigh. Still under the barrage of Japanese mortars, Vana and Upchurch proceeded to drag Richey out of the foxhole and down the hill. Upchurch then carried the marine while Vana provided protective cover. They made way for a cave which was being used as an aid station. Inside the cave, Vana and Upchurch provided critical lifesaving first-aid until a corpsman was able to assist. Without the selfless and courageous actions of Vana and Upchurch, Richey would have perished from his severe wounds. Their actions exemplify the Marine Corps motto ``Semper Fidelis,'' meaning ``Always Faithful.'' PFC C. Stuart Upchurch, Sr., and Cpl Richard E. Vana's gallant actions in close contact with the enemy, and unyielding courage and bravery, are in the highest traditions of military service, and reflect great credit upon themselves, their unit, the U.S. Marine Corps, and the United States of America.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, today I would like to recognize the Appalachian State University Mountaineers football team for pulling off one of the biggest upsets in college football history. To recognize this achievement, Senator Burr and I have introduced Senate resolution number S. Res. 309. On September 1, 2007, the Appalachian State Mountaineers of the NCAA Football Championship Subdivision, formerly known as Division 1- AA, beat the University of Michigan Wolverines, ranked fifth nationally, of the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision, formally known as Division 1-A, by a score of 34-32 in front of 109,000 spectators at ``The Big House'' in Ann Arbor, MI. No Division 1-AA team has ever been victorious over a nationally ranked Division 1-A opponent. The win over the Wolverines was an extraordinary team effort. Quarterback Armanti Edwards threw for 227 yards and three touchdowns while rushing for 62 yards and one touchdown. The receiving corps combined for 227 yards of offense with two touchdowns from Dexter Jackson and one from Hans Batichon. In addition, the defense had an outstanding game and forced two critical turnovers in the second half-- one fumble recovery and one interception--to guide the Mountaineers to victory. During the fourth quarter the Mountaineers came up with the special plays needed to complete the monumental win. With Appalachian State trailing 32-31, Brian Quick blocked a Michigan field goal setting-up what would become the game-winning drive. On the ensuing drive, kicker Julian Rauch put a 24-yard field goal through the uprights to move the Mountaineers ahead 34-32 with 26 seconds left in the game. The Mountaineers, however, still needed one more big play from its special teams. With just a few seconds remaining, Corey Lynch dramatically blocked a Wolverine field goal attempt to seal the victory. After the final gun, head coach Jerry Moore, who put together a masterful game plan, was carried off the field by his players in victory. The Appalachian State Mountaineers' victory over the Michigan Wolverines demonstrates that any achievement is possible with hard work and a great deal of heart. I applaud the tremendous effort by the players, head coach Jerry Moore, and the assistant coaches and support personnel who all played critical roles in this historic victory. In addition, I would like to congratulate Dr. Kenneth E. Peacock, chancellor of Appalachian State University, Charles Cobb, athletic director, and all of the students and fans to whom this win meant so much.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 331, I voted ``nay'' when it was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, today the Senate has the opportunity to confirm, for district judgeships, William Osteen, Jr. and Martin K. Reidinger, two of North Carolina's most talented and capable legal minds. Both of these men have impeccable credentials, a keen sense of justice and a strong desire to serve. I am fully confident that Bill and Martin would serve the people of my home State with great honor and distinction as members of the Federal judiciary. I am delighted to support Bill Osteen, to serve as a judge for the Middle District. With deep roots in North Carolina, Bill received his education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and has practiced law in the State for the past two decades. In 2004 and 2005, Business North Carolina included him in its Legal Elite--the cream of the crop, selected not by the editors of the magazine but by State bar colleagues. Bill has broad experience in both criminal and civil litigation. As we all know, criminal cases make up a substantial and increasingly large portion of a Federal district judge's docket, and Bill is well equipped to handle this important aspect of the job. He estimates that he has served as the counsel of record in more than 100 Federal criminal cases. Bill also knows his way around a courtroom. In an age when most cases are resolved through settlement or plea agreement, Bill has taken over 30 cases to trial. On the strength of this experience, I have no doubt that he will be able to make the transition to district judge without missing a beat. In addition to a distinguished professional life, Bill also has a very full personal life. He is a dedicated family man to his wife Elizabeth and their two children, Anne Bennett and Bill, and he is a man of faith, actively involved in the First Presbyterian Church of Greensboro. It is also notable that Bill has been nominated to succeed his father to this seat. Bill's father, William Osteen, Sr., has served the Middle District with great distinction and it is a rare and remarkable feat that a son has the opportunity to serve in his father's onetime place on the bench. And let me add that Bill's mother, Joanne, has been a treasured friend since our Duke days together. I know the Osteens are very proud of their son and I am honored to highlight Bill's many qualifications here today. Another outstanding North Carolinian for the Western District of North Carolina, Martin Reidinger, has built quite an impressive record of accomplishment over the years. A graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, he has practiced law for the past 23 years in Asheville with Adams Hendon Carson Crow & Saenger. There he gained vast civil litigation experience, handling matters running the gamut from employment law to land disputes. He frequently appears in Federal courts and has litigated to a verdict or judgment nearly 200 cases over the past two decades. In addition to his vast professional experience, Martin makes it a top priority to give back to his community. He has served as the president and secretary-treasurer of the Buncombe County Bar Association, and he currently sits on the board of directors for Pisgah Legal Services, which provides free, civil legal services to low-income people who are unable to afford an attorney. In fact, in 2004, Martin accepted the North Carolina State bar's Outstanding Pro Bono Services Award for his law firm's commitment to giving back to their community. In addition to his extensive public service work, Martin is dedicated to his family--his wife Patti and children Heather, Sara, Alex and Max. Bill Osteen and Martin Reidinger are vastly qualified to serve on the Federal bench. They have earned the admiration of their colleagues and peers and support from Senators on both sides of the aisle. It was my privilege to recommend these individuals to the president for these posts, and I am proud to urge my colleagues to support their confirmation today, so they can get to work for the people of North Carolina. I yield back any remaining time.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may offer an amendment.

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2772, pending at the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, when I visited with sheriffs across North Carolina over August, one of their main concerns was the lack of detention space to hold criminal aliens when they are apprehended. It is unconscionable that our State and local authorities have to struggle with resources because uncooperative countries fail to take back their nationals who have been ordered by the courts to be removed from the United States. This amendment is simple and is consistent with current law. It prohibits funds from being expended in violation of section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In other words, it prevents the State Department from issuing visas to citizens of countries that refuse to accept these court-ordered-removed illegal aliens. During fiscal year 2003, the year for which we have the latest information, the detention of criminal and non-criminal aliens from the top eight uncooperative countries that blocked or inhibited their removal cost the United States over 981,000 detention days and $83 million. The status quo is unacceptable--it is costing much needed detention space and resources. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be laid aside, with the understanding that the managers will examine my amendment and we will return to it at a later time.

Mrs. DOLE. Yes.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, this bill seeks revenues for the very laudable State Children's Health Insurance Program by unfairly taxing tobacco products. I urge my colleagues to acknowledge the reality that this tax increase is an irresponsible and fiscally unsound policy. Tobacco sales have been declining 2 to 3 percent per year and are expected to be slashed by another 6 percent if the Federal excise tax is increased. But in order for this tax increase trick to work, more than 22 million additional Americans will need to take up smoking to keep the SCHIP program running over the next decade. In addition, according to the Tax Foundation, no other Federal tax hurts the poor more than the cigarette tax. Of the 20 percent of the adult population who smoke, around half are in families earning less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. In other words, many of the families SCHIP is meant to help will be disproportionately hit by the Senate's proposed tax hike. I oppose this tax hike plan not only because it is fiscally unsound but also because it unfairly hurts the economy of my home State of North Carolina. A massive and highly regressive tax increase on an already unstable product is an irresponsible way to fund such an important program. Mr. President, section 203 of the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution makes it out of order for the Senate to consider legislation that increases the deficit by more than $5 billion in any of the four 10- year periods starting in fiscal year 2018 through 2057. The pending substitute amendment would increase the long-term net deficit in excess of $5 billion. I, therefore, raise a point of order under section 203 of S. Con. Res. 21 against the pending substitute amendment. This legislation clearly violates the Budget Act. I yield the floor.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I would like to share a letter received by our colleagues in the House of Representatives on the issue of Internet gambling from the National Football League, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, and National Collegiate Athletic Association. I would like to include this letter in the Record, which alerts us to the serious threat that H.R. 2046 poses to the integrity of American athletics, as well as our national sovereignty over gambling regulation. Many of us on this side of the Capitol may not be aware that there are efforts afoot in the House of Representatives to legalize Internet gambling, less than a year after we enacted the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. I strongly supported UIGEA, and supported its inclusion in the SAFE Ports Act, so that after more than 10 years of overwhelming bipartisan support for doing something to stop illegal Internet gambling in this country, we finally have an enforcement law with teeth. But now, before the regulations for UIGEA have even been written, international gambling interests are telling our colleagues in the House that Internet gambling can never be stopped, so we might as well legalize, regulate, and tax it. We might as well decide that everyone speeds on the George Washington Parkway, so we should just eliminate the speed limits and make it a toll road. Internet gambling is just as dangerous--its 24/7 accessibility from any location, speed, and anonymity make it the ``crack cocaine'' of gambling, leading to addiction, young people wrecking their financial futures, family breakdown, and even crime and suicide. The answer is stepping up enforcement efforts, not abandoning the law and government feeding off the trough of personal tragedy. H.R. 2046 would license Internet gambling companies to do business with U.S. customers and override every other Federal or State law that would interfere with this business. The proponents of this legalization scheme will argue that the bill allows States and sports leagues to ``opt out'' of legalization, but don't be fooled. The ``opt-outs'' are vulnerable to legal challenge, both in U.S. courts and in the World Trade Organization. And if the opt-outs fall, H.R. 2046 would result in the greatest expansion of gambling ever enacted in the history of the United States. The sports organizations are very concerned because H.R. 2046 would reverse decades of Federal policy by endorsing sports gambling. We have all seen in the past couple of weeks how damaging gambling can be to the integrity and image of professional sports. When a player or a referee taints the game for gambling profits, all of the participants and all of the fans are betrayed. And even when there is no fraud, pervasive gambling on a sport robs its character as family entertainment celebrating the pursuit of athletic achievement, turning it into a seedy vehicle for making money at the expense of others. Congress must not in any way endorse this degradation of our national pastimes. I hope that my colleagues here in the Senate will join me on the lookout for Internet gambling legalization efforts and will firmly reject and rebuff any such proposals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter prepared by the professional and collegiate sports associations.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside in order that I may offer an amendment.

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2554, now pending at the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, increasing the tax on tobacco unfairly burdens low-income Americans. My amendment is simple: It creates a 60- vote budget point of order against any legislation that includes a Federal excise tax increase that would unfairly affect low-income individuals, defined as taxpayers with earned income less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. According to the Centers for Disease Control report from 2003 to 2005, 28.5 percent of smokers were classified as poor--below 100 percent of the Federal poverty level--and 25.9 percent of smokers were classified as near poor--between 100 and 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. As these numbers clearly show, the tax increase proposed in this bill unfairly falls on the shoulders of those who can least afford it. I am urging my colleagues to acknowledge that the proposed tax increase is an irresponsible and fiscally unsound policy. I urge my colleagues to support the fact that this has a negative impact and is disproportionately hard on the poor. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and the nays.

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, nearly every Senator in this body agrees we should not increase the tax burden on low-income individuals and families. Unfortunately, the bill before us would do that by raising the tobacco tax by 156 percent. No other Federal tax hurts the poor more than the cigarette tax, according to the Tax Foundation. Of the 20 percent of the adult population that smokes, around half are in families earning less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Furthermore, a massive and highly regressive tax increase on an already unstable product is a terribly irresponsible way to fund the State Children's Health Insurance Program. My amendment is very simple. It creates a 60-vote point of order against legislation that includes a Federal excise tax increase that would disproportionately affect low-income individuals, defined as taxpayers with earned income less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. A majority of my colleagues say they oppose increasing the tax burden on lower income families, or even oppose tax increases outright. I, therefore, would expect that this commonsense amendment would receive tremendous support in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment now be laid aside, with the understanding we will return to it at a later time. I yield the floor.

Mrs. DOLE

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I am perplexed by what is happening in the Senate these days. Many of my colleagues are calling for a huge tax on tobacco--a product purchased disproportionately more by lower income people. This tax hike is said to provide billions of dollars to expand SCHIP health care coverage for children whose families cannot afford insurance coverage. While I strongly support reauthorizing SCHIP, a massive and highly regressive tax increase on an already unstable product is a terribly irresponsible way to fund this important program. Furthermore, my home State of North Carolina, which has lost more manufacturing jobs than any other State and continues to undergo a difficult economic transition, stands to lose tremendously if the tobacco tax skyrockets. I am fully aware that many of my colleagues view ganging up on tobacco and smokers as politically popular. I am not appealing to you to change your views on smoking, but I am urging you to acknowledge the reality that this tax increase is an irresponsible and fiscally unsound policy. According to the Tax Foundation, no other Federal tax hurts the poor more than the cigarette tax. Of the 20 percent of the adult population that smokes, around half are in families earning less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. In other words, many of the families SCHIP is meant to help will be disproportionately hit by the Senate's proposed tax hike. In addition, tobacco sales have been declining 2 to 3 percent a year and are expected to be slashed by another 6 percent if the Federal excise tax is increased. Yet in order for this tax-hike trick to work, millions more Americans would have to actually take up smoking to foot the bill. A recent ad in Roll Call from North Carolina-based R.J. Reynolds put it best: Below that familiar picture of Uncle Sam pointing his finger, was the line ``Congress Needs you to Smoke.'' That is right. More than 22 million additional Americans will need to take up smoking to keep the SCHIP program running over the next decade. Another example of how ill-conceived this proposal is: The Senate very well may approve legislation this year to force the FDA to regulate tobacco products. That agency's staff and resources are already fully consumed by its mission of regulating food, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. But if many in the Senate have their way, the FDA will soon take on tobacco. It is no secret that the Senate FDA bill seeks to ultimately put many tobacco companies out of business. So it appears we are going to eliminate tobacco companies while simultaneously relying on the tax revenue from tobacco sales to fund children's health care. If we are really serious about providing health care coverage to children in lower income families, this illogical plan clearly is not going to cut it. I oppose this tax hike plan not only because it is fiscally unsound but also because it unfairly hurts my State of North Carolina. In recent years, the forces of the global marketplace have triggered a difficult economic transformation, and our traditional industries of furniture and textiles have shuttered the doors of their factories and mills, resulting in the loss of 194,000 manufacturing jobs. Tobacco, another long-time linchpin of North Carolina's prosperity, has also faced its share of challenges from offshore competition. However, this economic engine for North Carolina has endured, but it may collapse altogether if the Senate moves forward with the 61-cent increase on tobacco products. Tobacco is woven into the fabric of my State like Texas and cattle or Iowa and corn. In North Carolina, tobacco is part of our history and culture. In fact, many of our State's great educational institutions and health care facilities are rooted in tobacco funding. Today, more than 255,000 North Carolinians rely on tobacco for their livelihood. These are not just folks in the fields and factories but also suppliers and retailers. The industry accounts for $22 billion in value-added revenue, or 6 percent of North Carolina's economic activity. Clearly, if the Senate indiscriminately picks this industry to foot the bill for additional Government spending, North Carolina suffers tremendously. According to Blake Brown, a widely respected agricultural economist at North Carolina State University, North Carolina would lose nearly $16 million in farm production and at least $540 million in decreased manufacturing; we would lose up to $12.5 million in the State cigarette tax revenue; and we would lose $10.3 million from our portion of the master settlement agreement payment, which funds the bulk of our safe economic development programs. In addition to North Carolina losing thousands of manufacturing jobs, supplier and retail jobs, State Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler says we could lose as many as 1,800 farm jobs. Compound these jobs and revenue losses with the looming threat of FDA regulation, and North Carolina is looking at what Commissioner Troxler calls a double whammy. The rug is being pulled out from under us. Am I supposed to go back to my constituents, whose jobs are at stake, and say: Sorry, folks, Congress doesn't think you are taxed enough, so, yes, Congress raised taxes to the tune of $35 billion at the expense of your jobs and farms? No single industry should be targeted and victimized by such unreasonable Federal regulations and taxes. Let me be clear. Reauthorizing SCHIP has my strongest support. Since its creation in 1997, this program has lowered the number of uninsured children by almost 25 percent. As we seek to provide greater access to health care for all Americans, starting with children first is not only good policy but it is the right thing to do. However, this legislation is the wrong way to go, period. I urge Senators to vote for the McConnell alternative. It responsibly restores SCHIP to its original content: helping low-income children. I am not asking my colleagues to sympathize with the tobacco industry and smokers. I am asking you to look at the Baucus bill for what it is: a massive tax hike that disproportionately impacts low-income people and an ill-conceived and unsound plan that unfairly targets a single industry and hurts the economy of several States. Let's reauthorize SCHIP, but let's do it the right way. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. DOLE

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

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside in order for me to offer two amendments.

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2462, which is at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, the underlying DHS appropriations bill makes available $5 million for facilitating 287(g) agreements. As the bill is currently written, the Secretary of DHS could ignore the will of Congress and refuse to use the money to facilitate 287(g) agreements. The current amendment would simply require that the Secretary use this funding for its intended purpose. I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be temporarily laid aside so that I may call up my second amendment.

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I send to the desk my amendment No. 2449.

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.